Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Evaluation of a single stage heat pump performance by figure of merit

(FOM)
∗
Chan Oussa Suong a , Attakorn Asanakham b ,
a
Energy Engineering Program, Faculty of Engineering and Graduate School, Chiang Mai University, 239 Huay Keaw Road, Muang District, Chiang
Mai, 50200, Thailand
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, 239 Huay Keaw Road, Muang District, Chiang
Mai, 50200, Thailand

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper proposes a quick method to investigate coefficient of performance (COP) of vapor compres-
Received 6 February 2020 sion heat pump from a dimensionless term, Figure of)Merit (FOM), which covers refrigerant properties
(
Received in revised form 8 September 2020
and operating temperatures as FOM = Ja0.1 . Tc −Tev
Tc
. Twelve pure refrigerants including low global
Accepted 30 September 2020
Available online xxxx warming and natural refrigerants were studied. It could be seen that FOM could be used to screen out
the refrigerants those give high COP at the same operating temperature. Lower the FOM gave higher
Keywords: the COP. Two empirical correlations for heating and cooling applications were developed to predict
Heat pump
the COP from the FOM. The results of the COPs from the model agreed very well with the available
Coefficient of performance
Figure of merit
experimental data from the literatures of which the performance calculated from enthalpies of the
Heating and cooling working fluids.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction evaluating heat pump performances. Scarpa et al. (2013) defined

Vapor compression heat pump is an efficient device which is
widely used in space heating, hot water production, waste heat
recovery, heat upgrading, cooling and refrigeration processes in
industry and residential building (Arpagaus et al., 2016). Recently,
the refrigerants such as HCFCs, HFCs have been widely used due
to their low impacts on ozone depletion potential (ODP) but they
still contain high global warming potential (GWP). Therefore, a lot
of research studies have concentrated on low GWP refrigerants
and natural refrigerants those give significant benefits regarding
to environmental friendly and high system performance (Mota-
Babiloni et al., 2014).
In general, coefficient of performance (COP) of heat pump is
determined from physical and thermal properties of the selected
refrigerant such as specific heat, latent heat, normal boiling point
and critical temperature at the operating conditions, the ther-
modynamic properties such as enthalpy and entropy could be
specified and used to calculate the related energies at the heat
pump components. In some cases, the system is complicated then
the system performance calculation is time consuming due to
the investigation of the complex thermodynamic properties con-
cerned. Some researchers tried to develop short-cut methods for
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chan.oussa@gmail.com (C.O. Suong),
attakorn.asana@cmu.ac.th (A. Asanakham).
a parameter, η, which was ratio of actual COP to that of the Carnot
cycle working at the same operating temperatures. For household
refrigerator, the studied parameter was assumed to be constant
then the COP of the system could be evaluated from the operating
conditions in term of Carnot COP. This method could get only the
approximate value of the actual COP since η also depended on the
size and the type of the compressor.
There was a quick method for evaluating performance of or-
ganic Rankine cycle (Kuo et al., 2011), a kind of heat engine which
is a reverse cycle of heat pump. The thermodynamic properties
of many pure working fluids were set as a group of dimension-
less named figure of merit (FOM) which included specific heat
capacity and latent heat in a form of Jacob number, evaporating
temperature and condensing temperature. The FOM could be
used to evaluate the system efficiency quickly with the values of
operating temperature only. Higher the FOM resulted in lower
the thermal cycle efficiency. This value could also be used for
screening out the working fluids that give low thermal per-
formance. Deethayat et al. (2016) modified and developed the
FOM concept for evaluating organic Rankine cycle performance
having zeotropic refrigerants. The simulated results on the cycle
efficiency calculation agreed very well with the experimental data
from thermodynamic properties.
In this paper, the FOM approach was also developed for eval-
uating performances of heat pump cycle for heating and cooling
of standard cycle heat pump. With prescribed evaporating and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.09.038
2352-4847/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
C.O. Suong and A. Asanakham Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742

Nomenclature
cp Specific heat, kJ/kg.K
h Enthalpy, kJ/kg
ṁ Mass flow rate, kg/s
P Pressure, kPa
Q̇ Heat rate, kW
s Entropy, kJ/kg.K
T Temperature, K
Ẇ Power, kW
∆T Different temperature, K
Subscripts
a Actual
c Condenser
comp Compressor Fig. 1. Schematic sketch of heat pump cycle.

