A Comparative Analyses Between A Gas Engine Driven Heat Pump and An Electric Heat Pump.

A comparative analyses between a Gas Engine Driven
Heat Pump and an Electric Heat Pump.
Mark Attard
Submitted to the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST),

Institute of Engineering and Transport in part fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science (Hons.) in Building Services Engineering.
June 2017
Authorship statement
I declare that this dissertation is based on the results of research carried out by myself, it’s my original
work and has not been presented for any previous qualifications. Other work utilised in my research
have been duly referenced in the bibliography.
This research was carried out under the supervision of Ing. Godwin Caruana.
____________ 9th June, 2017
Mark Attard Date
ii
Copyright statement
In submitting this dissertation to the MCAST Institute of Engineering and Transport, I understand
that I am giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of
MCAST and the College Library.
____________ 9th June, 2017
Mark Attard Date
iii
Acknowledgements
On the very beginning of this report, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and obligation
towards all the individuals who have helped me in this dissertation. Their continuous assistance,
guidance, collaboration and encouragement have really advanced my study.
I am extremely indebted to Ing. Godwin Caruana for mentoring me throughout this dissertation. I am
extremely grateful for his wisdom and guidance to compile this dissertation.
I would also like to show my gratitude to Mr Robert Bonavia, Mr Noel Debattista and Mr Norbert
Conti who have provided me several valuable information and fundamental equipment which have
made this study achievable.
I am tremendously thankful towards my parents and other family members who have continuously
supported me morally and economically.
At last but not least, gratitude goes to all my friends who have helped me directly or indirectly to
complete this study.
Any exclusion in this brief acknowledgment doesn’t mean a lack of appreciation.
Thanking you,
Mark Attard
iv
Contents
Authorship statement ...................................................................................................................................ii

