RESULTS

Experiment 1: Determination of power input, heat output and coefficient of performance

Cooling Water Flow Rate, FT1 % 40
Cooling Water Inlet Temperature, TT5 C 29.0
Cooling Water Outlet Temperature, TT6 C 30.4
Compressor Power Input W 164
Experiment 2: Production of heat pump performance curves over a range of source and delivery
temperatures















0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
31.1 30.4 30.2
C
O
P

P
o
w
e
r

I
n
p
u
t

&

O
u
t
p
u
t

(
W
)

Cooling Water Outlet Temperature (
o
C)
Performance of Heat Pump VS Cooling
Water Outlet Temperature
Power Input
Heat Output
COP
Test 1 2 3
Cooling Water Flow
Rate, FT1
% 30 40 50
Cooling Water Inlet
Temperature, TT5
C 29.2 29.0 29.2
Cooling Water Outlet
Temperature, TT6
C 31.1 30.4 30.2
Compressor Power
Input
W 161 160 160
Heat Output W 132.37 97.53 69.67
COP
H
- 0.822 0.610 0.435
Experiment 3: Production of vapour compression cycle on p-h diagram and energy balance study

Refrigerant Flow Rate, FT2 % 58.6
Refrigerant Pressure (Low), P1 Bar(abs) 2.0
Refrigerant Pressure (High), P2 Bar(abs) 5.0
Refrigerant Temperature, TT1 C 28.4
Refrigerant Temperature, TT2 C 79.4
Refrigerant Temperature, TT3 C 30.9
Refrigerant Temperature, TT4 C 24.2
Cooling Water Flow Rate, FT1 % 40.0
Cooling Water Inlet Temperature, TT5 C 30.4
Cooling Water Outlet Temperature, TT6 C 31.9
Compressor Power Input W 163.0
Experiment 4: Production of heat pump performance curves over a range of evaporating and
condensation temperatures
Test 1 2 3
Refrigerant Flow Rate,
FT2
% 58.1 58.6 58.2
Refrigerant Pressure
(Low), P1
Bar(abs) 2.0 1.9 2.0
Refrigerant Pressure
(High), P2
Bar(abs) 7.2 7.1 7.1
Refrigerant
Temperature, TT1
C 27.6 27.4 27.5
Refrigerant
Temperature, TT2
C 80.2 77.1 78.6
Refrigerant
Temperature, TT3
C 30.3 29.7 29.5
Refrigerant
Temperature, TT4
C 23.4 23.0 23.1
Enthalpy 1 (P1, TT1) kJ/kg 425 425 425
Enthalpy 2 (P2, TT2) kJ/kg 440 450 448
Enthalpy 3 (P2, TT3) kJ/kg 240 245 245
Evaporating
Temperature (TT4)
C 23.4 23.0 23.1
Condensing
Temperature
C 25.0 23.0 22.5
Compressor Power
Input
W 161 162 160
Heat Delivered in
Condenser
(Refrigerant)
W 1146.8 1175.5 1164.0







0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
25 23 22.5
C
O
P

P
o
w
e
r

I
n
p
u
t

&

O
u
t
p
u
t

(
W
)

Condensing Temperature (
O
C)
Performance of Heat Pump VS
Condensing Temperature
Heat Output
Power Input
COP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
23.4 23 23.1
C
O
P

P
o
w
e
r

I
n
p
u
t

&

O
u
t
p
u
t

(
W
)

Evaporating Temperature (
o
C)
Performance of Heat Pump VS
Evaporating Temperature
Power Input
Heat Output
COP
COPH -
1.22 1.66 2.3
Experiment 5 : Estimation of the effect of compressor pressure ratio on volumetric
efficiency.


Refrigerant Flow Rate , FT2


%

58.6

Refrigerant Pressure (Low) , P1


Bar(abs)

2.0

Refrigerant Pressure (High) , P2


Bar(abs)

7.0

Refrigerant Temperature , TT1




28.6

















CALCULATION

Experiment 1 & 2:
For cooling water flowrate is 40%,

Heat Output
1.0 L
min

1 L
kg

1 min
60 s

4180 J
kg. K
(30 - 29.4)
69.67 W

COP
H

Heat Output
Power Input


W
164 W

= 0.425














Experiment 3 & 4:
Energy Balance on the Condenser

Refrigerant mass flow rate

0.3 Liter
min

1 min
60 s

0.001
1 Liter

1146.8 kg
m3

0.0057 kg/s


Heat transfer from the refrigerant

0.0057 kg
s

1000 J
kg
(440-240)
1146.80 W

Heat transfer to the cooling water
1.0 L
min

1 L
kg

1 min
60 s

4180 J
kg. K
(30 - 29.0)
97.53 W

Energy Balance on the Compressor

Power Input 161 W

Heat transfer to the refrigerant
0.0057 kg
s

1000 J
kg
(440-425)
W

Heat loss to surroundings = 161 85.5
= 75.5 W
Experiment 5
Compressor pressure ratio
=

= 3.5
Refrigerant mass flowrate
=

= 0.0057
Volumetric flow rate of refrigerant at the compressor suction, V1
=Refrigerant mass flowrate specific volume of refrigerant at compressor suction
=0.0057 kg/s 0.059

/kg
=0.00034

/ s

Compressor swept volume

=2800

/rev

=4.13


/ s

Volumetric Efficiency =




=

100 %

= 81.91 %







DISCUSSION

In experiment 1, the objective is to determine the power input, heat output and coefficient of
performance of a vapour compression heat pump system. The power input is 164 W, the heat
ouput calculated is 69.67 W and the coefficient of performance of heat pump is 0.425.
In experiment 2, different flow rate of cooling water is used. From the graph plotted, it can be
seen that as the flow rate of cooling water increases, the outlet temperature decreases, the heat
output thus decreases the coefficient of performance of heat pump.
As for experiment 3, the results recorded were plotted in the graph of DuPont
Fluorochemicals HFC-134a Pressure Enthalpy Diagram. The graph plotted is compared to the
ideal cycle. Many differences can be detected from the two graph plotted and the ideal cycle.
This may be due to the power loss to the surrounding. The energy balance for the experiment is
calculated. The calculated values were different to the theoretical value.
In experiment 4, the objective is to plot the performance of heat pump over a range of
evaporating and condensation temperatures which are the saturation temperature at condensing
pressure. The two graphs are shown in results section.
For the performance of heat pump against condensing temperature graph, when the
condensing temperature is 25
O
C, the heat output is 75.5 W and the coefficient of performance of
heat pump is 2.13. At condensing temperature is 23
O
C, the heat output decreased to 19.5W and
the coefficient of performance increased to 8.31 whereas at condensing temperature of 22.5
O
C,
the heat output increased to 28.9W and the coefficient of performance decreased to 5.54.
For the performance of heat pump against evaporating temperature graph, when the
condensing temperature is 23.4
O
C, the heat output is 75.5 W and the coefficient of performance
of heat pump is 2.13. At condensing temperature is 23
O
C, the heat output decreased to 19.5W
and the coefficient of performance increased to 8.31 whereas at condensing temperature of
23.1
O
C, the heat output increased to 28.9W and the coefficient of performance decreased to
5.54.

CONCLUSION

To be concluded, the objectives of the four experiments are achieved. From the results, we can
see that this system cannot be considered as ideal cycle because it is not possible to achieve the
theoretical results in real life as many aspects need to be considered.