cri Critical
fg Latent heat
i Isentropic (1) All heat pump components are assumed to be steady-state
and steady flow.
ev Evaporator
(2) There is no subcooling and superheat at the outlet of con-
exp Experiment
denser and evaporator, respectively.
H Heating (4) The compression is isentropic process and the expansion valve
L Cooling follows isenthalpic process.
ref Refrigerant (5) No pressure drops in the condenser and the evaporator.
According to the above assumptions then
Symbols
The compressor power is given by
COP Coefficient of performance
Ẇcomp = ṁref (h2 − h1 ) . (1)
FOM Figure of merit
GWP Global warming potential The rate of rejected heat at the condenser is
Ja Jacob number
Q̇c = ṁref (h2 − h3 ) . (2)
NBC Normal boiling point
ODP Ozone depletion potential The throttling process at the expansion valve is
η Efficiency
h3 = h4 . (3)
The rate of absorbed heat at the evaporator is

condensing temperatures, the FOM could be figured out and then Q̇ev = ṁref (h1 − h4 ) . (4)
the heat pump COP. The calculation step was very simple, with The coefficient of performance for heating is determined from
short calculation compared to the method of which the ther-
modynamic properties were needed. In addition, the proposed Q̇c h2 − h3
COPH = = . (5)
FOM could be used to find out refrigerants those gave high COP. Ẇcomp h2 − h1
Twelve HFCs and natural refrigerants having low global warming
The coefficient of performance for cooling can be written as
potential were considered and the developed correlations were
verified with the available data from the literatures. Q̇ev h1 − h4
COPL = = (6)
Ẇcomp h2 − h1
2. Thermodynamic cycle and heat pump performance
The coefficient of performance for cooling also can be derived in
Fig. 1 shows the standard heat pump configuration which form of
consists of a compressor, a condenser, an evaporator, and an COPL = COPH − 1 (7)
expansion valve. The low pressure refrigerant is heated and va-
porized by heat source at the evaporator and leaves as a saturated In practical work, there is heat loss at the compressor and the
vapor (state 1) which is compressed by the compressor to be high entropy during the compression process is not constant (Pitarch
pressure refrigerant vapor (state 2). The refrigerant is condensed et al., 2019) then the isentropic efficiency of compressor is less
in the condenser by rejecting heat to a heat sink and the sat- than 100%. The actual system coefficient of performance can be
urated liquid leaving the condenser (state 3) is depressed from calculated by
high pressure to low pressure through an expansion valve (state
COPa = COPstandard × ηi . (8)
4) before entering the evaporator and a new cycle begins. The
pressure versus enthalpy diagram and the temperature versus The heat pump COP can be determined from the refriger-
entropy diagram for vapor compression standard cycle are shown ant properties and the above equations at various evaporating
in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. and condensing temperatures and find out the enthalpies in-
The heat pump performance is determined from refrigerant let and out at each component. This process is called enthalpy
thermodynamic properties. The following assumptions have been method of which the calculation process is given in Fig. 3. The
made as follows: heat rates at the condenser, the evaporator and the compression
2736
C.O. Suong and A. Asanakham Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742

Fig. 2. (a) P–h diagram and (b) T–s diagram of standard heat pump cycle.

Table 1
The conditions for calculating the heat pump performance.
Parameter Condition
Evaporating temperature (◦ C) −10∼5
Condensing temperature (◦ C) 35∼65
Isentropic efficiency 1
Cooling capacity (kW) 3.5

work including the COP for heating and cooling could be evalu-
ated. The operating conditions for calculating the standard heat
pump performance for various refrigerants are given in Table 1.
The thermodynamic properties of refrigerants are taken from
REFPROP 9.1 (Lemmon et al., 2013).

3. Low GWP refrigerant

The refrigerant selection for vapor compression cycle is quite

crucial to get high performance and low operating cost (Sarbu,
2014) including low environmental impact, which are zero ozone
depletion (ODP), low global warming potential (GWP), low atmo-
spheric life time with high chemical and thermal stability in the
operating temperature range. The third generation of refrigerants
(hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs) are widely used over the years in
most heat pump units (Palm, 2008). However, these refrigerants
still have global warming potential (GWP) then recently, a reg-
ulation on the use of synthetic refrigerants has been imposed
and restricted to reduce the global HFC emission by ambitious
amendment to the Montreal Protocol (Anon, 2016). As result, low
GWP refrigerants have been strongly used in vapor compression
cycles such as HFCs R152a, R1234yf, R1234ze and natural re-
frigerants which are R290, R600a, R1270 (Byrne and Ghoubali,
2019). In this study, some HCFCs, HFCs and natural refrigerants
of which the physical, environmental properties given in Table 2
were considered.