Copyright statement .................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................... iv
Contents.........................................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................... x
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Scope of research ........................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Research aims and objectives ....................................................................................................... 15
1.3 Dissertation outline........................................................................................................................ 16
Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 18
Literature review ........................................................................................................................................ 18
2.1 The basics of a mechanical refrigeration system......................................................................... 18
2.2 Description of an EHP ................................................................................................................. 22
2.3 Characteristics of an EHP ............................................................................................................. 25
2.4 Description of a GEHP ................................................................................................................ 28
2.5 Characteristics of GEHPs ............................................................................................................ 34
2.6 Reviewing previous studies methodologies and results. ............................................................ 38
Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 45
Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 45
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 45
3.2 Research strategy ........................................................................................................................... 46
3.2.1 Desk research ............................................................................................................................ 47
3.2.2 Field research ............................................................................................................................ 47
3.3 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 49
3.3.1 Experiment ................................................................................................................................ 49
3.3.1.1 Provided equipment ............................................................................................................... 49
v
3.3.1.2 Experiment description.......................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................................................... 62
Analysis of results and discussion ............................................................................................................ 62
4.1 Analysing the outdoor temperatures ............................................................................................ 62
4.2 Air - conditioned Areas .................................................................................................................. 65
4.3 Calculating the output Energy ...................................................................................................... 66
4.4 Calculating the Input Energy ....................................................................................................... 70
4.4.1 Calculating the Electrical consumption. ................................................................................. 70
4.4.2 Calculating the Fuel consumptions. ........................................................................................ 71
4.5 Calculating the COP ...................................................................................................................... 79
4.6 Calculating the running costs ....................................................................................................... 81
4.7 Calculating the CO2 Emissions .................................................................................................... 83
4.8 Analysing the results ...................................................................................................................... 85
Chapter 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 102
Conclusion and recommendations ......................................................................................................... 102
5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 102
5.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 105
5.3 Future research ............................................................................................................................ 108
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 110
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 112
Appendix 2................................................................................................................................................ 114
Appendix 3................................................................................................................................................ 115
Appendix 4................................................................................................................................................ 116
Appendix 5................................................................................................................................................ 117
Appendix 6................................................................................................................................................ 119
Appendix 7................................................................................................................................................ 120
Appendix 8................................................................................................................................................ 123
Appendix 9................................................................................................................................................ 124
Appendix 10 .............................................................................................................................................. 126
Appendix 11 .............................................................................................................................................. 128
Appendix 12 .............................................................................................................................................. 130
Appendix 13 .............................................................................................................................................. 131
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Components of a refrigeration cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009) ....................................................... 18
Figure 2: Cooling Cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009.) ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 3: Heating Cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009) .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 4: Layout of a VRF/VRV system (Bhatia)........................................................................................................ 22
Figure 5: Main components of VRF/VRV (Fujitsu-General, n.d.)........................................................................... 23
Figure 6: EHP system with heat recovery within the building (SANYO, 2011) .................................................... 24
Figure 7: Several indoor and outdoor units connected to a VRF/VRV system (Toshiba, n.d.) .......................... 26
Figure 8: GHP Basic components (Evercold Technical Services Ltd., 2014) ......................................................... 28
Figure 9: Engine driven compressors VS Electrical driven compressors ................................................................ 29
Figure 10: Combined Heating/Cooling and Power generation (SANYO, 2011) ................................................... 30
Figure 11: “Schematic of the experimental apparatus with measuring point locations.” (Zhang et al., 2014) .. 33
Figure 12: losses in power generation and transmission ............................................................................................. 35
Figure 13: Performance of HPs at low temperatures (Promelle, 2011).................................................................... 36
Figure 14: Provided GEHP outdoor unit ..................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 15: Provided EHP outdoor units ....................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 16: Screen shot 2 of EHP Checker software .................................................................................................... 52
Figure 17: Screen shot 1 of EHP Checker software .................................................................................................... 52
Figure 18: Screen shot 1 of GEHP Checker software ................................................................................................ 53
Figure 19: Screen shot 2 of GEHP Checker software ............................................................................................... 53
Figure 20: GEHP Checker software communication interface ................................................................................. 53
Figure 21:EHP Checker software communication interface...................................................................................... 53
Figure 22: Laptop used during the experiments ........................................................................................................... 54
Figure 23: Gas flow meter used during the GEHP experiments .............................................................................. 54
Figure 24:Power quality analyser ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 25: Graph which represents the outdoor temperatures of set 1 ................................................................... 64
Figure 26: Graph which represents the outdoor temperatures of set 2 ................................................................... 64
Figure 27: Non-Residential Kwh consumption tariff rates ........................................................................................ 81
Figure 28: Chart showing the total output energy of comparison 1 ......................................................................... 87
Figure 29: Chart showing the total output energy of comparison 2 ......................................................................... 87
Figure 30: Chart showing the input energy per Kw of output energy (comparison 1) .......................................... 88
Figure 31: Chart showing the input energy per Kw of output energy (comparison 2) .......................................... 89
Figure 32: Chart showing the theoretical Vs actual COP (comparison 1) ............................................................... 90
vii
Figure 33: Chart showing the theoretical Vs actual COP (comparison 2) ............................................................... 90
Figure 34: Chart showing the running cost per Kw of output energy (comparison 1).......................................... 93
Figure 35: Chart showing the running cost per Kw of output energy (comparison 2).......................................... 93
Figure 36: Chart showing CO2 generated per Kw of output energy (comparison 1) ............................................ 94
Figure 37: Chart showing CO2 generated per Kw of output energy (comparison 1) ............................................. 94
Figure 38: Chart showing Area being heated (comparison 1) ................................................................................... 96
Figure 39: Chart showing Area being heated (comparison 2) .................................................................................... 96
Figure 40: Chart showing output energy per hr per m2 (comparison 1) .................................................................. 97
Figure 41: Chart showing output energy per hr per m2 (comparison 2) .................................................................. 97
Figure 42: Chart showing Input energy per hr per m2 (comparison 1) .................................................................... 98
Figure 43: Chart showing Input energy per hr per m2 (comparison 2) .................................................................... 98
Figure 44: Chart showing running cost per hr per m2 (comparison 1).................................................................... 99
Figure 45: Chart showing running cost per hr per m2 (comparison 2).................................................................... 99
Figure 46: Chart showing CO2 generated per hr per m2 (comparison 1) ............................................................... 100
Figure 47: Chart showing CO2 generated per hr per m2 (comparison 1) ............................................................... 100
Figure 48: GEHP experiment being conducted ......................................................................................................... 130
Figure 49: EHP experiment being conducted ............................................................................................................ 131
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: PER Equations ................................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 2: Average outdoor temperatures ........................................................................................................................ 63
Table 3: Comparable sets according to the average outdoor temperatures ............................................................. 63
Table 4: Areas of the analysed buildings ....................................................................................................................... 65
Table 5: Manufacturer’s specifications of indoor units of the GEHP system (Sanyo, 2010) (Sanyo, Gas Driven
VRF, M series, 2009). ....................................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 6: Manufacturer's specifications of indoor units of EHP system (Panasonic, 2016/2017). ...................... 67
Table 7: System's Output energy .................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 8: Electrical consumsumptions ............................................................................................................................ 70
Table 9: Consumption of Vapour Propane................................................................................................................... 71
Table 10: Convertion of Vapour to Liquid Propane using vapor to liquid ratio. ................................................... 72
Table 11: Convertion of Vapour to Liquid Propane using a convertion factor...................................................... 73
Table 12: Comparing the outcomes of the ratio method and tha convertion factor method. ............................. 73
Table 13: Consumption of Liquefied Propane ............................................................................................................. 74
Table 14: Input energy for GEHP experiments by using Gross CV ........................................................................ 76
Table 15:Input energy for GEHP experiments by using convertion factor ............................................................ 77
Table 16: Comparison of Input energies for GEHP experiments ............................................................................ 77
Table 17: Input energies of Liquefied propane ............................................................................................................ 78
Table 18: Theoretical COP (heating) provided by the manufacturer ....................................................................... 79
Table 19: Electrical energy consumed by the GEHP outdoor unit .......................................................................... 80
Table 20: Actual COPs ..................................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 21: Running cost of the HPs ................................................................................................................................ 82
Table 22: CO2 generated during the each experiment................................................................................................. 84
Table 23: Gathered outcomes of comparison 1 ........................................................................................................... 85
Table 24:Gathered outcomes of comparison 2 ............................................................................................................ 86
ix
List of Abbreviations
GEHP Gas Engine Heat Pump
EHP Electrical Heat Pump
HP Heat Pump
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
VRV Variable Refrigerant Volume
AHU Air Handling Unit
CHP Combined Heat and Power System
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air - conditioning
COP Coefficient of Performance
PER Primary Energy Ratio
Rpm Refs per minute
A Amps
Kw Kilowatts
K Kelvin
Pa Pascal
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
CO2 Carbon dioxide
x
Abstract
This study involves a comparative analyses between a GEHP and an EHP.
It is known that the HVAC industry is the main consumer of energy in most commercial
buildings. Most of this energy is electrical energy which is generated in power stations and distributed
to each building. Having said that, since HVAC consumes so much energy, the HVAC industry is also
one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions and due to the high energy consumptions, HVAC is also
one of the main expenses of any commercial building.
Therefore, to improve such a major concern, this research was conducted in order to compare
and analyse the mentioned HPs, to establish if the GEHPs are more sustainable then EHPs with
respect to efficiency, running cost and environmental aspects.
In order to do so, initially it was required to extract several data from various journals, articles,
manuals, previous studies, books and other internet sources. Such desk research was crucial for the
researcher to improve his knowledge and understand better several characteristics and the operation
of such systems, especially since in Malta the GEHPs are rarely used.
Besides that, it was also required to perform several experiments to be able to monitor the
operation of both the GEHP and the EHP. Such HPs where monitored in separate buildings at partial
heat loads since it had already been proven that GEHPs are highly efficient at low outdoor
temperatures and at high heating capacity, however, it was still doubtful if such HPs are effective or
not at partial heat loads. The data was collected during the experiments by the use of several equipment
such as checker software installed on a laptop, user interfaces, power quality analyser, gas flow meter
and other equipment.
xi
From the collected data it has resulted that at partial heat loads, the EHP has operated more
efficiently than the GEHP, it was cheaper to run and generates less CO2. On the other hand, it was
also visible that at lower outdoor temperature, the COP of the GEHP was less weakened than that of
the EHP.
However, this study has indicated that the GEHP has lacked behind in terms of efficiency,
running cost and CO2 emissions because the particular GEHP being analysed was only being used for
space heating whereas if it was used for both space and water heating simultaneously or if the system
has incorporated an electrical generator as well, the results would have been much better.
Besides all this it was also noticed that the building which uses a GEHP for space heating has
still managed to heat a larger area with less running cost and less CO2 emissions per m2 of conditioned
space. In this study it is stated that the reason behind this was due to the massive amount of heat losses
that involves the building which uses an EHP for space heating. This means that the effectiveness of
the EHP was neglected due to the inefficiency of the building.
The following will explain how such results were obtained.
xii
Introduction – Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Scope of research
This chapter discusses the significance of this study. Such a topic was mostly selected since we
are living in a world where a huge chunk of the energy consumed by any building is required to operate
HVAC equipment. This is even more relevant to commercial buildings. Most of this energy comes
from electrical energy which is generated in power stations and distributed to each building. Having
said that, since HVAC consumes so much energy, the HVAC industry is also one of the biggest sources
of CO2 emissions. (U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates, 2017)
All this has been proven by several previous studies and so several countries, including Malta
are concerned about such a situation. Therefore, several policies, protocols and approaches are being
enforced. These include the Montreal protocol, Kyoto protocol, “20-20-20” target, 2030 frame work
for climate and energy and much more. (European Commission, 2017) The main goal behind such
regulations is to safeguard the environment by reducing the CO2 emissions, implementing the use of
renewable energy sources, reducing energy losses, and by implementing other sustainable techniques.
13
Recently Malta has launched a new power station which runs on LNG. This project was an
approach towards reaching the main target of producing more environmental friendly and feasible
energy for the whole country, especially since such a project have replaced the old power station which
was running on heavy fuel oil. (Enemalta, n.d.)
Having said that, it may be considered that instead of using power stations to convert natural
gas into electricity, distribute that electricity to each building around Malta and use that electrical energy
by EHPs for air-conditioning, GEHPs could be used instead to convert gas into useful energy that can
be used directly for air-conditioning. Such a process might involve less energy losses since less
transferring and conversion of energy processes are involved. Hence this may lead to make use of
HVAC equipment that uses less consumption of energy, produces less CO2 emissions and might be
more feasible to run. Therefore the reason behind this study is to analyse this possibility in order to
determine the air-conditioning source, which is the most sustainable between an EHP and a GEHP.
14
1.2 Research aims and objectives
The main purpose of this study is to compare the two types of HPs which are mostly used in
commercial buildings, in order to determine which source of air-conditioning is the most sustainable,
regarding their efficiency level, environmental friendly aspects and costs involved. Meanwhile, the
hypothesis for this study states that by using a GEHP less energy losses will be involved when
compared to an EHP and so from this study it will be proven that GEHPs are more efficient than
EHPs and so they are cheaper to run and produce less CO2 emissions. Therefore, this study would
improve the knowledge of the users of such HPs, by making theme aware of which is the most
beneficial HP.
Aims:
 To do a comparison regarding the efficiency level of each system.
 To do a comparison regarding the running cost of both HPs.
 To do a comparison regarding the CO2 emissions produced by each HP.
Objectives:
 The operation of both a GEHP and an EHP system has to be monitored in order to collect the
required data in order to work out the COP of both systems to determine which system is the
most efficient.
 The running consumption of both systems have to be calculated according to local tariffs of
electricity and gas, after the operation of both a GEHP and an EHP system has been monitored.
 The CO2 emissions can be calculated according to the calorific value of the fuels being used by
applying such values to the data collected from the monitoring process of the operation of both
HPs.
15
1.3 Dissertation outline
This dissertation is divided into five different chapters and each chapter consist of several
subdivisions.
 Chapter 1: Introduction
The introduction emphasises on the significance of this study. It highlights the purpose of this
research, the hypothesis, aims and objectives. Other than that, it also includes a skeleton of the
dissertation
 Chapter 2: Literature review
This chapter includes several suctions which underlines the main features and characteristics
of the HPs being analysed. Such a research was crucial for the purpose of this study since this
information helped to improve the research’s knowledge about this topic. Moreover, this section also
includes comparisons between different studies in order to better understand different methodologies
and techniques of how such a complex analyses shall take place. This led to identify the best approach
to be implemented for this study.
 Chapter 3: Methodology
The methodology includes the approaches and techniques adopted for this study in order to
collect, analyse and compare the required data. This section also includes several specifications of the
equipment used for the collection of data. It also emphasises on the challenges that had to be overcome
due to be able to conduct the experiments.
16
 Chapter 4: Analyses of results and discussion
This chapter includes various analyses and evaluations of the collected data. It involves several
factors and equations which were used to evaluate numerous aspects that led this study to reach its
goals. This is mostly because such evaluations has resulted into various figures that could be compared
in order to analyse the two HPs.
 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
This section involves in a discussion about the results of this study. Moreover, it includes
various limitations that this research has encountered and also several recommendations are listed for
future studies.
17
Literature review – Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Literature review
2.1 The basics of a mechanical refrigeration system.
Modern air-conditioning and refrigeration are based on the principles of a basic refrigeration
cycle. As it is well explained by Althouse, Turnquist, & Bracciano, (2004), the refrigeration cycle
consists of four main parts which are shown in Figure 1. A compressor is required to circulate the
refrigerant. A condenser is used to emit heat from the refrigerant. The Refrigerant controlling device
(Expansion valve) regulates the amount of refrigerant which flows through the evaporator and lastly,
the Evaporator allows the refrigerant to absorb heat. This shows that each component has a unique
role to form a refrigeration cycle.
Figure 1: Components of a refrigeration cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009)
18
Basically the operation of a refrigeration system can be explained as follows. Initially, the
compressor circulates and increases the pressure of vapour refrigerant. By increasing the pressure, also
temperature will be increased and so the refrigerant flows through a heat exchanger called the
condenser which cools down the refrigerant until it reaches a certain point where the refrigerant
changes its state, from vapour to liquid. At this point a lot of heat is emitted in order to change its state
to liquid. Then the liquid refrigerant passes through the refrigerant controlling device which reduces
the pressure of the refrigerant instantly. As mentioned before since pressure and temperature are
directly proportional to each other, when the pressure decreases, so does the temperature. At that
point, since the refrigerant will be at a low temperature, it will absorb a lot of heat until it reaches a
point where it changes its state back to vapour. This process takes place inside another heat exchanger
called the evaporator. From there the refrigerant goes back to the compressor to increase its pressure
again. This process will be repeated until a desired temperature is achieved inside the conditioned
space. This cycle is also known as the vapour compression cycle.
Therefore, by understanding the process involved in an air-conditioning and refrigeration
system, it can be concluded that heat is basically transferred from one point to another. Actually, it is
stated that “Heat will move from a higher temperature to a lower temperature” (Althouse, et al., 2004). This
shows that heat can be shifted from any substance to another as long as one is warmer than the other.
According to the European heat pump association a HP is a device which has the ability to transfer
heat via a refrigeration cycle. Hence, this shows that an air-conditioner can be considered as a type of
a HP.
An air-conditioning system normally would have the condenser installed outdoors while the
evaporator would be installed indoors. The reason behind this is to absorb heat from indoors whereas
heat will be emitted outdoors. This is known as the cooling cycle which is shown in Figure 2.
19
Figure 2: Cooling Cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009.)
Since the condenser and the evaporator are both heat exchangers, they can be used either to
absorb heat or to emit heat. Therefore, by incorporating a system of valves, the functions of the
evaporator and condenser can be switched. This would result in absorbing heat from outdoors, while
emitting heat indoors and so this forms the heating cycle which is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Heating Cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009)
20
So the statement mentioned in the previous pages is the theory behind a HP, which in simple
words, it can be described as an exchanged cycle of an air-conditioner. (Althouse, et al., 2004).
However, the description above is referring to HPs that harvest energy from air but there are several
other types of HPs which also uses the vapour compression cycle and so they follow the same working
principles. These include HPs which can extract heat from water or even ground to be transferred into
air or water. Other than that, there are also chemical and solar assisted HPs. Normally, HPs are
electrically driven but there are also gas engine driven HPs. (Hepbasli, Erbay, Icier, Colak, &
Hancioglu, 2009)
21
2.2 Description of an EHP
One common type of air to air HPs driven by electricity (EHPs) are the VRF/VRV air-
conditioning systems. The term VRF/VRV are terms which are both being used for a particular
modern air-conditioning system. Some manufacturers refer to this air-conditioning system as a VRF
system while others refer to it as a VRV system. Such terms stands for Variable Refrigerant Flow
(VRF) and Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV). They both refer to the same air-conditioning system
that mainly consists of several indoor units connected to a common outdoor condensing unit as show
below.
Figure 4: Layout of a VRF/VRV system (Bhatia)
With a difference to the traditional split units, one outdoor unit can be connected to a
numerous amount of indoor units while the split units requires an outdoor unit for every indoor unit.
Mostly for this particular reason, VRFs became one of the leading air-conditioning systems being used
nowadays. Especially for industrial and commercial purposes, were a lot of indoor units are required
while space for the outdoor units is quite restricted.
22
The diagram below shows the main components of a typical out door unit of a VRF/VRV.
Figure 5: Main components of VRF/VRV (Fujitsu-General, n.d.)
William Goetzler, author of the ASHRAE Journal, 2007, Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems, stated
that VRF systems have the ability to handle large cooling/heating capacities, they consist of a multiple
number of compressors and several oil and refrigerant controls which allows them to manage a number
of indoor units with different capacities simultaneously, individualized thermal control by using single
units in different areas and some VRFs/VRVs are also capable of providing simultaneous
cooling/heating. Simultaneous cooling/heating can be achieved by introducing heat recovery. This is
since the heat absorb from a particular zone that requires cooling can be emitted to another zone that
requires heating. Therefore, such heat can be used instead of being emitted to the outdoor environment
23
and this can be achieved by the use of a series number of pipes, heat exchangers and valves as shown
below.
Figure 6: EHP system with heat recovery within the building (SANYO, 2011)
In a VRF system the refrigerant is being circulated through copper pipes all around the building
from the outdoor unit to each and every indoor unit. Each indoor unit can be individually controlled
via thermostatic expansion valves which will limit the amount of liquid refrigerant entering each
particular indoor unit. By the use of variable speed compressors, the required refrigerant flow and
pressures will still be maintained despite how many indoor unit are being used. This is why such
systems has the ability to adopt their operation according to the internal heat loads to keep the system
running in order to provide sufficient room conditions In the most efficient manner. All this is well
defined by Goetzler, (2007) and also by the Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Institute (2010)
24
2.3 Characteristics of an EHP
Goetzler, (2007) and the Air Conditioning and HP Institute (2010), throughout their
journal/article, have also mentioned several characteristics of these EHPs that leads to several benefits
and drawbacks.
As one of the main characteristics mentioned is that a VRF/VRV system may consist of a
number of outdoor units connected together in order to be able to handle the total interior heat loads.
A number of outdoor units can be connected together to work simultaneously in order to increase the
cooling/heating capacity. Or else they can be installed individually and each system would have its own
individual refrigerant loop. Therefore the building would involve in a number of EHP systems that
together, they will be able to provide enough cooling/heating. This is very beneficial especially if the
building is divided into different zones and each zone would require different indoor conditions.
Therefore, an EHP system could be used for each zone which will provide the required conditions
accordingly. Goetzler also stated that in case a floor is not fully occupied, these systems enables the
users to only operate the indoor units of the occupied space unlike traditional centralised air-
conditioning systems where chillers and ducting are used to provide conditioned air to the whole floor.
This could also lead to another advantage because if an EHP system has a malfunction, this wouldn’t
affect the whole building but instead only that particular zone would be effected.
Goetzler considers such HPs to be quite flexible due to the characteristics mentioned above
and due to the fact that several types of indoor units can be connected to such systems (Ceiling
recessed, wall-mounted, concealed unit, cassette type, floor console), as shown in Figure 7. It is also
mentioned that such systems can be easily altered by expanding or reconfigure the system to increase
or minimise the capacity of the system or the number of indoor units, depends on the building’s needs.
25
Figure 7: Several indoor and outdoor units connected to a VRF/VRV system (Toshiba, n.d.)
Besides this, the outdoor units of such systems are relatively small when compared to chillers
especially since a number of VRF/VRVs are required to be connected together to obtain a large
cooling/heating capacity instead of one large chiller. Therefore, this means that less expenses will be
involved in transportation of such HPs and to lift them over the roof of a building.
Such EHPs are also considered to be easy to be commissioned although pressure testing of
the pipe work is a must especially since such units would involve a considerable amount of refrigerant
and so leaks are defiantly not tolerated. These systems can also be maintained at low costs especially
when compared to chillers. Such systems manly requires regular cleaning or replacing indoor air filters
and cleaning of coils.
Regarding the efficiency of VRF/VRV systems, this derives from several factors. In cases
where chillers or boilers are used, air will be conditioned by using AHUs and that air would be supplied
26
to the conditioned space trough ducting. Therefore, since all this can be avoided, duct losses which
add up to 10%-20% can be avoided, (Goetzler, 2007).
Other than that, due to modern inverter compressors and multiple number of linked
compressors, these EHPs enables wide capacity modulation. This leads to high part-load efficiency.
Both Goetzler, (2007) and the Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Institute (2010) emphasised
on the optional heat recovery type EHPs since this characteristic would definitely boost the efficiency
level of these EHPs. These systems will circulate refrigerant from one zone to another in order to
transfer heat from indoor units used for cooling to zones where the indoor units are being used for
heating. “They offer considerable potential for energy savings in many applications.” (Air Conditioning
& Heat Pump Institute, 2010). These systems can also be applied in applications where hot water is
required and so heat would be transferred from the indoor space where cooling is required to water in
order to be heated.
However, Goetzler mentioned one major drawback. The large number of compressors,
electronic valves and control systems increase to chances of malfunctions which could lead to a lot of
expenses.
It is also explained that another weakness of an EHP is that their efficiency level drops
considerably at low temperatures when they are being used to heat the building.
Other than that, such EHPs, with a difference from other HVAC equipment such as AHUs,
they don’t include a ventilation system and so a separate ventilation system is required which is
considered as another drawback by the author.
27
2.4 Description of a GEHP
A GEHP is a HP that consists of a gas fuelled internal combustion engine which can be fired
up by using natural gas, propane or LPG instead of using electrical motors to run the compressors.
This is well explained by Hepbasli et al., (2009) and Zhang et al., (2014) since they included a detailed
description of a GEHP to their studies. The main components of a GEHP are shown in the diagram
below.
Figure 8: GHP Basic components (Evercold Technical Services Ltd., 2014)
28
Hepbasli et al., (2009), insisted that the main difference between a GEHP and an EHP is the
use of an engine instead of electric motors to drive the compressors. Hence, since an engine is being
used to drive the HP, open type compressors have to be used instead of hermetic/semi-hermetic
compressors which are normally used in EHP. Figure 9 shows such a difference.
Figure 9: Engine driven compressors VS Electrical driven compressors
The engines being used for GEHPs are also capable to vary there speeds according to the
required cooling/heating capacity, just like an inverter on an EHP. Though, such an engine is not
highly efficient, “(about 30-45%)” (Hepbasli et al., 2009), since it dissipates a lot of heat. However,
this heat is recovered to be used for either space heating or to provide hot water which results in
gaining back its overall performance efficiency level.
It is also important to mention that some GEHPs also have an optional generator combined
to the system. This can also be known as a combined heat and power (CHP) system. This involves in
a generator directly coupled to the engine which would definitely enhance the efficiency level of the
system. Such systems would be able to deliver cooling/heating, hot water and electrical power at the
29
same time. Such generated electricity can be used to provide power supply to the indoor units and to
other electrical devices within the building. This is shown in the figure below.
Figure 10: Combined Heating/Cooling and Power generation (SANYO, 2011)
Besides all this, just like EHPs heat recovery within the building can also be included to
GEHPs. This means that GEHPs can also be used for both cooling and heating at an instant by
absorbing heat from a location that is being cooled while emitting that same heat to another location
which us being heated. This process can also be used to heat water while the building is being cooled
or vice versa.
All this shows that GEHPs can involve the same functions and features that contains any EHP
system and even more.
30
Both groups of authors have described the processes involved in a GEHP in different sections.
Particularly, Zhang et al., (2014), explained every detail about such systems as follows.
 HP refrigerant circuit
The compressor will force the vapour refrigerant to enter the condenser where the refrigerant
will either emit heat to the air for space heating or to water to provide hot water. At that point the
refrigerant will cool down and will condense to a sub-cooled liquid. Then, the refrigerant will flow to
an electronic expansion valve which will limit the amount of liquid refrigerant that enters the
evaporator while any extra liquid refrigerant will be stored in the liquid receiver which is located prior
the expansion valve. When the liquid refrigerant passes through the expansion valve, it will expand
and while being inside the evaporator the refrigerant will absorb heat from the ambient air and
vaporises. After that, the refrigerant will pass through a waste heat recovery exchanger where it will
absorb more heat from the engine coolant which is used to recover heat energy dissipated from the
engine cylinders and exhaust. This would result in a superheated refrigerant. Afterwards, the refrigerant
flows through a suction accumulator to ensure that only vapour refrigerant is present. At that point,
the refrigerant will be sucked by the compressor to repeat the same cycle over and over again.
 Engine coolant circuit
For this circuit a secondary refrigerant is used such as glycol. It is used to recover heat energy
from the engine’s exhaust heat exchanger and cylinders heat exchanger. During this process the
secondary refrigerant passes through the exhaust heat exchanger to absorb heat from the flue gases
and trough the cylinders heat exchanger to absorb more heat from the engine in order to cool the
engine. From there, it flows into the waste heat recovery heat exchanger where it transfers the
recovered heat to the primary refrigerant while it is cooled down in order to repeat the same cycle. A
radiator directly in contact with the evaporator is also used to transfer more heat from the secondary
31
refrigerant to the primary refrigerant when the system is used for space heating. This ensures that the
engine remains cool while heat will be recovered instead of being lost to its surroundings and so all
this would maintain higher energy efficiency rates.
 Gas supply circuit
The gas supply circuit consist of several pressurised gas cylinders or tank and a gas pipeline
from which gas flows to the engine of the GEHP. Pressure reducing valves must also be included in
order to reduce the gas pressure according to the required pressures. A mass flow meter may also be
required to measure the gas consumption. This depends on each particular situation.
Zhang, et al., {2014) also included a schematic diagram of the GEHP being used for testing
throughout their study. The mentioned diagram is shown in Figure 11, which shows all the equipment
and processes involved in a GEHP. However, such system was being used for water heating. The
schematic also includes the location of some measuring equipment, such as temperature and pressure
sensors, which were used by the authors in order to observe the operation of such a system during
their experiment since this was an experimental study. Still, such diagram is very useful to understand
the operation of the components and the layout of all the pipework of the circuits included in a GEHP.
32
Figure 11: “Schematic of the experimental apparatus with measuring point locations.” (Zhang et al., 2014)
33
2.5 Characteristics of GEHPs
Another article written by Adam Ruciński, Artur Rusowicz and Andrzej Grzebielec, was also
evaluated in order to improve the knowledge of the researcher. The authors have analysed the
characteristics of GEHPs and their applications in buildings.
In this article it is mentioned that 80% of the operating costs involved in any operating facility
are associated with air-conditioning and heating of buildings. Therefore, it is very important to make
use of the appropriate heating and air-conditioning equipment to limit the energy consumption.
Ruciński et al., (2014) also stated that GEHPs are one of the best solutions for buildings,
mostly those with high hot water demands, such as hotels, water parks and industrial purposes. As a
matter of fact, previous experiences with GEHPS for cooling and heating has reported a 40%
operational savings in building consumptions. Hence, it is also mentioned that GEHPs have a relatively
high energy efficiency levels and so they can be considered as an alternative to EHPs.
One of the characteristic mentioned in this article was that due to the use of modern gas
engines, the emissions of carbon dioxide is reduced. Also, when compared to the traditional heating
by boilers, fuel consumption is reduced as well.
Another characteristic of such GEHPs is that they will not consume a lot of electricity. Since
the compressors of these HPs are mechanically driven by a gas engine, the need for electricity is
reduced when compared to other air-conditioning equipment because electricity is only used for fans
and for the control system.
Another important factor mentioned by Hepbasli et al., (2009), is that by reducing the electrical
consumption, it would help in balancing the electrical demand and moderating the electricity peaks.
This is of most importance especially if the supplier of electricity categorises the rates for each Kw of
34
electricity in different bands according the total electrical demand of the building. This is because
besides reducing the electricity bills since electricity consumption will be reduced, cheaper rates will
also be applied since the whole building will be considered to be consuming less electricity and so the
total electricity demand of the building will classify at a lower band, resulting in cheaper electrical rates
for the whole electrical demand of the building.
In addition to this, Kamal et al., (2016) and Hepbasli et al., (2009) have both mentioned another
important characteristic of GEHPs in their studies. In power plants, fuel is converted to electricity
after a number of processes and so energy losses, mostly heat losses, are involved in each process,
obviously, since 100% efficient processes are impossible to achieve, as shown in Figure 12. Later on,
that generated electricity is transmitted around the country, which involves more transmission and
distribution losses. Soon after, that electrical energy will then be used by the EHPs to be converted
into mechanical energy.
Figure 12: losses in power generation and transmission
On the other hand, the authors highlighted the fact that when GEHPs are used, fuel is directly
converted into mechanical energy in one single process. Therefore, since less processes are involved,
it would result in less energy losses. “This on site generation might give a higher energy efficiency,
especially for heating applications”, (Lian et al., 2005).
35
Besides all this, heat losses are also kept to a minimum since wasted heat from engines and
exhaust will also be recovered and used for indoor space heating or water heating. Since wasted heat
is recovered, such systems are able to perform better at lower outside conditions especially when
compared to EHPs. This is stated by Juliette Promelle, (2011) and it is also explained in the graph
below.
Figure 13: Performance of HPs at low temperatures (Promelle, 2011)
These characteristics are what makes such systems efficient, reliable and unique when
compared to the traditional EHPs.
Besides this, Ruciński et al., (2014), have also mentioned some downsides of the GEHPs.
Mostly noise and vibrations which are quite an issue since it involves in a lot of mechanical forces.
Even maintenance is more demanding than other HPs. Oil, sparkplugs, belts, air filters and oil filters,
all have to be replaced regularly by qualified personnel. This would definitely result in high maintenance
costs.
It is also known that initial investment costs of GEHPs is higher than electrical driven HPs.
Therefore, in this article it is stated that “Cost-effectiveness of HP relies on cheaper charges for the
supply of gas compared to the higher cost of electricity delivery.” (Ruciński et al., 2014). This shows
that the most attractive characteristic of GEHPs is the running cost since it’s cheaper than that of
EHPs. Other than that, GEHPs are more expensive to buy and maintain than EHPs.
36
In this article it is also mentioned that in order to compare a GEHP and an EHP the Primary
Energy Ratio (PER) has to be determined, which indicates the efficiency level of the power
consumption resulting from the primary energy. Therefore, the following equations have to be used
accordingly.
EHP GEHP
𝑄 𝑄
𝑃𝐸𝑅𝐸𝐻𝑃 = × Ƞ𝑒𝑙 𝑃𝐸𝑅𝐺𝐸𝐻𝑃 =
𝐸 𝐺 + (𝐸 × Ƞ𝑒𝑙 )
Table 1: PER Equations
Where 𝑄 is the useful output heat, 𝐸 is the input electrical power, 𝐺 is the gas power input
based on both the calorific value and volume flow rate of the fuel and Ƞ𝑒𝑙 is the efficiency of the
electricity generation.
37
2.6 Reviewing previous studies methodologies and results.
Over the years, a number of researchers have become eager to investigate the energy efficiency
and economical aspects of such GEHPs by means of several field tests and analysis.
Hepbasli, et al., (2009), in their study they have mentioned that most of the studies regarding
GEHPs have shown that GEHPs were effective, regarding their operating costs, when compared to
ordinary HPs systems.
Kamal, et al., (2016), have performed an analysis to evaluate the performance of a GEHP, of
an existing commercial building to compare it with an EHP. The field setup of such a study has
included in four sets of GEHPs where R410a refrigerant was adopted and seven fan coil units where
installed in an office. A remote PostgreSQl server, was setup at the University of Florida to monitor
the data from site every twelve hours.
In this study, the performance analysis of the GEHP systems was carried out by calculating
the energy being used, by calculating the coefficient of performance (COP) of the systems and also the
costs involved.
Similarly, Zhang, et al., (2014), have also performed an experimental study to analyse the
performance of a GEHP over a wide range of operating conditions. However, with a difference from
the previous study, an air to water GEHP which uses R407c as a refrigerant was used instead of the
air to air GEHP mentioned earlier. This means that the HP system was used to heat water instead of
being used for space heating.
As a matter of fact this experimental setup has included a GEHP system which was based on
the manufacturer’s data while heat exchangers were built for water heating, based on mass and energy
equations. Besides that, several temperature sensors and flow meters where installed on-site to
38
monitor, temperatures and flow rates of the engine coolant, condenser water, refrigerant and natural
gas. All these monitoring devices where connected to a computer for data logging.
Both groups of authors mentioned that the performance of HPs can be defined by the ratio
of the output energy to its input energy. This is known as the primary energy ratio (PER). Kamal, et
al., (2016), defined PER by the following equation.
∫ 𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑙/ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑃𝐸𝑅 =
∫ 𝑊𝑒 𝑑𝑡 + ∫ 𝑊𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑡
Where;
A Wattmeter can be used to measure the electric consumption of the GEHP system. Hence, electricity
consumed by each GEHP = ∫ 𝑊𝑒 𝑑𝑡 , while the total energy from the Natural gas consumed =
∫ 𝑊𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑡 and the output of the GEHP is given by ∫ 𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑙/ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑡.
However, in both studies, the electricity consumed by the GEHPs wasn’t considered. This is
because the electrical consumption to operate fans, valves and some other control devices is negligible
especially when compared to the consumption of the primary energy source (Natural gas). Therefore,
since only Energy form Natural gas had been considered, Zhang, et al., (2014), added that ∫ 𝑊𝑒 𝑑𝑡 +
∫ 𝑊𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑡 can be also expressed as 𝐸̇𝑛𝑔 which is the total energy consumption based on natural gas
and it can be calculated by the following equation.
𝐸̇𝑛𝑔 = 𝑚̇𝑛𝑔 × 𝐿𝐻𝑉
Where;
𝑚̇𝑛𝑔 = Natural Gas flow rate
𝐿𝐻𝑉 = Low Heating Value
39
Hence, Zhang, et al., (2014), expressed the PER equation as
𝑄̇ℎ
𝑃𝐸𝑅 =
𝐸̇𝑛𝑔
Moreover, the COP of the GEHPs was also calculated by the mentioned authors by means of
the following equation.
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔⁄𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑

𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
Kamal, et al., (2016), also explained that in order to determine the cooling delivered by the
systems, the change in enthalpy was calculated from the temperatures and pressures measured at the
inlet and outlet of the evaporator coils.
The cooling capacity delivered was determined as:
𝑄𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 𝑚̇ (ℎ0 − ℎ𝑖 )
Where:
𝑚̇ = the refrigerant flow rate
ℎ0 = the enthalpy of vapour refrigerant at the evaporator exit
Where ℎ0 = ℎ𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 (𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒0 × 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒0 )
ℎ𝑖 = the enthalpy of the two phase mixture refrigerant at the evaporator inlet
Where ℎ𝑖 = ℎ𝑚𝑖𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑖 × 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑖 )
40
Besides this, thermo fluid properties of the refrigerant were also required throughout the
calculations and in order to determine the operating costs, local average electricity and natural gas
tariffs where used.
Zhang, et al., (2014), also used the temperatures and pressures in order to perform the energy
and mass calculations but such measurements were taken at the inlet and outlet of the condenser water
heat exchanger since the output energy of the system was being delivered to the water instead of air.
Moreover, Zhang, et al., (2014), mentioned that the heating capacity calculation was based on
the condenser water flow circuit by using the following equation.
𝑄̇ = 𝑚̇𝑤,𝑐 × 𝑐𝑝,𝑤,𝑐 × ∆𝑇𝑤,𝑐
Where:
𝑚̇𝑤,𝑐 = Condenser water flow rate
𝑐𝑝,𝑤,𝑐 = Specific heat of condenser water at constant pressure.
∆𝑇𝑤,𝑐 = Water temperature difference at the condenser inlet and outlet
41
It is also explained that the energy input from fuel can be derived by the following equation
ℎ0 − ℎ𝑖
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 𝑚̇𝑟𝑒𝑓 ×
𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
Where:
𝑚̇𝑟𝑒𝑓 = refrigerant flow rate
ℎ0 = the enthalpy of the refrigerant at the compressor exit
Where ℎ0 = ℎ𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 (𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒0 × 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒0 )
ℎ𝑖 = the enthalpy of the refrigerant at the compressor inlet
Where ℎ𝑖 = ℎ𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 (𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑖 × 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑖 )
𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 = Compressor efficiency
Thermo fluid properties of the refrigerant were also required throughout the calculations.
Kamal, et al., (2016), also included a 3D visualization to their analysis and developed a digital
model of the building by the use of different software. This model takes into account all the building
elements such as types of walls, windows, ceilings, orientation of building time of year, time of day and
much more. The software uses transfer function methodology to account for heat transfers within the
building (conduction, convection and radiation). This building information model was used to identify
better heat transfers within the thermal zones which were being conditioned by the HPs and to
understand better several aspects of the building that could affect the comparison between the two
HPs.
42
For the purpose of this study, the HPs where monitored for a period of ten months. Each
GEHP had an average COP significantly different from each other and it is stated that the reason
behind this was due to different loading conditions for each system.
On the other hand, Zhang, et al., (2014), operated the GEHP system at several different
conditions including, different engine speeds, different ambient temperatures, different condenser
water flow rates, and condenser inlet temperatures in order to observe its operation at different
conditions. Such experiments were repeated four times to minimise any measurement errors.
One of the main factors that was highlighted by Kamal, et al., (2016), was that part load
operation had highly effected the overall performance of the systems. During the monitoring period,
the GEHPs were mostly operating at an average of 25% of the full capacity. At such lower loads the
fuel efficiency has dropped to about one-third of the maximum efficiency that the system can offer.
At such conditions, the GEHPs have offered a much lower energy efficiency ratio than the equivalent
EHPs.
However, it was observed that during the full load operation, the GEHPs has offered a better
energy efficiency ratio than that of the equivalent EHPs and so higher COP values were also achieved
during such operations. It was also mentioned that during low loads, the systems could have been
loaded up to the full capacity by coupling it to other auxiliary applications, such as heat production or
power generation. This would have made the system operate at higher efficiencies.
Since the part load operation had effected the overall COP, the authors have emphasised on
proper sizing of GEHPs in order to benefit from the maximum efficiency levels that such HPs can
offer. It was also mentioned that as a business practise, sellers tend to oversize HVAC equipment
which eventually this would lead to penalize the owner with higher maintenance and energy costs.
43
On the other hand, Zhang, et al., (2014), have completely disagreed to the above. They have
concluded that the ambient temperature and the engine speed have significantly affected the GEHP
performance. It has resulted that as the engine speed was increased from 1400 rpm to 2000 rpm, the
coefficient of performance (COP) and the Primary energy ratio (PER) decreased by 14% and 12%
respectively. “This implied that the GEHP system could have perfect part-load performance” (Zhang,
Wang, Zheng, Peng, & Wang, 2014).
They continued to explain that the reason behind this was because that the heat transfer areas
such as the condenser, evaporator and exhaust heat exchanger, where designed based on the nominal
speed of the GEHP, which is 1800rpm. Hence, when the system operates close to the nominal speed
the system performance will be improved and the fuel consumption will be reduced as well.
Zhang, et al., (2014), also found out that as the ambient temperature increased, so did the
heating capacity. In fact when the ambient temperature increased from 3oC to 7.2oC and 11.8 o C, the
COP of the system has increased by 7% and 22% and so even the PER has been increased. It is
explained that since the ambient temperature has increased, the evaporation temperature has increased
as well and so the mass flow rate of the refrigerant was also enhanced which results in an improvement
to the heating capacity.
From this study it was also discovered that the condenser water flow rate and inlet temperature
had an insignificant influence over the performance of the GEHP at the range being analysed.
44
Methodology – Chapter 3
Chapter 3
Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This section defines the research methods used to collect the required data for this study.
Hence, the researcher will explain in detail the procedures that were used to collect the required data
and to analyse such data. This section will also include several reasoning and justifications why such
methods and procedures were used while it also explains several features of the equipment and
techniques involved to collect, analyse and present such records.
Since this study requires to identify the differences between a GEHP and an EHP in terms of
efficiencies, costs and emissions levels, it is indispensable to conduct several monitoring experiments
to highlight such variances between one another. Other than that, it was also important for the
researcher to improve his knowledge by doing several research to get familiar with the operation and
different characteristics of the two types of HPs. This chapter will illustrate more in detail such
approaches.
45
3.2 Research strategy
In order to collect the required data for this study, adequate research methods had to be
implemented.
Initially several desk research had to be conducted. This is mostly because the researcher must
first improve his knowledge about the chosen topic prior performing any testing and analysis of the
systems. Hence, in order to understand better the operation and the characteristics of the two HPs the
research has gone through several operation manuals and specifications of the two HPs.
Since a comparison between two different equipment relies on several numerical data, which
has to be analysed with several numerical procedures in order to determine whether the hypothesis is
either correct or not, quantitative research can be considered as the strategy that suits best this type of
research. This is mostly because quantitative research is very useful for studying particular concepts
and relationships in order to highlight any facts about the two HPs.
Hence, in order to obtain the required data to analyse the difference between the two HPs,
several experiments had to be performed, which as a matter of fact, experiments makes part of
quantitative research especially since numerical data is collected.
This type of research method can also be defined as primary, field work research since the
researcher had attended on site to collect the data himself instead of collecting it through other sources.
46
3.2.1 Desk research
This study has involved some desk research. This was a crucial process especially since GEHP
systems are not commonly used in Malta and so it was difficult for the researcher to improve his
knowledge about such a system via experiences. Hence, it has required to gadder a number of operation
manuals, specifications and catalogues to be read carefully to understand better how such a system
operates, what it consists off and several other characteristics related to it. This process was also
repeated for the EHP system to also improve the researcher’s knowledge. Other than that, this strategy
also had to be applied after the data collection process since several factors had to be gathered in order
to be applied while analysing the data. This has included in calorific values of fuels, local electrical and
fuel tariffs, equations to be applied and much more. This type of research was very useful to gather
several valuable information in a short period and very easily.
3.2.2 Field research
A Quantitative research method was mainly chosen to be used as a field research, because in
order to do a comparison between two HPs based on their efficiency, CO2 emissions and costs
involved, several experiments were required. This is because several valid and accurate readings were
required to compare the HPs. These values includes, instant electric and gas consumption, indoor and
outdoor temperatures and much more values that can only be determined by performing a number of
experiments.
47
There are several advantages of quantitative research which enhanced the idea of using such
research method, these include:
 Data can be better understood, grouped and even compared.

