Jeffrey D Munk

Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation for High-Ambient-Temperature Environments: R-22 and R-410A Alternatives for Mini-Split Air Conditioners

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) High-Ambient Temperature Testing Program for Low-GWP Refrigerants aims to develop an understanding of the performance of low-Global Warming Potential (low-GWP) alternatives to Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants in mini-split air conditioners under high ambient temperature conditions. This interim working paper describes the parties involved, the alternative refrigerants selection process, the test procedures, and the preliminary results.

Ground Source Integrated Heat Pump (GS-IHP) Development

Between October 2008 and May 2013 ORNL and ClimateMaster, Inc. (CM) engaged in a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to develop a groundsource integrated heat pump (GS-IHP) system for the US residential market. A initial prototype was designed and fabricated, lab-tested, and modeled in TRNSYS (SOLAR Energy Laboratory, et al, 2010) to predict annual performance relative to 1) a baseline suite of equipment meeting minimum efficiency standards in effect in 2006 (combination of air-source heat pump (ASHP) and resistance water heater) and 2) a state-of-the-art (SOA) two-capacity ground-source heat pump with desuperheater water heater (WH) option (GSHPwDS). Predicted total annual energy savings, while providing space conditioning and water heating for a 2600 ft{sup 2} (242 m{sup 2}) house at 5 U.S. locations, ranged from 52 to 59%, averaging 55%, relative to the minimum efficiency suite. Predicted energy use for water heating was reduced 68 to 78% relative to resistance WH. Predicted total annual savings for the GSHPwDS relative to the same baseline averaged 22.6% with water heating energy use reduced by 10 to 30% from desuperheater contributions. The 1st generation (or alpha) prototype design for the GS-IHP was finalized in 2010 and field test samples were fabricated for testing by CM and by ORNL. Two of the alpha units were installed in 3700 ft{sup 2} (345 m{sup 2}) houses at the ZEBRAlliance site in Oak Ridge and field tested during 2011. Based on the steady-state performance demonstrated by the GS-IHPs it was projected that it would achieve >52% energy savings relative to the minimum efficiency suite at this specific site. A number of operational issues with the alpha units were identified indicating design changes needed to the system before market introduction could be accomplished. These were communicated to CM throughout the field test period. Based on the alpha unit test results and the diagnostic information coming from the field test experience, CM developed a 2nd generation (or beta) prototype in 2012. Field test verification units were fabricated and installed at the ZEBRAlliance site in Oak Ridge in May 2012 and at several sites near CM headquarters in Oklahoma. Field testing of the units continued through February 2013. Annual performance analyses of the beta unit (prototype 2) with vertical well ground heat exchangers (GHX) in 5 U.S. locations predict annual energy savings of 57% to 61%, averaging 59% relative to the minimum efficiency suite and 38% to 56%, averaging 46% relative to the SOA GSHPwDS. Based on the steady-state performance demonstrated by the test units it was projected that the 2nd generation units would achieve ~58% energy savings relative to the minimum efficiency suite at the Zebra Alliance site with horizontal GHX. A new product based on the beta unit design was announced by CM in 2012 – the Trilogy 40® Q-mode™ (http://cmdealernet.com/trilogy_40.html). The unit was formally introduced in a March 2012 press release (see Appendix A) and was available for order beginning in December 2012.

Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform

The energy performance of a variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system was evaluated using an occupancy-emulated research building in the southeastern region of the United States. Full- and part-load performance of the VRF system in heating and cooling seasons was compared with a conventional rooftop unit (RTU) variable-air-volume system with electric resistance heating. During both the heating and cooling seasons, full- and part-load conditions (i.e., 100%, 75%, and 50% thermal loads) were maintained alternately for 2 to 3 days each, and the energy use, thermal conditions, and coefficient of performance (COP) for the RTU and VRF system were measured. During the cooling season, the VRF system had an average COP of 4.2, 3.9, and 3.7 compared with 3.1, 3.0, and 2.5 for the RTU system under 100%, 75%, and 50% load conditions and resulted in estimated energy savings of 30%, 37%, and 47%, respectively. During the heating season, the VRF system had an average COP ranging from 1.2 to 2.0, substantially higher than the COPs of the RTU system, and resulted in estimated energy savings of 51%, 47%, and 27% under the three load conditions, respectively.