4. FOM model
Generally, performance of vapor compression cycle is affected
by some thermal properties of the refrigerant such as critical
temperature, normal boiling point (NBP), latent heat, specific heat
and so on. Fig. 4 shows the heating COPH of standard heat pump
cycle with several physical properties of refrigerants conducted
at condensing temperature of 45 ◦ C and evaporating temperature
of −5 ◦ C with cooling capacity of 3.5 kW. The COPH were varying
with these properties and the values were found to be scattering
especially with liquid specific heat and normal boiling point. The
COPH is fairly increasing with the critical temperature and the
latent heat while high scattering tendency in the COPH value was
obtained for the other properties. It could be summarized that
only single physical property could not give an ability to screen
out the refrigerant that gives high heat pump performance.
2737
Fig. 3. The calculation step of standard cycle performance.
Considering the heat pump cycle, the evaporator absorbs heat
at low temperature and the condenser rejects heat at high tem-
perature. The phenomena are related to sensible heat and latent
heat then Jacob number, Ja = cp ∆T /hfg , the ratio of the sen-
sible heat transfer and the latent heat term is concerned. It is
noted that cp is the average of liquid specific heat between the
evaporating and the condensing temperatures, ∆T is the differ-
ent temperature between the evaporating temperature and the
condensing temperature, whereas hfg defines the latent heat at
the condensing temperature. Fig. 5(a) presents the Jacob num-
ber and the COPH calculated at the evaporating temperature of
C.O. Suong and A. Asanakham Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742

Table 2
Physical properties and environmental data of refrigerants ASHRAE (2013) and Calm et al. (2011).
Refrigerant Physical properties Environmental Standard heat pump operation at Tc = 45 ◦ C &Tev = −5 ◦ C
properties
M NBP (◦ C) Tcri Pcri GWP Safety Degree of Specific Reduced Reduced
(kg/kmol) (◦ C) (MPa) (100 yr) group superheat (◦ C) volume pressure temperature
ratio
R152a 66.05 −24.02 113.26 4.517 137 A2 15.78 18.84 4.36 1.86
R124 136.48 −12 122.3 3.62 619 A1 0 38.25 5.32 2.72
R125 120.02 −48.1 66 3.62 3420 A1 3.41 7.89 1.6 1.36
4R134a 102.03 −26.1 101.1 4.06 1307 A1 5.73 18.6 3.5 1.99
R143a 84.04 −47.2 72.7 3.76 41.8 A2L 8.15 7.88 1.83 1.37
R1234yf 114.04 −29.45 94.7 3.38 <1 A2L 0 18.43 2.93 2.1
R1234ze(E) 114.04 −18.97 109.36 3.63 <1 A2L 0 27.62 4.15 2.43
R290 (Propane) 44.1 −42.11 96.74 4.25 3 A3 5.8 11.66 2.77 1.9
R218 188.02 −36.8 71.9 2.64 883 A1 0 36.3 1.84 1.6
R32 52.02 −51.7 78.1 5.78 716 A2L 38.98 6.08 2.07 0.93
R600a 58.12 −11.7 134.7 3.63 4 A3 0 48.81 6.01 2.99
(Isobutane)
R717 17.03 −33.3 132.3 11.3 <1 B2L 69.26 15.49 6.34 1.16
(Ammonia)
R1270 42.08 −47.6 91.1 4.56 <20 A3 11.39 9.05 2.47 1.62
(Propylene)

Degree of superheat at the discharge of compressor.

Specific volume ratio at the compressor.
Reduced pressure at the outlet of compressor.
Reduced temperature at the outlet of compressor.

Fig. 4. The influence of some physical properties on the standard COPH (a) critical temperature, (b) specific heat, (c) latent heat, (d) normal boiling point. The
operating conditions are: condensing temperature at 45 ◦ C and evaporating temperature at −5 ◦ C with cooling capacity of 3.5 kW.

