SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This report, Humidity and Variable Refrigerant Flow Operation in Multifamily Buildings, explores humidity control and variable refrigerant flow system efficiency in three new multifamily buildings in New York City.
Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems have become common in large multifamily buildings. The upfront cost is appealing to developers, as a single system can provide all heating and cooling. VRF systems also use no on-site fossil fuels which can help avoid greenhouse gas emissions. However, there have been very few data on how VRF systems actually perform in buildings. Researchers monitored three new, multifamily buildings with a focus on VRF system sizing, humidity control, and energy efficiency.
This documentation focuses on a single end-use savings shape upgrade - a variable refrigerant flow with heat recovery (VRF HR) heating and cooling system coupled with a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) for ventilation and where 25% upsizing (or 125% of the original size) is allowed for heating in colder climates (i.e., heating dominant regions). This document will primarily discuss the additional changes to the sizing algorithm and modeling approach, while a comprehensive overview of the fundamental modeling methodology and background of the VRF HR DOAS upgrade, including applicability and other key assumptions can be found in the original documentation: Variable Refrigerant Flow with Heat Recovery and Dedicated Outdoor Air System. To provide more context on the 25% upsizing algorithm, if the building is a cooling dominant (e.g., design cooling load higher than design heating load ), then the outdoor unit capacity of the VRF heat pump is sized based on the design cooling load. However, if the building is heating dominant, then this building is a candidate for the 25% upsizing allowance. Once the 25% upsizing is allowed, if the 25% upsized capacity (or 125% from the original size) represented with design condition exceeds the design heating load, then the design heating load is used for calculating the rated capacity of the outdoor unit. And if the 25% upsized capacity represented with the design condition does not exceed the design heating load, then the 25% upsized capacity represented with rated condition is used for the capacity of the outdoor unit while the remaining heating load is handled with the supplemental/backup electric resistance coil.
Combi heat pump systems, also referred to multifunctional variable refrigerant flow heat recovery (MF-VRFHR) systems, are specifically designed for residential applications to manage both space conditioning and domestic hot water (DHW). They have attracted attention due to their potential for energy conservation through heat recovery. The incorporation of a hot water tank introduces various system configurations, each characterized by distinct pros and cons related to energy efficiency, system stability, and maintenance. Despite this, a critical gap exists as the specific energy performance remains unquantified under diverse operational modes (e.g., heating mode and heat recovery mode). This paper aims to bridge this gap by conducting a comprehensive comparative analysis of two prevalent system configurations while considering feasible proposed control logics. Configuration 1 integrates a separate hot water tank and a refrigerant-to-water heat exchanger (HEX), also known as a Hydro Kit while Configuration 2 incorporates a refrigerant-wrapped hot water tank. To facilitate this analysis, we developed high-fidelity system models for both configurations in Modelica, capturing system dynamics and detailed control sequences effectively. These system models were built upon the TIL library for HVAC equipment components and the Buildings library for residential building thermal load calculations. The validation of the simulation testbed utilized data from experiments conducted in the PNNL lab home for Configuration 1. To establish the simulation testbed for Configuration 2, we extended the modeling setup derived from Configuration 1. This extension specifically involved substituting the separate hot water tank and Hydro Kit with a refrigerant-wrapped hot water tank of similar sizing sourced from an actual product. The simulation analysis of heating-only and heat recovery modes reveals that Configuration 2 not only saves energy and maintains warmer tank temperatures but also demonstrates faster water heating capabilities. This is attributed to decreased energy loss and improved heat transfer. The study encompasses a wide range of scenarios, considering diverse thermal loads and water usage patterns across heating and heat recovery modes. Overall, the comprehensive results indicate that Configuration 2 achieves energy savings ranging from 3.5% to 12.2% compared to Configuration 1, depending on factors such as water usage patterns, thermal loads, and operational modes.