Monitoring the system performance factor of domestic heat pump systems in Flanders (Belgium) Jan Hoogmartens1, Lieve Helsen1, Geeraart Franck2, Willy Van Passel2
1 Department
2
of Mechanical Engineering, K.U.Leuven University College Lessius Mechelen, Campus De Nayer
[email protected]
ISHVAC 2011: The 7th International Sympoium on Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. November 7-9, 2011
Outline • • • • •
Introduction Methodology Results Discussion Conclusion
2
Introduction • 20-20-20 targets – Reduction greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 levels – 20% of EU energy consumption from renewable resources – 20% reduction in primary energy use
• RES-directive – Heat pump uses renewable energy sources
Fast grow of heat pump market
3
Number of sales
Introduction
Fig 1: Market trends heat pump Belgium 2005-2010
• BUT: – Performance in real-life in Flemish context 4
Methodology • SPF
Fig 2: SPF boundary European standard EN 15316-4-2
(QSH + Q DHW ) SPF1 = E 2,3,4,6,7,10 (QSH + Q DHW1) SPF2 = E 2,3,4,6,7,10
Q cond COP = Pcompr 5
Methodology • Selection measurement equipment Accuracy Electrical energy Thermal energy
EN 62053-21 class 1 1 imp/Wh EN 1434 class 3
± 1% Max 5% or 3 + 0.05 qp/q (qp: nominal flow rate; q:operative flow rate)
Pt 500 acc. to EN 60751 ∆T 3…80K M-bus communication
Table 1: Characteristics of installed sensors
SPF ± 0.1
6
Methodology • Selection cases: – 1 W/W – 3 B/W – 11 A/W • Floor heating • New, well insulated dwellings • Combined DHW-SH (except 3/15)
Fig 3: Location field tests
7
Results heat Heat pump Installed pump power type (kW)*
Occupied surface (m²)
Sample period
DHW (Y/N)
Electric stand-by losses measured? (Y/N)
W/W
17.1 (10-35)
256
Oct 09-Ma 11
Y 6.1%
N
H.B/W
8.8 (0-35)
220
Oct 09-Ma 11
Y 3.9%
N
V.B/W
15.4 (0-35)
250
Nov 09-Dec 10
Y
Y
V.B/W
16 (0-35)
290
Nov 09-Ma 11
N
Y
A/W
16.1 (7-35)
200
Nov 09-Ma 11
Y 5.3%
Y
A/W
16.1 (7-35)
280
Nov 09-Dec 10
Y 2.2%
Y
A/W
16.2 (7-35)
350
Oct 09-Dec 10
Y
Y
A/W
9 (2-35)
266
Ma 10-Ma 11
N
Y
A/W
8 (7-35)
200
Oct 09-Ma 11
Y 8.1%
Y
A/W
12 (7-35)
160
Ma 10-Ma 11
Y 6.0%
Y
A/W
10.3 (7-35)
115
Oct 10-Ma 11
N
Y
A/W
16.2 (7-35)
180
Oct 10-Ma 11
Y 8.4%
Y
A/W
13.7 (7-35)
316
Oct 10-Ma 11
Y 5.0%
Y
A/W
8.0 (7-35)
148
Oct 10-Ma 11
Y 5.3%
Y
A/W
6.5 (7-35)
127
Oct10–Ma 11
Y 34.8%
Y
Table 2: Different domestic heat pump systems * test conditions given between brackets in °C 8
Results heat Heat pump Installed pump power type (kW)*
Occupied surface (m²)
Sample period
DHW (Y/N)
Electric stand-by losses measured? (Y/N)
COP *
SPF
W/W
17.1 (10-35)
256
Oct 09-Ma 11
Y 6.1%
N
5.6 (10-35)
SPF2 = 3.9
H.B/W
8.8 (0-35)
220
Oct 09-Ma 11
Y 3.9%
N
4.8 (0-35)
SPF1 = 4.0
V.B/W
15.4 (0-35)
250
Nov 09-Dec 10
Y
Y
4.5 (0-35)
SPF2 = 4.0
V.B/W
16 (0-35)
290
Nov 09-Ma 11
N
Y
prototype
SPF2 = 2.8
A/W
16.1 (7-35)
200
Nov 09-Ma 11
Y 5.3%
Y
4.3 (7-35)
SPF2 = 2.9
A/W
16.1 (7-35)
280
Nov 09-Dec 10
Y 2.2%
Y
4.3 (7-35)
SPF2 = 2.5
A/W
16.2 (7-35)
350
Oct 09-Dec 10
Y
Y
3.9 (7-35)
SPF2 = 2.8
A/W
9 (2-35)
266
Ma 10-Ma 11
N
Y
3.8 (2-35)
SPF1 = 3.3
A/W
8 (7-35)
200
Oct 09-Ma 11
Y 8.1%
Y
4.4 (7-35)
SPF2 = 2.8
A/W
12 (7-35)
160
Ma 10-Ma 11
Y 6.0%
Y
4.3 (7-35)
SPF2 = 2.7
A/W
10.3 (7-35)
115
Oct 10-Ma 11
N
Y
4.0 (7-35)
SPF2 = 3.4
A/W
16.2 (7-35)
180
Oct 10-Ma 11
Y 8.4%
Y
3.9 (7-35)
SPF2 = 3.0
A/W
13.7 (7-35)
316
Oct 10-Ma 11
Y 5.0%
Y
4.0 (7-35)
SPF2 = 3.7
A/W
8.0 (7-35)
148
Oct 10-Ma 11
Y 5.3%
Y
4.0 (7-35)
SPF2 = 3.0
A/W
6.5 (7-35)
127
Oct10–Ma 11
Y 34.8%
Y
4.0 (7-35)
SPF2 = 2.5
Table 3: COP- SPF of different domestic heat pump systems * test conditions given between brackets in °C 9
Results • Average SPF: – Geothermal: 3.7 – Air: • 3.0 (all) • 2.8 (all – 5 added in October 2010)
10
Fig 4: Parity plot of COP catalogue data and SPF measured SPF data
March '1'1
February '1'1
January '1'1
December '10
November '10
October '10
September '10
August '10
July '10
June '10
May '10
April '10
March '10
February '10
January '10
December '09
November '09
October '09
Results
• Monthly Performance Factor (MPF) Outdoor temperature Uccle (°C)
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Fig 5: Monthly average outdoor temperature Uccle (Belgium) 11
Results • Monthly performance factor (MPF):
Fig 6: Monthly performance factor (MPF)
12
Discussion • Comparison foreign field test: – Fraunhofer (Germany) • Geothermal: 3.8 • Air: 2.9
– Energy Saving Trust (UK) • Geothermal: 2.4 • Air: 2.0
13
Conclusion • Good system performance Large savings possible • Large difference in lab tested COP-data and real-life SPF-data • Low summer SPF: – DHW – Low impact on yearly SPF
• Feedback to design phase
14
Acknowledgement Collective Research Project WP-DIRECT Funded by: Flemish Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)
15
Questions
16
