4.5 Article

Performance comparison of a vertical direct expansion geothermal evaporator: Part I, single U-pipe using different refrigerants

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REFRIGERATION
Volume 116, Issue -, Pages 119-128

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2020.03.024

Keywords

Direct expansion evaporator; Borehole heat exchanger; Refrigerants; Simulations

Funding

  1. Office of Energy Research and Development (OERD) of Canada through the Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CO2 is a promising candidate for replacing synthetic refrigerants used in direct-expansion ground-source heat pumps (DX-GSHPs). The present paper, as the first part of two, presents a numerical performance comparison of a vertical single U-pipe direct expansion geothermal evaporator using different refrigerants; namely R744, R410A, R22, R407C, R12345yf, and R134a. Each refrigerant was tested through a bore-hole heat exchanger (BHE) performance simulation at a constant rate of heat extraction. Operating parameters were chosen so that each refrigerant is subjected to a complete evaporation cycle, and a similar pressure drop from the inlet to outlet of the borehole. Several BHE parameters such as fluid temperature, pressure, mass flow rate, required pipe dimensions, and required power for fluid circulation were evaluated for different refrigerants. Finally, the overall performance of each refrigerant was characterized by the heat exchange capacity for a unit of mass flow rate and pipe surface area. Results showed that CO2 offers unique characteristics favoring the design of compact BHEs, as it required the smallest mass flow and pipe surface area. It is also concluded that the performance of a BHE with CO2 can be significantly improved through using unconventional configurations. This will be discussed further in the second part (PART II). Crown Copyright (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available