Final review of the Campbell Creek demonstrations showcased by Tennessee Valley Authority

Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Fig. 7. Resistance heat use in the builders home (CC1) with the original single-speed heat pumps and also with the Carrier Greenspeed™ variable-speed air-source heat pumps. Data is from the same time periods shown in Fig. vii ACRONYMS ACH air exchange rate ccSPF closed cell spray polyurethane foam insulation DHW domestic hot water Dish W dish washer ECM electrically commutated motor EF energy factor EPRI Electric Power Research Institute HERS home energy rating score HP heat pump HPWH heat pump water heater HSPF heating seasonal performance factor LF load factor NFRC National Fenestration Rating Council ocSPF open cell spray polyurethane foam insulation OSB oriented strand board Plugs electrical plug loads RESNET® Residential Energy Services Network SEER seasonal energy efficiency ratio SHR sensible heat ratio SHW solar hot water TV television Wash washer WH water heater XPS extruded polystyrene insulation ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Performance of Variable Capacity Heat Pumps in a Mixed Humid Climate

Variable capacity heat pumps represent the next wave of technology for heat pumps. In this report, the performance of two variable capacity heat pumps (HPs) is compared to that of a single or two stage baseline system. The units were installed in two existing research houses located in Knoxville, TN. These houses were instrumented to collect energy use and temperature data while both the baseline systems and variable capacity systems were installed. The homes had computer controlled simulated occupancy, which provided consistent schedules for hot water use and lighting. The temperature control and energy use of the systems were compared during both the heating and cooling seasons. Multiple linear regression models were used along with TMY3 data for Knoxville, TN in order to normalize the effect that the outdoor air temperature has on energy use. This enables a prediction of each systems energy use over a year with the same weather. The first system was a multi-split system consisting of 8 indoor units and a single outdoor unit. This system replaced a 16 SEER single stage HP with a zoning system, which served as the baseline. Data was collected on the baseline system from August 2009 to December 2010 and on the multi-split system from January 2011 to January 2012. Soon after the installation of the multi-split system, some of the smaller rooms began over-conditioning. This was determined to be caused by a small amount of continuous refrigerant flow to all of the indoor units when the outdoor unit was running regardless of whether they were calling for heat. This, coupled with the fact that the indoor fans run continuously, was providing enough heat in some rooms to exceed the set point. In order to address this, the indoor fans were disabled when not actively heating per the manufacturers recommendation. Based on the measured data, the multi-split system was predicted to use 40% more energy in the heating season and 16% more energy in the cooling season than the baseline system, for the typical meteorological year weather data. The AHRI ratings indicated that the baseline system would perform slightly better than the multi-split system, but not by as large of a margin as seen in this study. The multi-split system was able to maintain more consistent temperature throughout the house than the baseline system, but it did allow relative humidity levels to increase above 60% in the summer. The second system was a split system with an inverter driven compressor and a single ducted air handler. This unit replaced a 16 SEER two stage HP with a zoning system. Data was collected on the baseline system from July 2009 to November 2010 and on the ducted inverter system from December 2010 to January 2012. The ducted inverter system did not offer a zone controller, so it functioned as a single zone system. Due to this fact, the registers had to be manually adjusted in order to better maintain consistent temperatures between the two levels of the house. The predicted heating season energy use for the ducted inverter system, based on the measured energy use, was 30% less than that of the baseline system for the typical meteorological year. However, the baseline system was unable to operate in its high stage due to a wiring issue with the zone controller. This resulted in additional resistance heat use during the winter and therefore higher energy use than would be expected in a properly performing unit. The AHRI ratings would indicate that the baseline system would use less energy than the ducted inverter system, which is opposite to the results of this study. During the cooling season, the ducted inverter system was predicted to use 23% more energy than the baseline system during the typical meteorological year. This is also opposite of the results expected by comparing the AHRI ratings. After a detailed comparison of the ducted inverter systems power use compared to that of a recently installed identical system at a retro-fit study house, there is concern that the unit is not operating as intended. The power use and cycles indicate that the unit is performing more like a single stage unit than a variable capacity unit. Analysis of the data indicates that a change in operating behavior occurred during a service call shortly after the installation of the unit. The logbook only indicates that refrigerant charge was added, but does not indicate any other change. This is being investigated further. While the energy comparison results of these two variable capacity heat pumps is generally underwhelming, it is difficult to draw any hard conclusions about the maximum attainable efficiency of these units when optimally installed. Both units appear to have undesirable conditions associated with the installation or operation, which could have had an adverse effect on their energy use.