 It is a great way to prove or disapprove any perspective.
 From such a statistical analyses a final answer may be discussed further and published.
 By using experiments any statistical analyses may be tested.
 Such statistical analysis may represent a larger population.
 Data collected will be more reliable and objective.
On the other hand several advantages of qualitative research were also considered which may
also be known as the disadvantages of quantitative research, these include:
 More flexibility which allows several perspectives unlike quantitative research which will limit the
number of variables.
 Qualitative research includes individuality while quantitative is more based on grouping of data.
 Qualitative research delivers more complex and detailed data.
48
3.3 Data collection
Several experiments had to be performed by the researcher himself to monitor the operation
of the HPs. In order to perform such experiments it was a must to have a pre-installed fully operational
GEHP and an EHP system in a building which is used for space heating/cooling. Hence, several
research and meetings with local suppliers where required until a local supplier was found that supplies
both EHPs and GEHPs. Further on, a particular local supplier of such HPs generously offered to do
the necessary arraignments with distinctive clients, who owns a GEHP and an EHP, in order to
perform the required testing. Such a company also offered to provide the required testing equipment
to monitor the operation of the HPs and their electric consumption.
3.3.1 Experiment
3.3.1.1 Provided equipment
The reason behind the experiments were to monitor the operation of the two HPs so that it
could be determined which HP consumes less energy, which HP involves the most expenses to run
and to determine which is the most environmental friendly HP.
In order to conduct such experiments, it has required an authorisation from different owners
of GEHP and EHP systems. Hence, with the aid of a local supplier of HVAC equipment, it was
possible to find two of the company’s clients which uses a GEHP and an EHP systems for air-
conditioning the space inside their offices.
49
For such experiments the following equipment was provided:
 A fully operational GEHP system
A GEHP system was pre-installed in an office building to be used for space heating/cooling. The
GEHP is shown in the images below.
It consisted of:
 Single Outdoor unit (Mod No: SANYO SGP-EW240M2G2W)
 Up to a maximum of 71Kw of cooling capacity or 80Kw of heating capacity
 Single phase power supply.

Figure 14: Provided GEHP outdoor unit
 Propane was being used as the main power source.
 Consists of 14 direct expansion indoor units.
 2 Variable speed compressors (15% ~ 100%).
 10,000 running hours between service intervals.
 Estimated lifetime of 30,000 hours.
 Theoretical rated EER Cooling :1.14
 Theoretical rated COP Heating :1.34
 R410A refrigerant
50
 A fully operational EHP system
An EHP system was also pre-installed in an office building to be used for space heating/cooling.
The EHP is shown in the image below.
It consisted of:
 2 outdoor units which operates as a master and slave
Master outdoor unit Slave outdoor unit
(Mod No: PANASONIC U-16MF2E8) (Mod No: PANASONIC U-14MF2E8)
 Cooling capacity : 45Kw  Cooling capacity : 40Kw
 Heating capacity : 50Kw  Cooling capacity : 45Kw
 Theoretical rated EER Cooling  Theoretical rated EER Cooling
:3.38 :3.45
 Theoretical rated COP Heating  Theoretical rated COP Heating
:4.03 :4.41
 Together, Up to a maximum of 85Kw of cooling capacity or 95Kw of heating capacity

Figure 15: Provided EHP outdoor units
 3 pipe system ( EHP with heat recovery)
 Consists of 21 direct expansion indoor units.
 Three phase power supply
 R410A Refrigerant
51
 Panasonic/ Sanyo GEHP Checker software and VRF Service Checker software
These are two separate software however they have a lot in common. The GEHP Checker
software is only compatible with Panasonic and Sanyo GEHPs while the VRF Service checker software
is only compatible with Panasonic and Sanyo EHPs. Such software can be installed ta a PC or a laptop
to be used to diagnose any malfunctions, alarms or any abnormality within the operation of a HP. It
can allow the user to have control over the operation of the outdoor unit and even each and every
indoor unit connected to the system. By using this software the user have the ability to control the
operation of the indoor units, the set temperatures, fan speed, operating mode and other parameters.
Besides all this, The GEHP Checker software allows the user to monitor the operation of the system
by observing several data such as, oil temperatures, oil level, refrigerant pressures, engine speed, engine
running time, Exhaust temperatures, coolant temperatures, operation of expansion valves and solenoid
valves, off-coil and on-coil temperatures, alarms and much more. All this also applies for the VRF
Service Checker software however, instead of engine related characteristics, several data about the
compressors applies. This includes frequency, number of compressors running and others. All this will
allow the user to ensure that the system is operating correctly, free from any errors or irregularities.
The diagrams below shows several print screens of the data provided by such software.
Figure 17: Screen shot 1 of EHP Checker software Figure 16: Screen shot 2 of EHP Checker software
52
Figure 19: Screen shot 2 of GEHP Checker software

Figure 18: Screen shot 1 of GEHP Checker software
Both software also offers endless recording for long term running and the data can be displayed
either in graphs or in numerical format. On the other hand, each software uses a different
communication interface tool. The GEHP Checker software uses an RS232 as a communication
interface between the PC/laptop and the outdoor unit. The diagram below shows such a
communication interface.
Figure 20: GEHP Checker software communication interface
While the VRF Service checker software uses an interface box which is shown in the diagram
below. Figure 21:EHP Checker software communication interface
53
 Laptop
A laptop which had both software installed was required to be connected to the HP systems and
monitor the operation of both HPs. This was also provided by the local supplier of the HPs. The
diagram below shows the laptop provided being used to run the required software.
Figure 22: Laptop used during the experiments
 Gas Flow meter
This a device that has been connected to the gas pipeline of the GEHP system which has the ability
to offer cumulative readings of the gas volume flow rate in m3. The diagram below shows the gas
flow meter connected to the gas pipeline of the GEHP.

Figure 23: Gas flow meter used during the
GEHP experiments
54
 Power Quality Analyser
A Kyoritsu Power Quality analyser (Mod No: KEW6310 Ver1.02), is an instrument that has been
used to monitor several electrical characteristics. The diagrams below shows the Power Quality
analyser used for the experiments.
It incorporates several features such as:
 Compatible with both single phase or three phase power supply
 Provides data logging for long periods
 Incorporates USB ports and data cards to transfer data to a PC or a laptop easily
 Provides screen shots as well
 Includes, 3 clamp sensors, 3 Voltage test leads, power cord, USB cord, Battery and the Main
unit itself
 Displays both instant and cumulative quantitative data on excel files and even several graphs
can be formed by this unit
 Measures Voltages, current, power and phase angel for each phase, power factor, frequency
and several other data
 Offers a wide range of voltages, currents and other parameters to adaptable for various
situations.
Figure 24:Power quality analyser
55
3.3.1.2 Experiment description
Initially the available systems and buildings had to be analysed. Several factors regarding the
type of building in which the experiments have been performed and the equipment being used, may
affect the final results and so these had to be considered prior the execution of the experiment.
The orientation of the building has a huge impact over the internal heat load of the building,
therefore it had to be considered. It is a known fact that any walls that face either the south or the
west, have high heat loads especially during summers since they are exposed to direct sunlight during
most of the day. Therefore, this had to be considered since if the conditioned rooms being monitored
during these experiments have different orientation, than the end result would differ due to such a
factor.
Another factor that may affect such an experiment is the number of exposed walls. The more
there is exposed walls or even roofs the more heat losses or heat gains will be involved. This is because
there would be more temperature difference between the conditioned space and the unconditioned
space and so this would lead to higher rate of heat transfer. Hence, this means that the more exposure
to the outside air, the more energy is required to heat or cool the conditioned space.
The material used for the structure of the provided buildings will definitely make a difference.
The material of the building’s structure would affect the U-value. Such value represents the rate of
heat transfer that flows through that particular material. Therefore, if materials with different U-values
are used, the building would experience a different rate of heat transfer and so once again this would
affect the heat loads or heat gains of the building. Therefore, it is important to consider the fact that
different construction materials may result in different outcomes.
56
One of the factors that also affects such an experiment is the ventilation rates within the
building. Any infiltrations and ventilation rates will increase the heat losses and so would require more
energy to heat or cool the building unless a heat recovery unit is used. In this scenario, the building
which contained a GEHP has included a heat recovery unit for ventilation purposes while the other
building didn’t contain a heat recovery unit.
Another major concern regarding such an experiment is the heating capacity of both sources.
Both the GEHP and the EHP must be of the same heating capacity in order to be fairly compared.
The environment temperature must also be considered. The difference between the change in
temperature between the indoor temperature and the outdoor temperature will affect the amount of
energy consumed since the rate of heat transfer would vary accordingly. Hence, it is important that
similar outdoor conditions are chosen while doing the comparison in order to obtain a reliable and
effective comparison. The outdoor temperature may vary according to season and according to the
location. Therefore, the experiments were conducted within the same month and both buildings where
located very close to the sea and in close locations to each other, at the south of Malta, which were in
Marsascala and Birzebbuga.
Another important factor that had to be considered in order to conduct an effective
experiment is to allow the same time to heat the conditioned space for both heating sources and to set
both systems at the same parameters, including the set temperatures.
Hence, after considering all these factors the experiments could be conducted.
To collect the required data it was planned that the researcher will attend on site, connect the
required equipment and takes several readings accordingly. This process had to be repeated several
times for both types of HPs on separate days. The monitoring process of the GEHP and the EHP
57
have involved similar equipment and so similar methodologies were applied. Several images of the
experiments are illustrated in Appendices 12 and 13
 GEHP monitoring process
To begin with, the data required regarding the GEHP, such as on-coil/off-coil temperatures, fan
speed of each indoor unit, engine speed and several other data, was provided by the use of a GEHP
checker software which was compatible with the brand of the GEHP being tested and it was installed
to a laptop, in order to be able to attend on site and monitor such a HP. In order to communicate
between the software and the GEHP, a communication interface tool was required. Hence, the laptop
was connected to the outdoor unit of the HP system via the communication interface tool and the
software was used to monitor all the required data of the outdoor unit and each indoor unit as well.
Other than that, a Power Quality analyser was being used to monitor the electrical consumption of the
GEHP. Such an instrument was set to monitor data of single-phase, 240V power supply. To set up
such an instrument, since single-phase power supply is used by the GEHP, one out of three available
clamp sensors was clamped according to the direction of current around the live cable which supplies
the GEHP, other two cables with a crocodile clip were connected with the live and neutral cables
which supplies the GEHP in order to provide voltage as an input to the Power Quality. This instrument
was being powered from the same power supply provided. Such an instrument has the facility to safe
data on a micro SD card which can be read by any computer via a card reader. This will result in having
two excel files which consists of several instant and cumulative data such as true, relative and apparent
power, power factor, currents, voltages and much more.
Both the Power Quality analyser and the GEHP checker software where set to start logging
data at the same time and data was being logged every one minute.
58
For such an experiment the outdoor temperature was also required, however, this was provided
by the checker software itself via various sensors that are contained within the outdoor unit.
During the monitoring of the GEHP, it was also required to determine the instant consumption
of the fuel being used. Therefore, a gas flow meter was installed along the gas pipeline that supplies
gas to the GEHP. It was installed by technical personnel and pressure reducing valves and shut off
valves were also included to the gas pipeline to maintain the right pressure and to minimise any hazards
involved. The instant measurements of the gas consumption were logged every minute as well, on an
excel file by the researcher himself.
59
 EHP monitoring process
Just like the monitoring process of the GEHP, several data, such as on-coil/off-coil temperatures,
fan speed of each indoor unit, compressors frequency and other data was provided by the use of a
VRF checker software which was compatible with the brand of the EHP being tested and it was
installed to a laptop, in order to be able to attend on site and monitor such a HP. An adequate
communication interface tool was also used to connect and communicate between the software and
the EHP. Hence, even in this situation, via the communication interface tool, the laptop was connected
appropriately to the outdoor unit in order to be able to control and monitor the EHP
In order to monitor the electrical consumption of the EHP, the Power Quality analyser was also
set up. With a difference to the GEHP, the EHP requires three-phase power supply to operate and so
the instrument was set to measure three-phase power supply, a maximum of 600V. Hence, three clamp
sensors were clamped according to the direction of the current, around the tree life cables that supplies
the EHP system while four cables were connected by crocodile clips to the three life cables and another
cable connected to the neutral cable that supplies the EHP in order to provide voltages as an input to
the Power Quality. The Power Quality analyser was also powered by the same power supply provided
to be able to operate. In this scenario, this instrument also saved data on micro SD card and such data
could also be converted into two distinct excel files which contains instant and cumulative data. A
notable dissimilarity between the EHP data and the GEHP data collected by the Power Quality
analyser was that since the EHP requires three-phase power supply, the collected data included, a
voltage for each phase, a current for each phase, a phase angle for each phase, true, reactive and
apparent power for each phase and the list goes on.
60
Even for this monitoring process the outdoor temperature was also required, however, this was
also provided by the VRF checker software itself via various sensors that are contained within the
outdoor unit.
During the monitoring process, all indoor units were set at 24oC, on heating mode. Due to several
limitations, this experiment couldn’t be conducted in the same building at the same conditions, running
at the same capacity. However, to overcome this situation, the HPs were monitored on typical days in
April in order to test the systems on partial heat loads and throughout the monitoring, both HPs were
set to a similar heating capacity.
For the purpose of this study the consumption of the indoor units was neglected since it does not
reflect the performance of the HPs. This was also supported by the literature review since, the analysed
papers have followed this procedure as well.
During all the experiments, all indoor units were set on heating at an indoor set temperature of
24ºC, however, some indoor units where switched off to maintain an approximate same heating
capacity of both heat pumps.
Such monitoring processes were repeated several times, however, only those where the outdoor
conditions while monitoring the GEHP has matched with the outdoor conditions while monitoring
the EHP were chosen. This led to a total of six monitoring processes were three GEHP monitoring
have matched other three EHP monitor processes. Each monitoring process is four and a half hours
long since each process started at half past nine in the morning and finished at two o’clock in the
afternoon.
61
Analysis of results and discussion – Chapter 4
Chapter 4
Analysis of results and discussion
4.1 Analysing the outdoor temperatures
As mentioned earlier in Chapter 3, several experiments had to be performed to monitor the
operating process of both the GEHP and the EHP.
However in order to be able to compare the collected data, it was important to identify those
experiments which involved a different HP but with very similar outdoor conditions. This was crucial
since a drastic variance in the outdoor conditions, may vary the heat loads of the building and so, the
data collected would be varied as well. Hence, the results wouldn’t be valid if the data being compared
was collected at dissimilar outdoor conditions.
In order to identify the experiments which were held at similar outdoor conditions, an average
outdoor temperature was calculated. The collected outdoor temperatures are presented in the CD
attached to this study while the average outdoor temperature for each experiment is shown in the table
below.
62
Experiment HP being monitored Date of experiment Average outdoor temperature
Experiment 1 GEHP 06/04/17 21.5 oC
Experiment 3 EHP 13/04/17 21.1 oC
Table 2: Average outdoor temperatures
Furthermore, those experiments which involved a different HP but with very similar average
outdoor temperature, were grouped to form comparable sets as shown in the table below.
HP being Date of Average outdoor

Comparable sets Experiment
monitored experiment temperature

Set 1

Set 2
Table 3: Comparable sets according to the average outdoor temperatures
In the following pages are also provided several graphs which indicates how the outdoor
temperature has varied during the experiments.
63
Figure 25: Graph which represents the outdoor temperatures of set 1
Outdoor temperature against time graph (Comparable set 1)

24.0
23.0
22.0
Temperature (ºC)
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00
Time (hrs)
(GEHP) 06/04/2017 (EHP) 13/04/2017
Figure 26: Graph which represents the outdoor temperatures of set 2
Outdoor temperature against time graph (Comparable set 3)

20.3
19.9
Temperature (ºC)
19.5
19.1
18.7
18.3
17.9
9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00
Time (hrs)
(GEHP) 12/04/2017 (EHP) 20/04/2017
64
4.2 Air - conditioned Areas
Initially, it was required to calculate the area of the conditioned space of the building that uses
a GEHP and also for the building that uses an EHP, for air-conditioning. This was required since
eventually, in order to be able to compare the results, the output energy, input energy, costs and
amounts of CO2 emitted, had to be calculated per metre squared of conditioned space. Therefore, by
using the scaled buildings plans which are provided in Appendix 1, the required area was calculated.
The table below shows the total area and the air-conditioned area of each building.
Building which Building which
uses a GEHP uses an EHP
Total area of building 532.62 m2 406.83 m2
Air-conditioned area during