−10 ◦ C and the condensing temperatures of 35∼65 ◦ C for R290
(propane). It could be seen that the condensing temperatures did
not give strongly effect on the COPH with various Ja numbers
whereas higher the evaporating temperature resulted in higher
the COPH as seen in Fig. 5(b). It could be noted that lower Ja
2738
resulted in higher COPH . Fig. 5(c) also showed the result of COPH
versus Ja for various refrigerants. It could be seen that the profiles
of COPH with the thermal properties in a form of Ja could be set
up more orderly. Similar to Kuo et al. (2011), the term Figure
of Merit (FOM) covering Ja number, condensing and evaporating
C.O. Suong and A. Asanakham Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742

Fig. 5. Influence of evaporating temperature and condensing temperature on Ja and coefficient of performance of standard cycle (a) R290 at constant evaporating
temperature, (b) R290 at various temperatures, (c) various refrigerants.

temperatures is also conducted as 35∼65 ◦ C and −10∼5 ◦ C of condensing temperature and evapo-
( ) rating temperature, respectively and it could be seen that all the
Tc − Tev
Figure of Merit (FOM ) = Jan . . (9) COP–FOM curves were nearly identical. Higher the FOM resulted
Tc in lower the COPH . The COP–FOM profiles of fifteen refrigerants
where Ja is Jacob number, Tc is condensing temperature (K) and were also given in Fig. 7(b). Most of the refrigerants, the profiles
Tev is evaporating temperature (K) and n is a constant numerical could be consolidated except R125, R218 and R143a since the
condensing temperatures were close to their critical tempera-
number.
tures. This results strongly confirmed the study of Fukuda et al.
The power n of the Ja number was varied to see the profile of
(2014) which expressed that the COP of heat pump was minimal
COPH with the FOM. Fig. 6 shows the results when the n value is
when it operated close to the critical temperature of the refrig-
varied from 0.1 to 1. It could be noted that when n is close to zero,
erant. Therefore, the heat pump having low critical temperature
the Jan is nearly constant which means that all the refrigerant refrigerants could not be considered with the proposed FOM.
properties are nearly the same then this term does not give the Fig. 7(b) also demonstrates the correlation of the COPH of stan-
effect on the COPH and the COPH s are highly consolidated for all dard heat pump cycle as function of FOM for the twelve refrig-
refrigerants at the given values of Tc and Tev . Anyhow, the value erants (excluding R125, R218 and R143a) operating at 35∼65 ◦ C
n = 0.1 is selected based on the goodness-of-fit and when n is and −10∼5 ◦ C of condensing temperature and evaporating tem-
smaller than 0.1, the goodness-of-fit
( of
) the data in the regression perature, respectively. A correlation between COPH and FOM of
line is poorer. Therefore, Ja0.1 . Tc −Tev
Tc
was the FOM in this study. standard heat pump cycle could be defined as
The R-squared statistic at n equals 0.1 was 0.976 whereas that n COPH = 328.19FOM 2 − 140.22FOM + 18.366 (10)
equals 0.05 was 0.971. It could be noted that the correlation of the
From Eq. (7), the coefficient of performance for cooling (COPL )
COPH and FOM as given in Fig. 6(d) could be generalized for all
could also be calculated as
selected refrigerants. The refrigerant that has low FOM will give
high COPH . COPL = COPH − 1 = 328.19FOM 2 − 140.22FOM + 17.366 (11)
The R-squared statistic of the regression line of two equations
5. COP-FOM correlation above are 0.98.
The actual COP could be evaluated by multiplying isentropic
5.1. Standard cycle efficiency to the standard value. The calculation step is shown in
Fig. 8. It could also be noted that FOM could also be used to screen
Fig. 7a demonstrates the relationship of FOM and COPH for out the refrigerant that gave high COPH and COPL . Lower the FOM
R290 (propane) evaluated at various temperatures between resulted in higher the COPs.
2739
C.O. Suong and A. Asanakham Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742

Fig. 6. The influence of Ja number’s power in the profile of COPH with FOM, (a) n = 1, (b) n = 0.5, (c) n = 0.2 and (d) n = 0.1.

Fig. 7. Influence of evaporating and condensing temperature on COPH with different values of FOM, (a) R290, (b) All fifteen refrigerants.

