Experimental evaluation and simulation of a variable refrigerant- flow (VRF) air-conditioning system with outdoor air processing unit

Doo Yong Park, Gyeong Yun, Kang Soo Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) refers to the ability of an air-conditioning (AC) system to control the amount of refrigerant flowing to the multiple evaporators (indoor units). This study compares the actual energy use of a building, equipped with a VRF system with simulation results obtained using EnergyPlus. Also, the aim of this study is to analyze the performance related to energy and thermal comfort when the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with the energy recovery ventilation (ERV) or VRF system with the dedicated outside air system (DOAS). The measured power use of the VRF system is very similar to the simulated power use of the VRF system. The mean value of the difference between simulation and measured data in monthly power use in summer and winter was 3.3% and 3.6%, respectively. The yearly energy use of the VRF system without ventilation is found to be 213.6 kWh/m2 a. The VRF system with ERV in case 4 and the VRF system with DOAS in case 8 are found to be 16.8% and 26.0% higher than the VRF system without ventilation, respectively. Through the entire year, it was found that 17.2% of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system without ventilation in the winter and 16.2% of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. In order to improve the thermal comfort, the setpoint temperature in winter needs to be increased and the humidity in summer needs to be reduced. On the other hand, it was found that 93.9% of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system with DOAS in the winter and 83.8% of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. When the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with DOAS, the thermal comfort percentage is improved during the winter and summer by 76.7% and 67.6%, respectively.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)122-140
Number of pages19
JournalEnergy and Buildings
Volume146
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Jul 1

Fingerprint

Air conditioning
Flow of fluids
Processing
Air
Ventilation
Thermal comfort
Recovery
Refrigerants
Evaporators
Atmospheric humidity

Keywords

  • Dedicated outdoor air system
  • EnergyPlus
  • Field performance measurement
  • Thermal comfort
  • Validation
  • Variable refrigerant flow heat pump

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Building and Construction
  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Cite this

Experimental evaluation and simulation of a variable refrigerant- flow (VRF) air-conditioning system with outdoor air processing unit. / Park, Doo Yong; Yun, Gyeong; Kim, Kang Soo.

In: Energy and Buildings, Vol. 146, 01.07.2017, p. 122-140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{23937b4c024e4618a93e8597ed63cbf8,
title = "Experimental evaluation and simulation of a variable refrigerant- flow (VRF) air-conditioning system with outdoor air processing unit",
abstract = "Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) refers to the ability of an air-conditioning (AC) system to control the amount of refrigerant flowing to the multiple evaporators (indoor units). This study compares the actual energy use of a building, equipped with a VRF system with simulation results obtained using EnergyPlus. Also, the aim of this study is to analyze the performance related to energy and thermal comfort when the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with the energy recovery ventilation (ERV) or VRF system with the dedicated outside air system (DOAS). The measured power use of the VRF system is very similar to the simulated power use of the VRF system. The mean value of the difference between simulation and measured data in monthly power use in summer and winter was 3.3{\%} and 3.6{\%}, respectively. The yearly energy use of the VRF system without ventilation is found to be 213.6 kWh/m2 a. The VRF system with ERV in case 4 and the VRF system with DOAS in case 8 are found to be 16.8{\%} and 26.0{\%} higher than the VRF system without ventilation, respectively. Through the entire year, it was found that 17.2{\%} of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system without ventilation in the winter and 16.2{\%} of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. In order to improve the thermal comfort, the setpoint temperature in winter needs to be increased and the humidity in summer needs to be reduced. On the other hand, it was found that 93.9{\%} of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system with DOAS in the winter and 83.8{\%} of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. When the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with DOAS, the thermal comfort percentage is improved during the winter and summer by 76.7{\%} and 67.6{\%}, respectively.",
keywords = "Dedicated outdoor air system, EnergyPlus, Field performance measurement, Thermal comfort, Validation, Variable refrigerant flow heat pump",
author = "Park, {Doo Yong} and Gyeong Yun and Kim, {Kang Soo}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.026",
language = "English",
volume = "146",
pages = "122--140",
journal = "Energy and Buildings",
issn = "0378-7788",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Experimental evaluation and simulation of a variable refrigerant- flow (VRF) air-conditioning system with outdoor air processing unit

AU - Park, Doo Yong

AU - Yun, Gyeong

AU - Kim, Kang Soo

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) refers to the ability of an air-conditioning (AC) system to control the amount of refrigerant flowing to the multiple evaporators (indoor units). This study compares the actual energy use of a building, equipped with a VRF system with simulation results obtained using EnergyPlus. Also, the aim of this study is to analyze the performance related to energy and thermal comfort when the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with the energy recovery ventilation (ERV) or VRF system with the dedicated outside air system (DOAS). The measured power use of the VRF system is very similar to the simulated power use of the VRF system. The mean value of the difference between simulation and measured data in monthly power use in summer and winter was 3.3% and 3.6%, respectively. The yearly energy use of the VRF system without ventilation is found to be 213.6 kWh/m2 a. The VRF system with ERV in case 4 and the VRF system with DOAS in case 8 are found to be 16.8% and 26.0% higher than the VRF system without ventilation, respectively. Through the entire year, it was found that 17.2% of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system without ventilation in the winter and 16.2% of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. In order to improve the thermal comfort, the setpoint temperature in winter needs to be increased and the humidity in summer needs to be reduced. On the other hand, it was found that 93.9% of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system with DOAS in the winter and 83.8% of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. When the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with DOAS, the thermal comfort percentage is improved during the winter and summer by 76.7% and 67.6%, respectively.

AB - Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) refers to the ability of an air-conditioning (AC) system to control the amount of refrigerant flowing to the multiple evaporators (indoor units). This study compares the actual energy use of a building, equipped with a VRF system with simulation results obtained using EnergyPlus. Also, the aim of this study is to analyze the performance related to energy and thermal comfort when the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with the energy recovery ventilation (ERV) or VRF system with the dedicated outside air system (DOAS). The measured power use of the VRF system is very similar to the simulated power use of the VRF system. The mean value of the difference between simulation and measured data in monthly power use in summer and winter was 3.3% and 3.6%, respectively. The yearly energy use of the VRF system without ventilation is found to be 213.6 kWh/m2 a. The VRF system with ERV in case 4 and the VRF system with DOAS in case 8 are found to be 16.8% and 26.0% higher than the VRF system without ventilation, respectively. Through the entire year, it was found that 17.2% of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system without ventilation in the winter and 16.2% of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. In order to improve the thermal comfort, the setpoint temperature in winter needs to be increased and the humidity in summer needs to be reduced. On the other hand, it was found that 93.9% of indoor air condition data provided by the VRF system with DOAS in the winter and 83.8% of the data in the summer fall within the ASHRAE winter and summer comfort zones. When the VRF system without ventilation is replaced with the VRF system with DOAS, the thermal comfort percentage is improved during the winter and summer by 76.7% and 67.6%, respectively.

KW - Dedicated outdoor air system

KW - EnergyPlus

KW - Field performance measurement

KW - Thermal comfort

KW - Validation

KW - Variable refrigerant flow heat pump

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018300358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018300358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.026

DO - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.026

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85018300358

VL - 146

SP - 122

EP - 140

JO - Energy and Buildings

JF - Energy and Buildings

SN - 0378-7788

ER -