436.82 m2 324.88 m2
experiments of set 1
Air conditioned area during

436.82 m2 175.91 m2
experiments of set 2
Table 4: Areas of the analysed buildings
65
4.3 Calculating the output Energy
To be able to analyse, evaluate and compare the data collected it was important to calculate the
output energy produced by each system, during every experiment conducted. Regarding to a previous
study mentioned in Chapter 2, Zhang, et al., (2014), stated that the heating capacity of a condenser can
be calculated by using the following energy equation.
𝑄̇ = 𝑚̇𝑤,𝑐 × 𝑐𝑝,𝑤,𝑐 × ∆𝑇𝑤,𝑐
However, in this scenario the HPs are being used for space heating while in the other study the HPs
were being used for water heating. Therefore, the same equation can be used but the properties of
water can be replaced with the properties of air.
Hence,
̇ = 𝑚̇𝑎,𝑐 × 𝑐𝑝,𝑎,𝑐 × ∆𝑇𝑎,𝑐

𝑄𝑜𝑢𝑡
Where:
̇ = Output energy (Heating Capacity) (Kw)

𝑄𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑚̇𝑎,𝑐 = Condenser air flow rate (Kg/s)
𝑐𝑝,𝑎,𝑐 = Specific heat of air at constant pressure. (Kj/kg K)
∆𝑇𝑎,𝑐 = Air temperature difference at the condenser inlet and outlet (K)
To begin with, it was first important to gather the list of on-coil and off-coil temperatures by
using the HPs Checker software. Such data was logged every minute for each and every indoor unit
connected to the HP system. By subtracting the on-coil temperatures from the off-coil temperatures,
the air temperature difference between the condensers inlet and outlet was determined.
66
Moreover, it was required to determine the mass flow rate of air. This varies according to the
size of the indoor unit’s fan motor and according to the fan speed setting. Therefore, with a reference
to the manufacturer’s specifications, the volume flow rate in m3/hour, was identified for each unit.
The volume flow rate was linked to every unit according to its model number and according to its fan
speed setting. The provided volume flow rates for both HP systems are provided in the tables below.
Heating Capacity
Model number Air circulation(m3/Hour)
(Kw)
High Medium Low
SPW-X255XH 1200 840 840 8.0
SPW-X185XH 960 840 780 6.3
Cassette unit
SPW-X165XH 930 840 780 5.0
SPW-X125XH 930 840 780 4.2
Heat Recovery unit SPW-GU105XH 1000 12.6

Table 5: Manufacturer’s specifications of indoor units of the GEHP system (Sanyo, 2010) (Sanyo, Gas Driven VRF, M series, 2009).
Heating Capacity
Model number Air flow rate (m3/Hour)
(Kw)
High Medium Low
S-56MU1E5A 960 810 720 6.3
S-45MU1E5A 900 780 720 5.0
Cassette unit S-36MY2E5A 594 546 360 4.2
S-28MY2E5A 576 522 336 3.2
S-22MY2E5A 558 504 336 2.5
Table 6: Manufacturer's specifications of indoor units of EHP system (Panasonic, 2016/2017).
However, it was still required to convert the provided volume flow rates into mass flow rates.
The mass flow rate could be determined by using the following equation.
𝜌 = 𝑉̇̇
𝑚
Where:
𝜌 = Density of air (kg/m3)
𝑚̇ = Air mass flow rate (kg/s)
𝑉̇ = Air volume flow rate (m3/hour)
67
Therefore, initially it was important to calculate the density of air for every reading. Meaning
that the air density for every minute according to that particular off-coil temperature was worked out
by using the following density equation.
𝑃
Where: 𝜌= 𝑅×𝑇
𝜌 = Density of air (kg/m3)
𝑃 = Air Pressure (Pa)
𝑅= Specific gas constant (kJ/kg K)
𝑇= Off-coil air temperature (K)
While considering the pressure as atmospheric pressure which is 1.013 25 bar and the specific
gas constant as 0.287 kJ/kg K, the density of air for every minute during the experiments and for every
indoor unit was worked out accordingly. (Rogers & Mayhew, 1995)
Now that the density of air was identified and the volume flow rate of air was also known, by
using the mass flow rate equation, which was mentioned earlier, the mass flow rate of air for every
minute during each experiment and for every indoor unit, could also be determined.
Moreover, the specific capacity of air was also figured out, which was taken as 1.005 kj/kg K,
considering an atmospheric pressure and an average temperature between 200C to 400C. (The
Engineering Toolbox, n.d.) This has led to work out the output energy by applying the mass flow rate
of air, the specific capacity of air and the change in temperature between the on-coil and off-coil
temperatures, into the energy equation mentioned earlier.
68
Therefore, the energy output, also known as the heating capacity, of each indoor unit for every
minute was calculated. An example of the required calculations to work out the output energy is shown
in Appendix 2. The results of the total output energy for each experiment are shown in the table below.
Output energy per Output energy per

Output energy during four
hour hour per m2
and a half hours period (Kw)
(Kw/hr) (Kw/hr/m2)
Experiment 1 (GEHP) 67.32 14.96 0.0343

Set 1
Experiment 3 (EHP) 101.32 22.51 0.0693
Experiment 2 (GEHP) 70.27 15.62 0.0358

Set 2
Experiment 4 (EHP) 86.09 19.13 0.1087
Table 7: System's Output energy
69
4.4 Calculating the Input Energy
The Input Energy can be derived from the Electrical and Fuel consumption. The intake of
such sources of energy were monitored during each experiment by using adequate monitoring devices.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, a Gas flow meter was used to measure the flow of vapour propane for the
GEHP system while a Power quality analyser was used during the experiments of both the GEHP and
the EHP, to measure the electrical energy consumed.
4.4.1 Calculating the Electrical consumption.
The Power quality analyser has provided both instant and cumulative electrical consumption
readings which were being recorded every minute. An example of such readings are shown in
Appendix 3. The total electrical consumptions during all the experiments are shown in the table below.
Electrical
Electrical Electrical
consumption
consumption Electrical consumption per
per Kw of
during four and a consumption hour per m2 of
output heat
half hours period per hour (Kwh) conditioned space
energy
(Kwh) (Kw/hr/m2)
(Kw/Kw)
Experiment 1 (GEHP) 3.70 0.82 0.00154 0.055

Set 1
Experiment 3 (EHP) 27.29 6.06 0.01865 0.269
Experiment 2 (GEHP) 4.28 0.95 0.00218 0.061

Set 2
Experiment 4 (EHP) 26.03 5.78 0.03288 0.302
Table 8: Electrical consumsumptions
70
4.4.2 Calculating the Fuel consumptions.
The gas flow meter was used to measure the consumption of vapour propane during the
experiments. During the process both instant and cumulative readings were being logged every minute.
An example of such data is displayed in Appendix 4. The table below shows the consumptions of
vapour propane during the three experiments which involved the GEHP system.
Experiment Experiment
1 2
Vapour propane consumed during four and a

3.15 3.73
half hours period (m3)
Vapour propane consumed per hour (m3/hr) 0.70 0.83
Table 9: Consumption of Vapour Propane
While calculating the consumption of propane, it was important to keep in mind that the fuel
tank is supplied with liquefied propane and not vapour propane. This means that the user pays for
liquefied propane which according to Liquigas Malta Ltd, which is a local LPG supplier, Propane is
sold to the end user at €0.45 per Litre or €0.864 per kg. It is important to mention that propane
evaporates inside the tank and vapour propane is exhaled form the tank, through a pipe line which
includes several shut off valves, pressure regulators and pressure gauges, until it reaches the HP. At
the exit of the tank, besides a shut off valve, a first stage pressure regulator is installed to reduce the
extreme pressure of vapour propane to a lower pressure (normally between 0.75 – 1 bar), then at the
end of the pipeline, just before the HP, a second stage regulator is installed to further reduce the
pressure according to the maximum allowable operating pressure of the equipment (normally about
37mBar). Besides all this, the gas flow meter used to measure the consumption of propane is also
71
installed between the second stage regulator and the HP, together with a number of shut-off valves.
Therefore, the gas meter measures the consumption of vapour propane.
Hence, in order to calculate properly the intake of propane and to be able to calculate
the cost of propane consumed, the amount of vapour propane measured in m3, had to be
converted into Litres of liquefied propane. It had to be determined how many litres of liquefied
propane, had the vapour propane occupied before it has evaporated. This was required to
determine how many litres of propane where needed to operate the HP during each monitoring
process.
In order to be able to do such a conversion, a vapour to liquid ratio of propane was
used. According to several foreign gas companies, namely, SHV Energy (SHV ENERGY, n.d.)
and Elgas Ltd (Hahn, 2010 - 2017), LPG (Propane) expands between 270 to 274 times the
volume, when it vaporises from liquid into vapour.
Therefore, by keeping this statement in mind and by using the simply proportion
method, the amount of vapour propane could be converted to its equal amount of liquid
propane. The table below shows the converted amounts of propane while any calculations
involved are shown in Appendix 5.
Experiment Number Vapour Propane (m3) Liquefied Propane (Litres)
Experiment 1 3.15 m3 11.49 Litres
Table 10: Convertion of Vapour to Liquid Propane using vapor to liquid ratio.
72
In order to make sure that the conversion has been done correctly, a conversion factor was
also used in order to be able to match the outcome. According to another gas expert company, (LPG
Solutions, n.d.), 3.85 Litres of liquefied propane is equal to 1m3 of vapour propane. Such a company
uses this conversion to be able to calculate the cost of LPG to the end user.
Therefore, once again, by keeping this statement in mind and by using simply proportion
method, the amount of vapour propane could be converted to its equal amount of liquid propane. The
table below shows the converted amounts of propane while any calculations involved are shown in
Appendix 6.
Experiment Number Vapour Propane (m3) Liquefied Propane (Litres)
Table 11: Convertion of Vapour to Liquid Propane using a convertion factor
Hence, to compare the outcome of both methods, the results are grouped in the table showed
below.
Vapour Liquefied Propane by Liquefied Propane by using
Experiment Number Propane using the ratio the conversion factor
(m3) method. (Litres) method. (Litres)
Experiment 1 3.15m3 11.49 Litres 12.13 Litres
Experiment 3 3.73m3 13.61 Litres 14.36 Litres
Table 12: Comparing the outcomes of the ratio method and tha convertion factor method.
The table above shows that the results of both methods are very similar and so it proves that
the conversion from vapour propane to liquefied propane was done correctly.
73
Therefore, the consumption of Liquified propane for each experiment performed that
involved the GEHP, is shown in the table below.
1 2
Liquefied propane consumed during four and

11.49 13.61
a half hours period (Litres)
Liquefied propane consumed per hour

2.55 3.02
(Litres/hr)
Liquefied propane consumed per hour per m2

0.005845 0.006924
of conditioned space (Litres/hr/m2)
Liquefied propane consumed per Kw of output

0.17 0.19
heat energy (Litres/Kw)
Table 13: Consumption of Liquefied Propane
However, it was still not identified how much Input energy was produced by the propane
consumed. Therefore, in order to recognise how much energy was produced, it was crucial to
determine the calorific value (CV) of propane. The CV of each fuel differs from one another and it
also differs from a location to another and even from time to time. According to Treloar, (2005), CVs
can be listed in two different forms which are Gross CV and Net CV, these are also known as Higher
CV and Lower CV respectivley. Gross CV is the total heat energy produced by a complete combustion
of a particular amount of fuel. In a combustion process, water vapour is formed as a by-product and
when this water vapour condenses, it emits a lot of latent heat. The energy involved in this process is
74
normally lost with the flue gases. Therefore, when such energy is lost it can be stated that the Input
energy of fuel wouldn’t be the total heat energy since some of it would be lost into the environment.
In such a situation, the CV of the fuel will be categorised as Net CV. Hence, keeping this statement
in mind, the GEHP system used for this study involves an exhaust heat exchanger. This means that
the latent heat emitted by the water vapour, after the combustion process, is absorbed. Therefore, for
this scenario, a typical Gross CV of propane was applicable which is 50350 Kj/Kg (The
Engineering Toolbox, n.d.)
Further calculations were required in order to be able to calculate the input energy of propane.
Initially it was required to use mass flow rate equation to work out the mass flow rate of liquid propane.
Such an equation is shown below.
𝑚̇ = 𝜌 × 𝑉̇
Where:
𝑚̇ = Mass flow rate of Liquefied propane (kg/s)
𝜌 = Density of Liquefied propane (kg/Ltr)
𝑉̇ = Volume flow rate of Liquefied propane (Ltrs/s)
Considering the density of liquefied propane as 0.506 kg/Ltr (LPG Solutions, n.d.) and the
volume flow rates of liquefied propane, the mass flow rates for each GEHP experiment were
calculated. The necessary calculations are shown in Appendix 7.
75
Moreover, the Input energy was finally calculated by using the following equation
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = 𝐶𝑉 × 𝑚̇
Where:
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 (Kw)
𝐶𝑉 = Gross Calorific Value of Liquefied propane (Kj/Kg)
𝑚̇ = Mass flow rate of Liquefied propane (kg/s)
The calculated Input energy for each GEHP experiment was calculated considering a Gross
CV of 50350 Kj/Kg. All necessary calculations are also shown in Appendix 7 while the results are
shown in the table below.
Experiment 1 Experiment 2
Input Energy
18.05 21.37
(Kw/hr)
Table 14: Input energy for GEHP experiments by using Gross CV
However, in order to make sure that the calculation was done correctly, a conversion factor
was also used in order to be able to match the outcome. According to a gas expert company, (LPG
Solutions, n.d.), 0.141 Litres of liquefied propane is equal to 1 Kw of energy.
76
Hence, by using such a conversion factor the input energy produced by the propane was
recalculated. All the necessary calculations are shown in Appendix 8, while the results are shown in the
table below.
Input Energy
18.09 21.42
(Kw/hr)
Table 15:Input energy for GEHP experiments by using convertion factor
Therefore, to compare the outcome of both methods, the results are grouped in a table below.
Input Energy
By using the CV of 18.05 21.37
propane (Kw/hr)
Input Energy
By using the
18.09 21.42
conversion factor
(Kw/hr)
Table 16: Comparison of Input energies for GEHP experiments
The table above shows that the figures are very close to each other despite the fact that
different methods were used. This confirms that the calculations were done correctly.
77
Moreover, the input energy of Liquefied propane for each experiment performed that involved
the GEHP, is shown in the table below.
1 2
Input energy consumed during four and a half

81.23 96.17
hours period (Kw)
Input energy consumed per hour (Kw/hr) 18.05 21.37
Input energy consumed per hour per m2 of

0.0413 0.0489
conditioned space (Kw/hr/m2)
Input energy consumed per Kw of output heat

1.20 1.37
energy (Kw/Kw)
Table 17: Input energies of Liquefied propane
78
4.5 Calculating the COP
The COP is a ratio between the output Energy delivered by a HP to the input Energy
consumed by that HP. Therefore, the COP will be helpful to understand the efficiency level of the
HPs being analysed and so it was required to be worked out as well.
The manufacturers of HPs provides a theoretical COP in order to notify the efficiency of the
equipment. However, that COP value is only valid at laboratory conditions and when the equipment
is brand new. Hence, it was interesting to calculate the COP of both HP in order be compared with
their respective theoretical COP.
The theoretical COP provided by the manufacturer of the HPs being analysed are shown in
the table below. (Sanyo, Gas Driven VRF, M series, 2009) (Panasonic, 2016/2017)
GEHP EHP
Theoretical COP (Heating) 1.34 4.41/4.03
Table 18: Theoretical COP (heating) provided by the manufacturer
According to Zhang, et al., (2014), the following equation shall be used in order to calculate the
actual COP.
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔⁄𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑

𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
It is important to mention that the input energy of the EHP consists solely of electrical energy
while the input energy of the GEHP consists of heat energy produced from propane to run the direct
combustion engine and also electrical energy to run the outdoor fan motors, solenoids and several
other controlling devices which are embedded within the outdoor unit. Other than that, any HP
requires also electrical energy to run the indoor fan motors and also other controlling devices.
79
However, with a reference to the studies of Kamal, et al., (2016), and Zhang, et al., (2014), as
mentioned in Chapter 2, these two groups of authors haven’t included the electrical consumption of
the GEHP in their COP calculations. This is mostly because the electricity consumed by the GEHP
HP is so minimal that it can be considered as a negligible value.
During the experiments performed, the electrical energy consumed by the outdoor unit of the
GEHP was monitored and such values are shown in the table below.
Electrical consumption of the Electrical consumption of the
GEHP’s outdoor unit during GEHP’s outdoor unit per hour
four hours thirty minutes (Kwh)
monitoring process. (Kwh)
Experiment 1 3.70 0.82
Experiment 32 4.28 0.95
Table 19: Electrical energy consumed by the GEHP outdoor unit
This table shows how insignificant are such electrical consumptions.
Hence, it was determined that the COP could be worked out by means of the output energy
of each system while considering the input energy produced by propane for the GEHP and the input
electrical energy for the EHP. All necessary calculations are shown in Appendix 9 while the actual
COP values are shown in the table below.
Actual COP (Heating)
Experiment 1 (GEHP) 0.83

Set 1
Experiment 3 (EHP) 3.71
Experiment 2 (GEHP) 0.73

Set 2
Experiment 4 (EHP) 3.33
Table 20: Actual COPs

80
4.6 Calculating the running costs
For the purpose of this study it was also required to recognise how much expenses are involved
to run such HPs. Since the electricity and propane consumed during each experiment, were already
calculated, the cost of input energy could be worked out by simply applying local tariffs accordingly.
Regarding the propane, according to Liquigas Malta Ltd, which is a local LPG supplier, propane is sold
to the end user at €0.45 per Litre or €0.864 per kg.
On the other hand, Enemata, which is the local supplier of electricity, offers a range of electricity
tariffs. Different electricity tariffs applies for different buildings and the applicable electrical tariffs also
varies according to the total electrical consumption of the building. In this scenario, since the building
which contained the EHP is a small office complex, tariffs for non-residential buildings applies. The
figure below shows the electricity tariffs applicable for non-residential buildings.
Figure 27: Non-Residential Kwh consumption tariff rates
Other than that, it was assumed that band number five suits best such a building. This is mostly due
to the high amounts of computers, computer servers, lightings, extraction fans, air-conditioning and
other loads.
81
Therefore, to calculate the cost of the input energy, the following calculation was used.
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 × 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑓
All the necessary calculations are sown in Appendix 10, while the running cost of the HPs during
each experiment is shown in the table below. (It is important to mention that the electrical
consumption of the GEHP was neglected as mentioned previously in this study)
Running cost Running cost per Running cost per

Running cost per
during four and a hour per m2 of Kw of output heat
hour
half hours period conditioned space energy
Experiment 1 (GEHP) €5.17 €1.15 €0.00263 €0.0768
Experiment 3 (EHP) €4.40 €0.98 €0.00302 €0.0434
Experiment 2 (GEHP) €6.12 €1.36 €0.003110 €0.0871
Experiment 4 (EHP) €4.20 €0.93 €0.005306 €0.0488
Table 21: Running cost of the HPs
82
4.7 Calculating the CO2 Emissions
As one of the main targets behind this study, it had to be determined how much kg of CO 2
have been emitted into the atmosphere during the experiments. This was important to identify which
system is the most environmental friendly.
In order to quantify such amounts it was required to determine how much CO2 is emitted into
the atmosphere during the electrical generation by the local power station and the Carbon Dioxide
Emissions Coefficient of propane. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates.,
(2016), the Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficient of propane is 5.76 Kg of CO2 per U.S Gallon.
Considering that 1 U.S Gallon is equal to 3.78541 Litres, by working out the following
calculation, such a value will be converted from Kg of CO2 per U.S Gallon into Kg of CO2 per Litre.
5.76
K𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑂2 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒 =
3.78541
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = 1.521631 Kg of CO2 per Litre
On the other hand, in order to determine how much CO2 is emitted by the power station, to
generate electricity, a realistic example was used as a point of reference. By going through a random
electrical invoice, which gets distributed by Enemalta to every house hold which consumes electricity,
it was noticed that Enemalta provides several details to its customers regarding the electrical
consumption. Such details also include the amount of CO2 emitted during the electrical generation
required for that particular period. It was noted that during a random period, with a consumption of
1457Kwh of electricity, 1321kg of CO2, were generated.
83
Hence, from such a conversion factor it was possible to determine how much CO 2 is
generated by the power station plant, for every Kwh of electricity.
Therefore,
1 𝐾𝑤ℎ × 1321 𝑘𝑔
𝐶𝑂2 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 =
1457 𝐾𝑤ℎ
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.9067 𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑂2 /𝐾𝑤ℎ
Moreover, by using the Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients mentioned above, it was
determined how much CO2 was generated during the each experiment. Any necessary calculations are
shown in Appendix 11 while the outcomes are displayed in the table below.
CO2 generated CO2 generated CO2 generated

CO2 generated
during four and a per hour per m2 of per Kw of output
per hour
half hours period conditioned space heat energy
Experiment 1 (GEHP) 17.48 Kg 3.88 Kg 8.88 g 0.26 Kg
Experiment 3 (EHP) 24.74 Kg 5.50 Kg 16.93 g 0.24 Kg
Experiment 2 (GEHP) 20.71 Kg 4.60 Kg 10.53 g 0.29 Kg
Experiment 4 (EHP) 23.60 Kg 5.24 Kg 29.79 g 0.27 Kg
Table 22: CO2 generated during the each experiment
84
4.8 Analysing the results
The calculated results of experiment 1 (GEHP) and experiment 3 (EHP), (Comparison 1),
are grouped in the table below in order to be compared.

1 3
GEHP EHP
Total area of Building (m2) 532.62 406.83
Area being Heated (m2) 436.82 324.88
Output energy during four and a half hours period (Kw) 67.32 101.32
Output energy per hour (Kw/hr) 14.96 22.51
Output energy per hour per m2 (Kw/hr/m2) 0.0343 0.0693
Input energy from Electricity consumed during four and a half hours period (Kwh) 3.7 27.29
Input energy from Electricity consumed per hour (Kwh) 0.82 6.06
Input energy from Electricity consumed per hour per m2 of conditioned space 0.00154 0.01865
(Kw/hr/m2)
Input energy from Electricity consumed per Kw of output heat energy (Kw/Kw) 0.055 0.269
Vapour propane consumed during four and a half hours period (m3) 3.15 n/a
Vapour propane consumed per hour (m3/hr) 0.70 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed during four and a half hours period (Litres) 11.49 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed per hour (Litres/hr) 2.55 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed per hour per m2 of conditioned space (Litres/hr/m2) 0.005845 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed per Kw of output heat energy (Litres/Kw) 0.17 n/a
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed during four and a half hours 81.23 n/a
period (Kw)
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed per hour (Kw/hr) 18.05 n/a
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed per hour per m2 of conditioned
0.0413 n/a
space (Kw/hr/m2)
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed per Kw of output heat energy
1.20 n/a
(Kw/Kw)
Actual COP (Heating) 0.83 3.71
Running cost during four and a half hours period €5.17 €4.40
Running cost per hour €1.15 €0.98
Running cost per hour per m2 of conditioned space €0.00263 €0.00302
Running cost per Kw of output heat energy €0.0768 €0.0434
CO2 generated during four and a half hours period (Kg) 17.48 24.74
CO2 generated per hour (Kg) 3.88 5.50
CO2 generated per hour per m2 of conditioned space (g/m2) 8.88 16.93
CO2 generated per Kw of output heat energy (Kg/Kw) 0.26 0.24
Table 23: Gathered outcomes of comparison 1
85
The calculated results of experiment 2 (GEHP) and experiment 4 (EHP), (Comparison 2),
are grouped in the table below in order to be compared.

2 4
GEHP EHP
Total area of Building (m2) 532.62 406.83
Area being Heated (m2) 436.82 175.91
Output energy during four and a half hours period (Kw) 70.27 86.09
Output energy per hour (Kw/hr) 15.62 19.13
Output energy per hour per m2 (Kw/hr/m2) 0.0358 0.1087
Input energy from Electricity consumed during four and a half hours period (Kwh) 4.28 26.03
Input energy from Electricity consumed per hour (Kwh) 0.95 5.78
Input energy from Electricity consumed per hour per m2 of conditioned space
0.00218 0.03288
(Kw/hr/m2)
Input energy from Electricity consumed per Kw of output heat energy (Kw/Kw) 0.061 0.302
Vapour propane consumed during four and a half hours period (m3) 3.73 n/a
Vapour propane consumed per hour (m3/hr) 0.83 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed during four and a half hours period (Litres) 13.61 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed per hour (Litres/hr) 3.02 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed per hour per m2 of conditioned space (Litres/hr/m2) 0.006924 n/a
Liquefied propane consumed per Kw of output heat energy (Litres/Kw) 0.19 n/a
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed during four and a half hours
96.17 n/a
period (Kw)
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed per hour (Kw/hr) 21.37 n/a
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed per hour per m2 of conditioned
0.0489 n/a
space (Kw/hr/m2)
Input energy from Liquefied propane consumed per Kw of output heat energy
1.37 n/a
(Kw/Kw)
Actual COP (Heating) 0.73 3.33
Running cost during four and a half hours period €6.12 €4.20
Running cost per hour €1.36 €0.93
Running cost per hour per m2 of conditioned space €0.003110 €0.005306
Running cost per Kw of output heat energy €0.0871 €0.0488
CO2 generated during four and a half hours period (Kg) 20.71 23.60
CO2 generated per hour (Kg) 4.60 5.24
CO2 generated per hour per m2 of conditioned space (g/m2) 10.53 29.79
CO2 generated per Kw of output heat energy (Kg/Kw) 0.29 0.27
Table 24:Gathered outcomes of comparison 2
86
To begin with, from the two sets of comparisons listed in the previous pages it was noticed
that during each experiment there was a variance in the output energy of each HP system. Such a
difference is illustrated in the charts below.

Figure 28: Chart showing the total output energy of comparison 1
Total Output energy during four and a

half hours period (Comparison 1)
120
OUTPUT ENRGY (KW)
100
80
101.32
60
67.32
40
20
0
GEHP (Experiment 1) EHP (Experiment 3)
EXPERIMENTS
Figure 29: Chart showing the total output energy of comparison 2
Total Output energy during four and a

half hours period (Comparison 2)
100
OUTPUT ENERGY (KW)
80
60
86.09
70.27
40
20
0
Experiment 2 (GEHP) Experiment 4 (EHP)
EXPERIMENTS
87
Such a difference in the output energy was due to the fact that different buildings where used
to perform the experiment of the GEHP and the EHP. Each building contains different heat loads
and so different output energies were required by each system to cope with the heating demand. The
difference in heat loads between the two buildings is the result of having different construction
materials with different U-values, variance in occupancy, ventilation losses, number of exposed walls
or roofs and much more. Therefore in order to still be able to compare the two HPs it was required
to calculate different characteristic of HP per Kw of output heat energy. In such a manner, each
particular characteristic can be compared and analysed appropriately.
From the comparisons listed previously, it can be also noticed that the EHP consumes less
input energy than the GEHP to produce a Kw of output heat energy. Such a difference can also be
observed in the charts below.
Figure 30: Chart showing the input energy per Kw of output energy (comparison 1)
Input energy consumed per Kw of

output heat energy (Comparison 1)
1.20
INPUT ENERGY (KW)
1.00
0.80 1.20
0.60
0.40
0.27
0.20
0.00
EXPERIMENTS
88
Figure 31: Chart showing the input energy per Kw of output energy (comparison 2)
Input energy consumed per Kw of

output heat energy (Comparison 2)
1.50
INPUT ENERGY (KW)
1.00
1.37
0.50
0.30
0.00
EXPERIMENTS
These charts has shown such a drastic difference between the input energies of both HPs
since the energy consumed by the EHP doesn’t include primary and secondary energy, since electricity
is a tertiary form of energy while the GEHP consumes propane which is a primary source of energy.
To be exact, there is an approximate difference of 77% to 79% between a GEHP input energy and an
EHP input energy in order to be able to produce 1KW of output heat energy.
In addition to the above, as mentioned previously in this study, it is important to mention that
each HP has a COP related to it. Such a COP indicates the efficiency of the HP since the COP is a
ratio between the output Energy delivered by a HP to the input Energy consumed by that HP. The
COP provided by the manufacture can be considered as a theoretical COP since it is calculated at
laboratory conditions and when the equipment is brand new.
However, the actual COP was calculated for the purpose of the study so that it can be
compared to the theoretical COP.
89
The charts illustrated below indicates the actual COPs which were calculated during each
experiment to analyse the efficiency of the system at the different outdoor conditions. Additionally,
the actual COPs were also compered to the theoretical COPs.

Figure 32: Chart showing the theoretical Vs actual COP (comparison 1)
Theoretical Vs Actual COP

(Comparison 1)
5 4.22
3.71
4
3
COP
1.34
2 0.83
1
0
EXPERIMENTS
Theoretical COP (Heating) Actual COP (Heating)
Figure 33: Chart showing the theoretical Vs actual COP (comparison 2)
Theoretical Vs Actual COP

(Comparison 2)
5 4.22
3.33
4
3
COP
1.34
2
0.73
1
0
EXPERIMENTS
Theoretical COP (Heating) Actual COP (Heating)
90
From the previous table it can be noticed that the EHP, during all the experiments, it has
obtained a higher actual COP value than the GEHP. The reason behind this is that the COP of the
EHP reflects the efficiency of the vapour compression cycle alone while the COP of the GEHP
includes the efficiency of the vapour compression cycle and the efficiency of the direct combustion
engine which is about 30% to 45%. (Hepbasli et al., 2009). This means that the COP of the GEHP
considers the energy efficiency from the primary source of energy (Propane) till the output energy of
the HP (Heat generated), while the EHP considers the energy efficiency from the tertiary source of
energy (Electricity) till the output energy of the HP (Heat generated).
It is important to notice the Actual COPs are really similar to the theoretical COPs. This
indicates that all calculations have been done properly and it also shows that the HPs are running in a
good condition since their efficiency is still not lacking by far from the manufacturers specifications.
However, it is important to notice by how much the COP has varied from one comparison to
another. The charts illustrated in the previous page indicates that the actual COP of the GEHP during
experiment 1 has varied from the theoretical COP by 38%. On the other hand, during experiment 2,
the actual COP of the GEHP has varied from the theoretical COP by 46%. The reason why there
was more variance in the second comparison was due to the outdoor temperature. In the beginning of
Chapter 4 it is mentioned that the average outdoor temperature during experiment 1 was 21.5ºC while
the average outdoor temperature during experiment 2 was 19.4ºC.
Hence this shows that at lower outdoor temperatures, the efficiency of the GEHP diminishes.
However, such a concept also applies for the EHP since the charts illustrated in the previous page also
indicates that the actual COP of the EHP during experiment 3, at an average outdoor temperature of
21.1ºC, has varied from the theoretical COP by 12%. On the other hand, during experiment 4, at an
average outdoor temperature of 18.9ºC, the actual COP of the GEHP has varied by 21%.
91
Therefore, it can be observed that the actual COP of the GEHP has varied by 8% from
experiment 1 to experiment 2. Meanwhile, the actual COP of the EHP has varied by 9% from
experiment 3 to experiment 4.
This shows that the efficiency of both HPs gets diminished at lower outdoor temperatures,
however, the efficiency of the GEHP, at lower outdoor temperatures, is less effected than that of the
EHP. This also supported by Juliette Promelle, (2011), in chapter 2 of this study.
92
Moreover, the running cost to produce one Kw of output heat energy was calculated for both
HPs. Such results are illustrated in the charts below.