5.2. Validation of the correlations is given as (Sun et al., 2018)

m ⏐ ⏐
100% ∑ ⏐ ye − xe ⏐
MAPE = ⏐ ⏐ (12)
m ⏐ xe ⏐
The FOM models could be used to predict the heat pump COP e=1

for heating and cooling. To validate the model, the experimental
data from the literatures were undertaken and compared with
the COP calculated from the developed correlation. The deviation
between the FOM model and those of experimental data were
determined by the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) which
2740
where ye is the simulated value, xe is the experimental value, and
m is the number of the model considered data.
In case of heating, the simulated results of actual COPH
(COPH,a ) obtained from the FOM model were compared to the
experimental data of Xu (2015a). The COPH,a was the COPH
calculated from the new FOM correlation in equation (10) and
C.O. Suong and A. Asanakham Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742

Table 3
Comparison of heating COPH,a resulted from FOM model and experimental of Xu (2015b).
Tc (◦ C) Tev (◦ C) COPH (Eq. (10)) ηi (Xu, 2015b) COPH,a COPexp (Xu, 2015b) Deviation (%)
48.98 −0.18 5.15 0.64 3.27 3.56 8.63
37.71 −0.49 6.93 0.61 4.23 4.44 3.67
39.21 −0.4 6.66 0.62 4.13 4.32 3.7
40.43 −5.23 5.55 0.62 3.44 3.55 2.4
44.1 −4.7 5.1 0.62 3.16 3.45 8.07
49.02 4.54 5.87 0.64 3.76 4.04 6
57.97 5.55 4.76 0.65 3.09 3.33 7.52
MAPE 7.71

Table 4
Comparison of COPL,a calculated from FOM and experimental data Sánchez et al. (2017).
Refrigerant Tc (◦ C) Tev (◦ C) COPL (Eq. (11)) ηi (Sánchez et al., 2017) COPL,a COPexp (Sánchez et al., 2017) MAPE (%)
R134a 45.34 0.12 4.70 0.41 1.93 2.04 5.81
R152a 44.77 0.03 4.95 0.42 2.08 2.11 1.5
R1234yf 45.39 0.5 4.63 0.42 1.94 1.87 3.75
R1234ze 45.16 0.46 4.78 0.39 1.86 1.9 6.84
R600a 45.07 0.5 4.90 0.37 1.81 1.88 3.62
R290 44.95 0.08 4.75 0.45 2.14 2.13 0.33

at each stage of the cycle. The COPL,a from FOM method was
the COPL determined by Eq. (11) multiplied by the isentropic
efficiency. Comparison of the cooling COPs was shown in Table 4.
It can be noted that the simulated COPL,a , at the same testing
conditions, were closely to the experimental data. The MAPE
values of these refrigerants were less than 7% compared to those
calculated from enthalpies method. These results demonstrated
that the FOM correlation could also be used to predict the cooling
performance of heat pump cycle.