Figure 34: Chart showing the running cost per Kw of output energy (comparison 1)
Running cost per Kw of output

heat energy (Comparison 2)
€0.100
RUNNING COST (€)
€0.080
€0.060 €0.087
€0.040 €0.049
€0.020
€0.000
EXPERIMENTS
Figure 35: Chart showing the running cost per Kw of output energy (comparison 2)
Running cost per Kw of output

heat energy (Comparison 1)
€0.080
€0.070
RUNNING COST (€)
€0.060
€0.050
€0.040 €0.077
€0.030 €0.043
€0.020
€0.010
€0.000
EXPERIMENTS
From the charts showed above, one can clearly notice that the GEHP is more expensive to
run. From the experiments performed, it has resulted that the for the same output energy, the GEHP
is between 43% to 44% more expensive to run than the EHP.
93
Besides all this, it was also calculated how much CO2 was generated to produce a Kw of output
heat energy by both HPs. The results obtain where also displayed on the following charts in order to
be compared.
Figure 36: Chart showing CO2 generated per Kw of output energy (comparison 1)
CO 2 generated per Kw of output heat

energy (Comparison1)
0.24
EHP (Experiment 3)
EXPERIMENTS
0.26
GEHP (Experiment 1)
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27

CO2 GENERATED (KG)
Figure 37: Chart showing CO2 generated per Kw of output energy (comparison 1)
CO 2 generated per Kw of output heat

energy (Comparison 2)
0.27
EHP (Experiment 4)
EXPERIMENTS
0.29
GEHP (Experiment 2)
0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3

CO2 GENERATED (KG)
94
From these charts it can be concluded that the GEHP is less environmental friendly than the
EHP since is generates more CO2 than the EHP to produce a Kw of output heat energy. To be exact
the EHP generates about 7% to 8% less CO2 than the GEHP.
Therefore, from all the charts illustrated above it can be concluded that during the experiments
conducted, the EHP has performed better than the GEHP. This is because it has resulted that for the
same output heat energy the EHP is more efficient and so it is cheaper to run and it is more
environmentally friendly since it generates less CO2 emissions than the GEHP.
95
Other than that, the performance of each HP with respects to the buildings was also analysed.
Since each building has involved different areas which were being heated during the experiment, it was
required to analyse the performance of the HPs per metre squared of conditioned space. The variance
between the areas being conditioned by the two HPs in both comparisons, is shown in the charts
below.
Figure 38: Chart showing Area being heated (comparison 1)
Area being heated (Comparison 1)
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
AREA (M2)
250.00 436.82
200.00 324.88
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
EXPERIMENTS
Figure 39: Chart showing Area being heated (comparison 2)
Area being heated (Comparison 2)
450
400
350
300
AREA (M2)
250 436.82
200
150
175.91
100
50
0
EXPERIMENTS
96
To begin with, from the results obtained it was noticed that during the experiments the EHP
has produced around 48% to 65% more output heat energy than the GEHP. The reason behind this
would be that building which contains the EHP involves much more heat losses and so the EHP had
to produce much more energy to cope with the heating demand. This might be because the building
which contains the GEHP has a better thermal envelope than the other building. The output heat
energy per metre squared is illustrated in the charts below.

Figure 40: Chart showing output energy per hr per m2 (comparison 1)
Output energy per hour per m 2

(Comparison 1)
0.07
OUTPUT ENERGY (KW)
0.06
0.05
0.04 0.0693
0.03
0.0343
0.02
0.01
0
EXPERIMENTS
Figure 41: Chart showing output energy per hr per m2 (comparison 2)
Output energy per hour per m 2

(Comparison 2)
0.12
OUTPUT ENERGY (KW)
0.1
0.08
0.06 0.1087
0.04
0.0358
0.02
0
EXPERIMENTS
97
The input energy consumed by each HP system was also analysed per metre squared of the
conditioned space. As it can be seen from the charts below, the GEHP has consumed more input
energy than the EHP. As mentioned earlier the reason behind this result is that the input energy of the
GEHP is primary energy while the input energy of the EHP is tertiary energy. Therefore, the energy
involved in the primary and the secondary stage before being consumed by the EHP aren’t illustrated
in such a result.
Figure 42: Chart showing Input energy per hr per m2 (comparison 1)
Input energy per hour per m 2

(Comparison 1)
0.01865
EHP (Experiment 3)
EXPERIMENTS
0.0413
GEHP (Experiment 1)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

INPUT ENERGY (KW)
Figure 43: Chart showing Input energy per hr per m2 (comparison 2)
Input energy per hour per m 2

(Comparison 2)
0.03288
EHP (Experiment 4)
EXPERIMENTS
0.0489
GEHP (Experiment 2)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

INPUT ENERGY
98
Moreover, the running cost per metre squared of conditions space was also determined. The
results are displayed in the charts below. These charts clearly shows that the building which uses the
EHP, has a higher running cost (maximum of 41%) than that which uses the EHP. Although
previously it was noticed that it’s cheaper to run the EHP rather than the GEHP, due to the massive
heat losses that are involved in the building which contains the EHP, such a building still requires
higher costs to heat the building. This means that due to the inefficiencies of the building, the efficiency
of the EHP is being neglected.
Figure 44: Chart showing running cost per hr per m2 (comparison 1)
Running cost per hour per m 2

(Comparison 1)
€0.00310
RUNNIING COST (€)
€0.00300
€0.00290
€0.00280 €0.00302
€0.00270
€0.00260 €0.00263
€0.00250
€0.00240
EXPERIMENTS
Figure 45: Chart showing running cost per hr per m2 (comparison 2)
Running cost per hour per m 2

(Comparison 2)
€0.00600
€0.00500
RUNNING COST (€)
€0.00400
€0.00300 €0.00531
€0.00200 €0.00311
€0.00100
€0.00000
99
Finally, the amounts of CO2 generated by each building by using different HPs was also
analysed. The charts shown below indicates that the building which contains the GEHP was generating
between 48% to 65% less than the building which contains the EHP. Once again, this is the resultant
of having such a building which involves several heat losses and so much more energy has to be
consumed to cope with heating demands.

Figure 46: Chart showing CO2 generated per hr per m2 (comparison 1)
CO 2 generated per hour per m 2

(Comparison 1)
16.93
EHP (Experiment 3)
EXPERIMENT
8.88
GEHP (Experiment 1)
0 5 10 15 20
CO2 GENERATED
Figure 47: Chart showing CO2 generated per hr per m2 (comparison 1)
CO 2 generated per hour per m 2

(Comparison 2)
EHP (Experiment 4) 29.79

EXPERIMENTS
GEHP (Experiment 2) 10.53
0 10 20 30
CO2 GENERATED
100
From all this, it can be conlcuded that despite the fact that prevoiusly it was concluded that in this
particular shenario, the EHP has opertaed more efficiently than the GEHP, the results have shown
that the building which uses a GEHP is capable of heating a larger area with less running costs and
less CO2 emmissions. This indicates that the effectivness of the EHP is being neglatced due to the
inefficiency of the bulding.
101
Conclusion and recommendations– Chapter 5
Chapter 5
Conclusion and recommendations
5.1 Overview
The main goals of this study were to determine which HP, between an EHP and a GEHP, is
the most beneficial in terms of efficiency, running cost and environmental aspects. The number of
collected data and the numerous calculations performed in chapter 4 were posed to guide the
researcher to reach such goals.
From the evaluated results it can be concluded that the EHP had performed better than the
GEHP when such HPs were analysed on heating mode, on a typical day in April. It has resulted that
the EHP is cheaper to run than the GEHP by 43% to 44%, while still obtaining the same output heat
energy. It was also proven that the EHP generates around 7% to 8% less CO2 emissions than the
GEHP for the same output heat energy.
However, when the HPs were analysed at different outdoor temperatures, it was noticed that
during lower outdoor temperatures, the COP of the GEHP was less diminished than that of the EHP.
This indicates that the GEHP performs better at lower outdoor conditions since it would be running
102
at higher capacity instead of partial heat loads. This was also supported by Kamal, et al., (2016) and
Juliette Promelle, (2011), since in their studies it was mentioned that partial heat loads highly effects
the COP of the GEHP while at lower outdoor temperatures the GEHP could perform better.
Hence, it can be stated that one reason why the GEHP has lacked behind, regarding its
performance, is because the experiments were conducted in April and so the systems where analysed
on partial heat loads.
Another aspect that has surely affected the results was that the GEHP contains an extra heat
exchanger which recovers wasted heat energy, to be used for water heating, and unfortunately, the
GEHP being analysed did not contain such a water heating system installed. Therefore, this means
that several heat energy was being lost instead of recovered.
Other than that, with a reference to chapter 2, it was discovered that some models of GEHPs, contains
an electrical generator but unfortunately, the GEHP being analysed doesn’t contain such an extra
equipment. By having a generator direct coupled to the GEHP, the HP would be categorised as a CHP
which would have defiantly enhanced the systems overall efficiency.
All these aspects has caused the GEHP to lack in efficiency. On the other hand, thanks to
advanced inverter technologies used in EHP system, the EHP was able to maintain high performance
even at partial heat loads.
In contrary to the above, it was noticed that the building which uses a GEHP for space heating
was capable of heating the building at a maximum of 41% less running costs than the building which
uses an EHP, for the same area.
The reasons behind such results are because the building which uses a GEHP is a more modern
building which contains a good building thermal envelope. On the other hand the building which uses
103
an EHP for space heating, has much higher heat losses. As a matter of fact, the building which uses
the GEHP, contains heat recovery units for ventilation purposes, it also contains double glazed
windows and doors besides other insulation materials within the building. On the other hand, the
building which uses an EHP doesn’t contain a heat recovery unit for ventilation but instead it uses a
mixture of a forced extraction system and a natural supply ventilation. Other than that, some doors
and windows are double glazed while others are not and since it is an older building, it doesn’t include
any insulation materials within the building itself. Hence, all this leads to much more heat losses.
This was also proven since the EHP has produced around 51% to 67% more heat output
energy than the GEHP to be able to cope with the heating demands, for the same set indoor conditions
and for the same area.
Therefore, since more output energy was required by the building which uses an EHP, it has
resulted in higher running costs and even more CO2 emissions as well, when compared to the building
which uses the GEHP. To be exact, the building that incorporated an EHP has generated around 48%
to 65% more CO2 emissions than the building which incorporates a GEHP.
All of this shows that although the EHP was proven to operate more efficiently than the
GEHP, cheaper to run and more environmentally friendly, at such particular conditions, the building
which uses a GEHP for space heating has still managed to heat a larger area with less running cost and
less CO2 emissions per m2 of conditioned space. This means that the effectiveness of the EHP was
neglected due to the inefficiency of the building. Hence this means that the hypothesis for this study
wasn’t correct.
However, it is predicted that the results would have been totally different if the GEHP has
contained a water heating system to recover more wasted energy and if the experiments were held
during lower outdoor temperatures in order to analyse the HPs at higher heating capacity.
104
5.2 Limitations
Although this research has reached its aims, there were some unavoidable limitations which
were encountered.
One of the main difficulties faced during this dissertation was to find the right HPs. Since the
main interest of this study was to compare a GEHP against an EHP, two different HPs with the same
heating capacity where required since otherwise the comparison wouldn’t be valid. To begin with, it
was very challenging to find a GEHP system since in Malta since such HPs are seldom used. Then, it
was even more difficult to find an EHP system with the identical heating capacity. Such a process
involved a lot of research and several meetings with the supplier and the owners of the HPs, until the
researcher was authorised to analyse a particular GEHP and an EHP which are used for space heating
in separate building.
Having said that, having two HPs in separate buildings can be considered as one of the
limitations of this study. It would have been ideal if the HPs where installed in the same building and
heat or cool the same area. Since it’s best to have both systems working at the same conditions in order
to be compared. However, this was impossible and so several factors had to be put into consideration
while finalising the results, such as the orientation of the building, materials of the building, exposed
walls, types of windows and doors and other factors which effects the heat loads or heat gains of the
building.
Other than that, several meetings where also conducted between the researcher and the
supplier of the GEHP in order to be authorised to use the required equipment to monitor such HPs.
The required equipment included a mains analyser, a laptop with the installed required software’s which
is compatible with both the GEHP and the EHP and the necessary communication interface to be
able to communicate between the software and the HPs.
105
In order to compare the two HPs it was required to monitor both system during the same
period, so they would be operating at the same outdoor conditions. This meant that two sets of the
required equipment was needed but unfortunately, to safeguard the suppliers trademark, only one set
of the required equipment was available and it can only be provided by the local supplier of that
particular brand. This is because such equipment is only compatible with particular brands of HPs. To
overcome such a situation, the HPs had to be monitored on separate days, however, the comparison
was performed between data that was collected on days with very similar outdoor conditions to
maintain valid results.
It would have also been ideal if such equipment could have been connected to the HP for a long period
of time to monitor the HPs for longer time and so to obtain as much data as possible. Unfortunately
the supplier couldn’t provide the required equipment for such a long period but the equipment was
available for frequent short periods. Hence, this situation has fluctuated the planed methodology for
the collection of data.
As mentioned earlier, the GEHPs in Malta are not commonly used, hence, this leads to a lack
of knowledge in this sector which was another limitation for this research. When the researcher
attempted to initiate the monitoring of the GEHP, he has faced several difficulties. One of the
difficulties was that not even the local supplier knew how to connect the software to the GEHP.
Therefore, the researcher asked for the local supplier to communicate via e-mail with the main supplier
in Germany, to guide the researcher how to connect the software with the GEHP. Moreover, after
several attempts the researcher has managed to connect the equipment, however another obstacle has
occurred. Once again, due to lack of knowledge, it wasn’t known how to save the required data by
using such a software. Then, after going through different manuals and doing several research, such
an obstacle was conquered as well.
106
Other than that, while performing the monitoring of the GEHP, it was realised that the service
checker software doesn’t provide an instant mass flow rate of the gas being consumed. This was crucial
data for such a research and so after several meetings and discussions, the owner of the GEHP has
offered to fund and install a gas flow meter to the GEHP system in the shortest time possible.
Unfortunately, once again this has postponed the collection of data.
All these obstacles and delaying has led to another concern. As days were passing by, the
outdoor temperature was becoming hotter which was a major issue since the HPs were required to be
monitored during the heating process. However, it was realised that from previous literature, it was
already proven by several papers that GEHPs are highly efficient during bleak weather. On the other
hand, it was still doubtful how much efficient and reliable are such systems during partial heat loads.
Hence, this situation was considered as an advantage for this study since the HPs have been tested
during partial heat loads.
All the above limitations have made such a dissertation more challenging to complete,
however, they were all defeated in order to obtain valid and effective results.
107
5.3 Future research
From the results obtained, it was concluded that the GEHP has lacked in effeicncy due to
several particualr reasons.
The main reason behind such results was due to the fact that the particular GEHP which was
being analysed, did not include a water heating system to be able to absorb more wasted heat. Hence,
if in the future, such a water heating system is added to this particular GEHP system, than the same
research could be repeated again from scratch, in order to obtain results that can be compared to the
results of this study. This will indicate how much will such a water heating system improve the
performance of the GEHP.
Another reason why it has resulted that the GEHP has lacked in efficiency was because the
HPs were analysed at partial heat loads. Hence, it would be interesting to know how much does the
results vary if the HPs were analysed at lower outdoor temperature to let the system run at higher
heating capacities instead of partial heat loads.
Another important factor that was mentioned in this study was that some models of GEHPs
also includes an electric generator which is direct coupled to the direct combustion engine. Such
systems, which are considered as CHPs, would definitely be able to offer a better performance since
the wasted heat energy of the generator will also be used instead of being lost into the atmosphere.
Hence, it would be very useful to quantify and evaluate the performance of such a system while the
results can be compared to this particular study.
Besides analysing the performance of such HPs, one might also consider an evaluation of the
costs involved by both the GEHP and an EHP. The initial cost, running cost and maintenance cost
can all be put into consideration in order to establish individual cost analyses including a payback
period for each system.
108
Moreover, it may also be considered to evaluate why there was such a big difference between
the efficiency of each building. An additional study may include in a detailed analyses of the
construction material of both buildings and also several suggestion how the performance of the
buildings could be improved.
Besides all this, it may also be considered to construct a field setup which involves in identical
areas which includes an EHP and a GEHP. Both systems will then be monitored simultaneously and
so, such a methodology would eliminate any variables which may fluctuate the results such as different
outdoor conditions, different building construction materials, different u-values, different orientation
and so different heat loads. Hence this would result in much more accurate and reliable outcomes.
109
Bibliography
Bibliography
(n.d.). Retrieved from Liquigas Malta Ltd: http://www.liquigasmalta.com/latest-prices/

(n.d.). Retrieved from SHV ENERGY: http://www.shvenergy.com/think-lpg/10-fact-about-lpg/
(n.d.). Retrieved from LPG Solutions: http://www.lpg-solutions.co.uk/how-will-a-supplier-
calculate-the-cost-of-lpg-to-an-end-user/
(n.d.). Retrieved from The Engineering Toolbox: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-
properties-d_156.html
(n.d.). Retrieved from The Engineering Toolbox: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-
higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
(2010). Retrieved from Sanyo:
http://www.icglimited.co.uk/library/web/3.%20Sanyo/6.%20Sales%20Brochures%20&%
20Price%20Lists/SANYO%202010%20Electric%20VRF%20Brochure.pdf
(2016/2017). Retrieved from Panasonic:
http://www.panasonicproclub.com/uploads/GB/catalogues/FINAL%20UK%20GENERAL%
2016_LR.pdf
Air Conditioning & Heat Pump Institute. (2010). VRV/VRF Variable refrigerant volume (or Flow)
technology.
Althouse, A. D., Turnquist, C. H., & Bracciano, A. F. (2004). Modern Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning. Tinley Park, Illinois: THE GOODHEART-WILLCOX COMPANY,INC.
Bhatia, A. (n.d.). HVAC Variable Refrigerant Flow. Retrieved from
http://www.seedengr.com/Variable%20Refrigerant%20Flow%20Systems.pdf
Enemalta. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.enemalta.com.mt/index.aspx?cat=1&art=120&art1=4
European Commission. (2017, June 2). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/index_en
European heat pump association. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ehpa.org/technology/
Evercold Technical Services Ltd. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.evercold.co.uk/Sanyo-
GHP.html
Fujitsu-General. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fujitsu-general.com/g-eu/products/vrf/v2/
Goetzler, W. (2007). ASHRAE Journal. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems, 24-31.
Hahn, E. (2010 - 2017). Retrieved from Elgas Ltd.: http://www.elgas.com.au/blog/453-the-
science-a-properties-of-lpg
110
Bibliography
Hepbasli, A., Erbay, Z., Icier, F., Colak, N., & Hancioglu, E. (2009). A review of gas engine driven
heat pumps (GEHPs) for residential and industrial applications. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 85-99.
Kamal, R., Narasimhan, A. K., Wickramaratne, C., Bhardwaj, A., Goswami, D. Y., Stefankos, E. K.,
& Ingley, H. A. (2016). Field performance of gas-engine driven heat pumps in a
commercial buildings. International Journal of Refrigeration, 15-27.
Lian, Z., Park, S.-r., Huang, W., Baik, Y.-j., & Yao, Y. (2005). Conception of combination of gas-
engine-driven heat pump and water-loop heat pump system. International Journal of
Refrigeration, 810–819.
Power quality analyzer KEW 6310. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.kew-
ltd.co.jp/files/en/manual/6310_IM_92-1880B_E_L.pdf
Promelle, J. (2011, December 1). Gas heat pumps : product overview. Retrieved from
http://www.marcogaz.org/downloads/GasHeatPumpsWorkshop/1_GHP%20product%20
overview%20GDF%20SUEZ%20GHP%20workshop.pdf
Rogers, G. F., & Mayhew, Y. R. (1995). Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Fluids, SI
Units. Blackwell Publishing .
Ruciński, A., Rusowicz, A., & Grzebielec, A. (2014). Gas engine driven heat pump –
characteristics, analysis of applications. The 9th International Conference
“ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING”.
SANYO. (2011, December 01). Retrieved from Commercial Gas Heat Pump - VRF:
http://www.marcogaz.org/downloads/GasHeatPumpsWorkshop/3_SANYO_GHP_Introd
uction_GHPworkshop_2011.pdf
Sanyo, Gas Driven VRF, M series. (2009).
Toshiba. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ahi-toshiba.com/catalog/index.php?SECTION_ID=98
U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates. (2017, February 3). Retrieved from
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm/data/index.cfm?page=us_energy_com
mercial
U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates. (2016, February 2). Retrieved from
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
Welch, T. (2009, May). CIBSE Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.cibsejournal.com/cpd/modules/2009-05/
Welch, T. (n.d.). CIBSE Journal.
Zhang, W., Wang, T., Zheng, S., Peng, X., & Wang, X. (2014). Experimental Study of the Gas
Engine Driven Heat Pump with Engine Heat Recovery.
111
Appendix - 1
Appendix 1
Scaled plans of the buildings being analysed.
 Building which uses a GEHP.
The Following page consists of a scaled plan of the building which uses a GEHP for air-conditioning.
Such a building involves several offices and an open plan area. The outdoor unit of the GEHP is
located in front of the building as seen in the provided plans. The mentioned building has a total Area
of 532.62m2.
112
Appendix - 1
 Building which uses an EHP.
The Following pages consists of scaled plans of the building which uses an EHP for air-conditioning.
Such a building consists of two floors which involves several offices and an open plan area in each
floor. The outdoor units of the EHP are located on the roof of the building which are also displayed
in the following plans. The mentioned building has a total Area of 436.82m2.
113
Appendix – 2
Appendix 2
An example of the required calculations to work out the output energy.
Such a process was repeated for all units and for all the experiments, to determine the total output
energy
114
Appendix - 3
Appendix 3
An example of the collected data to determine the Electrical input energy.
Such data was collected for all the experiments, to determine the total electrical input energy
115
Appendix - 4
Appendix 4
An example of the data collected regarding the consumption of vapour propane
116
Appendix - 5
Appendix 5
Converting vapour propane into liquefied propane using vapour to liquid ratio
In order to be able to do such a conversion, a vapour to liquid ratio of propane was used. According
to several foreign gas companies, namely SHV Energy (SHV ENERGY, n.d.) and Elgas Ltd (Hahn,
2010 - 2017), LPG (Propane) expands between 270 to 274 times the volume, when it vaporises from
liquid into vapour.
Therefore, it can be said that,
1 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = 274 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒
And since there are 1000Litres in 1m3, it can be said that,
1 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = 0.274𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒
Therefore, by using simple proportion method the consumed liquefied propane of the three readings
could be determined:
 To convert 3.15m3 of vapour into liquid propane:
3.15
𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 =
0.274
∴ 𝟏𝟏. 𝟒𝟗 𝑳𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝒎𝟑 𝒐𝒇 𝒗𝒂𝒑𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆
117
Appendix - 5
3.73
𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 =
0.274
∴ 𝟏𝟑. 𝟔𝟏 𝑳𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟕𝟑 𝒎𝟑 𝒐𝒇 𝒗𝒂𝒑𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆
118
Appendix - 6
Appendix 6
Converting vapour propane into liquefied propane using a convertion factor
According to another foreign gas expert company, (LPG Solutions, n.d.), 3.85 Litres of liquefied
propane is equal to 1m3 of vapour propane.
Therefore, 3.85 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = 1𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒
Hence, by using simple proportion method the consumption of liquefied propane of the three readings
could be determined:
𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = 3.15 × 3.85
∴ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟏𝟑 𝑳𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝒎𝟑 𝒐𝒇 𝒗𝒂𝒑𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆
 To convert 3.73 m3 of vapour into liquid propane:
𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = 3.73 × 3.85
∴ 𝟏𝟒. 𝟑𝟔 𝑳𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟕𝟑 𝒎𝟑 𝒐𝒇 𝒗𝒂𝒑𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆
119
Appendix - 7
Appendix 7
Calculating the Input energy produced by propane by using the Gross CV
It was required to use the mass flow rate equation to work out the mass flow rate of liquid propane.
Such an equation is shown below.
𝑚̇ = 𝜌 × 𝑉̇
However first it was required to determine the volume flow rates of liquefied propane for each
experiment. Therefore, the volume flow rate could be determined by converting the amount of
liquefied propane used per hour, which was calculated earlier, into the amount of liquefied propane
used per second. Such a conversion is shown in the table below.
1 2

2.55 3.02
(Litres/hr)
Liquefied propane consumed per second

7.0833x10-4 8.3889x10-4
(Litres/s)
120
Appendix - 7
Moreover, by using the volume flow rates in the table above while considering the density of liquefied
propane as 0.506 kg/Ltr (LPG Solutions, n.d.), the mass flow rates of liquefied propane could be
worked out as follows.
 To calculate the mass flow rate of liquefied propane for experiment 1:
𝑚̇ = 0.506 × 7.0833x10−4
∴ 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟓𝟖𝟒𝟏𝐱𝟏𝟎−𝟒 𝒌𝒈/𝒔
 To calculate the mass flow rate of liquefied propane for experiment 2:
𝑚̇ = 0.506 × 8.3889x10−4
∴ 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒆 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟒𝟒𝟖𝐱𝟏𝟎−𝟒 𝒌𝒈/𝒔
121
Appendix - 7
Moreover, the Input energy was finally calculated by using the following equation, considering a
Gross CV of 50350 Kj/Kg.
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = 𝐶𝑉 × 𝑚̇
Hence, the input energy during each experiment was calculated as follows:
 To calculate the Input energy produced from liquefied propane for experiment 1:
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = 50350 × 3.5841x10−4
∴ 𝑰𝒏𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 = 𝟏𝟖. 𝟎𝟓 𝑲𝒘
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = 50350 × 4.2448x10−4
∴ 𝑰𝒏𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 = 𝟐𝟏. 𝟑𝟕 𝑲𝒘
122
Appendix - 8
Appendix 8
Calculating the Input energy produced by propane by using a convertion factor
According to a gas expert company, (LPG Solutions, n.d.), 0.141 Litres of liquefied propane is equal
to 1 Kw of energy.
Therefore, considering the amount of liquefied propane per hour which are shown in the table below,
the input energy was calculated as follows:
1 2

2.55 3.02
(Litres/hr)
2.55 𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑠 × 1𝐾𝑤

𝑄𝑖𝑛 =
0.141 𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑠
∴ 𝑰𝒏𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 = 𝟏𝟖. 𝟎𝟗 𝑲𝒘
3.02 𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑠 × 1𝐾𝑤

𝑄𝑖𝑛 =
0.141 𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑠
∴ 𝑰𝒏𝒑𝒖𝒕 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 = 𝟐𝟏. 𝟒𝟐 𝑲𝒘
123
Appendix - 9
Appendix 9
Calculating the Actual COP
The following equation can be used to calculate the actual COP of the system for each experiment,
while considering the input and output energies per hour which were calculated previously.
𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦/ℎ𝑟
𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦/ℎ𝑟
Therefore, the actual COP was calculated as follows:
 To calculate the actual COP of the GEHP during experiment 1:
14.96 𝐾𝑊
𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
18.05 𝐾𝑊
𝑪𝑶𝑷 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑
 To calculate the actual COP of the EHP during experiment 3:
22.51 𝐾𝑊
𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
6.06 𝐾𝑊
𝑪𝑶𝑷 = 𝟑. 𝟕𝟏
124
Appendix - 9
 To calculate the actual COP of the GEHP during experiment 2:
15.62 𝐾𝑊
𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
21.37 𝐾𝑊
𝑪𝑶𝑷 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟑
 To calculate the actual COP of the EHP during experiment 4:
19.13 𝐾𝑊
𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
5.75 𝐾𝑊
𝑪𝑶𝑷 = 𝟑. 𝟑𝟑
125
Appendix - 10
Appendix 10
Cost calculations
Considering that: According to Liquigas Malta.Ltd Propane costs €0.45 / Litre
According to Enemalta, Electricity costs €0.1613 / Kwh
 Cost calculations for Experiment 1
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 11.49 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 × €0.45
Cost of 11.49 Litres of propane = €5.17
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 27.29 𝐾𝑤ℎ × €0.1613
Cost of 𝟐𝟕. 𝟐𝟗 𝑲𝒘𝒉 = €4.40
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 13.61 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 × €0.45
Cost of 13.61 Litres of propane = €6.12
126
Appendix - 10
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 26.03 𝐾𝑤ℎ × €0.1613
Cost of 𝟐𝟔. 𝟎𝟑 𝑲𝒘𝒉 = €4.20
127
Appendix - 11
Appendix 11
CO2 calculations
Considering that:
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = 1.521631 Kg of CO2 / Litre
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.9067 𝑘𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑂2 /𝐾𝑤ℎ
Therefore,
 CO2 calculations for Experiment 1
𝐶𝑂2 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 × 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝐶𝑂2 = 11.49 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 × 1.521631 Kg of CO2 / Litre
𝑪𝑶𝟐 = 17.48Kg
𝐶𝑂2 = 27.29 𝐾𝑤ℎ × 0.9067Kg of CO2 / Litre
𝑪𝑶𝟐 = 24.74Kg
128
Appendix - 11
𝐶𝑂2 = 13.61 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 × 1.521631 Kg of CO2 / Litre
𝑪𝑶𝟐 = 20.71Kg
𝐶𝑂2 = 26.03 𝐾𝑤ℎ × 0.9067Kg of CO2 / Litre
𝑪𝑶𝟐 = 23.60Kg
129
Appendix - 12
Appendix 12
Images of GEHP experiments
Figure 48: GEHP experiment being conducted
130
Appendix - 13
Appendix 13
Images of EHP experiments
Figure 49: EHP experiment being conducted
131

A Comparative Analyses Between A Gas Engine Driven Heat Pump and An Electric Heat Pump.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparative Analyses Between A Gas Engine Driven Heat Pump and An Electric Heat Pump.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A comparative analyses between a Gas Engine Driven

Heat Pump and an Electric Heat Pump.

Submitted to the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST),

____________ 9th June, 2017

Mark Attard Date

____________ 9th June, 2017

Mark Attard Date

Any exclusion in this brief acknowledgment doesn’t mean a lack of appreciation.

Authorship statement ...................................................................................................................................ii

Table 1: PER Equations ................................................................................................................................................... 37

GEHP Gas Engine Heat Pump

EHP Electrical Heat Pump

VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow

VRV Variable Refrigerant Volume

AHU Air Handling Unit

CHP Combined Heat and Power System

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air - conditioning

COP Coefficient of Performance

PER Primary Energy Ratio

Rpm Refs per minute

LNG Liquefied natural gas

LPG Liquefied petroleum gas

CO2 Carbon dioxide

This study involves a comparative analyses between a GEHP and an EHP.

one of the main expenses of any commercial building.

respect to efficiency, running cost and environmental aspects.

and other equipment.

the EHP was neglected due to the inefficiency of the building.

The following will explain how such results were obtained.

of CO2 emissions. (U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates, 2017)

was running on heavy fuel oil. (Enemalta, n.d.)

1.2 Research aims and objectives

 To do a comparison regarding the efficiency level of each system.

 To do a comparison regarding the running cost of both HPs.

 To do a comparison regarding the CO2 emissions produced by each HP.

1.3 Dissertation outline

 Chapter 2: Literature review

to be implemented for this study.

due to be able to conduct the experiments.

 Chapter 4: Analyses of results and discussion

in order to analyse the two HPs.

 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations

2.1 The basics of a mechanical refrigeration system.

role to form a refrigeration cycle.

Figure 1: Components of a refrigeration cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009)

space. This cycle is also known as the vapour compression cycle.

Therefore, by understanding the process involved in an air-conditioning and refrigeration

Figure 2: Cooling Cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009.)

Figure 3: Heating Cycle (Welch, CIBSE Journal, 2009)

words, it can be described as an exchanged cycle of an air-conditioner. (Althouse, et al., 2004).

2.2 Description of an EHP

while space for the outdoor units is quite restricted.

Figure 5: Main components of VRF/VRV (Fujitsu-General, n.d.)

cooling/heating. Simultaneous cooling/heating can be achieved by introducing heat recovery. This is

2.3 Characteristics of an EHP

and cleaning of coils.

add up to 10%-20% can be avoided, (Goetzler, 2007).

considered as another drawback by the author.

2.4 Description of a GEHP

Figure 8: GHP Basic components (Evercold Technical Services Ltd., 2014)

Figure 9: Engine driven compressors VS Electrical driven compressors

gaining back its overall performance efficiency level.

Figure 10: Combined Heating/Cooling and Power generation (SANYO, 2011)