6. Conclusions

A quick method for evaluating COP of vapor compression heat

Fig. 8. The calculation step of COP of heat pump using the FOM.
then multiplied by isentropic efficiency. The heat pump was air to
water type using R290 (Propane) as refrigerant. The comparison
results were given in Table 3. At the same operating conditions,
the simulated values of COPH,a were in good agreement with
COPexp of experimental data. The deviation of each data was
lying between the 2.4%–8.63% of which the MAPE value of the
simulation data and the experimental data was 5.71% which
meant that the FOM model could be used as a tool for calculating
the heat pump performance.
In case of cooling COP, the heat pump conditions were ob-
tained from the experimental data of water to water heat pump
using low global warming refrigerants such as R600a (Isobutane),
R290 (Propane), R152a and R1234ze as working fluid (Sánchez
et al., 2017) of which the cycle COPs were evaluated by enthalpy
2741
pump by thermal properties was developed. A term ‘‘FOM’’ which
covered sensible heat, latent heat and operating temperatures
was proposed and this term could be used to screen out the
refrigerants those gave high performances. The results of the
study could be
( )
1. The FOM was defined as FOM = Jan . Tc −Tev
Tc
. The suitable
n value was found to be 0.1 so the COP–FOM relations of
many refrigerants could be consolidated into one profile
except the ones of which the condensing temperatures
were close to the critical point.
2. Lower the FOM resulted in higher the COP. Thus, the re-
frigerants those gave lower FOM under the same oper-
ating temperatures should be taken to get high system
performance.
3. The COP–FOM correlations for heating and cooling were
developed and the calculation results agreed very well with
those by enthalpy methods from the literatures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Chan Oussa Suong: Conception and design of study, Acqui-
sition of data, Analysis and/or interpretation of data, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Attakorn Asanakham:
Conception and design of study, Acquisition of data, Analysis
and/or interpretation of data, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
C.O. Suong and A. Asanakham
Acknowledgments
This research project is supported by Faculty of Engineering
(Research Assistant Program); Center of Excellence for Renewable
Energy, Chiang Mai University and National Research Council of
Thailand through the project ‘‘Development of Alternative Energy
Prototypes for Green Communities’’.
References
Anon, 2016. Ambitious amendment to Montreal Protocol sought for global phase-
down of HFCs. Addit. Polym. 2016, 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-
3747(16)30162-2.
Arpagaus, C., Bless, F., Schiffmann, J., Bertsch, S.S., 2016. Multi-temperature heat
pumps: A literature review. Int. J. Refrig. 69, 437–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/J.IJREFRIG.2016.05.014.
ASHRAE, 2013. Refrigerants. In: ASHRAE Fundemental Handb.
Byrne, P., Ghoubali, R., 2019. Exergy analysis of heat pumps for simultaneous
heating and cooling. Appl. Therm. Eng. 149, 414–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2018.12.069.
Calm, J., et al., 2011. Physical, Safety, and Environmental Data for
Current and Alternative Refrigerants. Nccashrae.Org, undefined,
http://nccashrae.org/images/meeting/031214/calm_jm_hourahan_gc_2011_
_physical_safety_and_environmental_data_for_current_and_alternative_
refrigerants_icr_2011__prague_cz__iir_iif_paris_fr.pdf. (Accessed 18 March
2019).
Deethayat, T., Asanakham, A., Kiatsiriroat, T., 2016. Performance analysis of low
temperature organic Rankine cycle with zeotropic refrigerant by Figure of
Merit (FOM). Energy 96, 96–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2015.12.
047.
Fukuda, S., Kondou, C., Takata, N., Koyama, S., 2014. Low GWP refrigerants
R1234ze(E) and R1234ze(Z) for high temperature heat pumps. Int. J. Refrig.
40, 161–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2013.10.014.
2742
Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2735–2742
Kuo, C.-R., Hsu, S.-W., Chang, K.-H., Wang, C.-C., 2011. Analysis of a 50 kW
organic Rankine cycle system. Energy 36, 5877–5885. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/J.ENERGY.2011.08.035.
Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., Mclinden, M.O., 2013. NIST Standard Refer-
ence Database 23 NIST Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport
Properties-REFPROP User’s Guide.
Mota-Babiloni, A., Navarro-Esbrí, J., Barragán-Cervera, Á., Molés, F., Peris, B., 2014.
Analysis based on EU Regulation No 517/2014 of new HFC/HFO mixtures as
alternatives of high GWP refrigerants in refrigeration and HVAC systems. Int.
J. Refrig. 52, 21–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2014.12.021.
Palm, B., 2008. Hydrocarbons as refrigerants in small heat pump and refriger-
ation systems – A review. Int. J. Refrig. 31, 552–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/J.IJREFRIG.2007.11.016.
Pitarch, M., Hervas-Blasco, E., Navarro-Peris, E., Corberán, J.M., 2019. Exergy
analysis on a heat pump working between a heat sink and a heat source
of finite heat capacity rate. Int. J. Refrig. 99, 337–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/J.IJREFRIG.2018.11.044.
Sánchez, D., Cabello, R., Llopis, R., Arauzo, I., Catalán-Gil, J., Torrella, E., 2017.
Energy performance evaluation of R1234yf, R1234ze(E), R600a, R290 and
R152a as low-GWP R134a alternatives. Int. J. Refrig. 74, 269–282. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2016.09.020.
Sarbu, I., 2014. A review on substitution strategy of non-ecological refrig-
erants from vapour compression-based refrigeration, air-conditioning and
heat pump systems. Int. J. Refrig. 46, 123–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJREFRIG.2014.04.023.
Scarpa, F., Tagliafico, L.A., Bianco, V., 2013. Inverse cycles modeling without
refrigerant property specification. Int. J. Refrig. 36, 1716–1729. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.04.003.
Sun, V., Asanakham, A., Deethayat, T., Kiatsiriroat, T., 2018. Study on phase
change material and its appropriate thickness for controlling solar cell
module temperature. Int. J. Ambient Energy 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01430750.2018.1443500.
Xu, T., 2015a. Experimental evaluation of air-to-water propane heat pumps with
40kW heating capacity.
Xu, T., 2015b. Experimental Evaluation of Air-to-Water Propane Heat
Pumps with 40kW Heating Capacity (Master thesis). KTH Ind. Eng.
Manag., http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A862057&
dswid=-774. (Accessed 21 October 2019).