Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PII: S1359-4311(16)31988-3
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.01.023
Reference: ATE 9787
Please cite this article as: R. Zhao, D. Huang, Y. Leng, Z. Zhang, Effect of water maldistribution in multi-circuit
evaporator on superheat control dynamics of thermostatic-expansion-valve refrigeration system, Applied Thermal
Engineering (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.01.023
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Effect of water maldistribution in multi-circuit evaporator on
superheat control dynamics of thermostatic-expansion-valve
refrigeration system
Rijing Zhao, Dong Huang , Yongqiang Leng, Zhenya Zhang
Department of Refrigeration & Cryogenic Engineering, School of Energy and Power Engineering,
Abstract
system was studied experimentally. The evaporator had two circuits, with the overall
Circuit 2 (F2) from 36.9% to 9.1%, the system underwent the stable period (F2 from
36.9% to 27.0%) and the hunting period (F2 from 21.2% to 9.1%) sequentially. In the
latter period, temperature and pressure parameters of the evaporator oscillated over
time. Moreover, the lag of evaporator outlet temperature responses behind TEV
actions was found and considered to be a reason of hunting. The resultant superheat
oscillation dynamics were also analyzed at both circuit outlets and the overall outlet,
and we found that evaporator overall outlet superheat was highly influenced by the
non-uniform water distribution and the final merging of the paralleled circuits.
1
1. Introduction
simplicity, high reliability and adaptiveness under wider working conditions. However,
under some conditions. In this case of operation, the opening and closing of the TEV
TEV-controlled systems [1]; therefore it has been widely discussed in the last decades.
Generally, there are two different views towards the possible causes of hunting.
The first one is the inherent unstable nature of the two-phase refrigerant flow. Zahn [2]
first covered the random oscillation of refrigerant liquid-vapor transition plane. Then,
Wedekind and Stocker [3], Wedekind [4] demonstrated that the transition plane
oscillation would cause temperature fluctuations on the evaporator tube wall where
the TEV-bulb was located, thus evoking the hunting behavior. Huelle [5] found that
the evaporator outlet temperature would fluctuate if the degree of superheat was
below a critical value, and introduced the MSS (minimal stable signal) theory. Yasuda
et al. [6] found that the transition plane oscillation would cause changes in refrigerant
side heat transfer coefficient, which might be the reason of hunting. Chen et al. [7]
evaporator. Results showed that the heat transfer mechanism in refrigerant side
2
changed from nucleate boiling to forced convection boiling once the evaporator
superheat dropped below a critical value, and the greatly reduced coefficient might
lead to the hunting behavior. On the other hand, the TEV-evaporator system operating
covered the effect of several operating parameters, including the system transportation
lag [8], TEV time constants [9-12], and the static superheat setting [13, 14]. Results
showed that all these parameters above influenced the stability of the TEV-controlled
whose outlet superheat was merely a result of the refrigerant flowrate and its capacity.
Currently, the multi-circuit evaporator is more widely used due to its energy-saving
superheat is determined by not only the refrigerant flowrate and the capacity of each
circuit, but also the merging of refrigerant from all circuits. Besides, the multi-circuit
evaporator often suffers from the problems of air/water maldistribution [15-20] and
refrigerant maldistribution [21-24]. The former may significantly reduce the capacity
strategies to deal with the performance deterioration [19, 20]. Moreover, air/water
maldistribution could also deteriorate system stability. Previous work of the authors
[25, 26] showed that under certain conditions, liquid refrigerant was not completely
evaporated and flowed out of the circuits with smaller air/water flowrate. However,
the superheated vapor from other circuits provided only sensible heat and could
3
hardly evaporate the liquid refrigerant. Therefore, the overall outlet was of a smaller
superheat than the necessary MSS of TEV, evoking hunting in the feedback control
loop.
hunting mainly focused on its possible reasons, but little attention was paid specially
evaporator outlet, and the oscillatory opening and closing of TEV in turn aggravates
its fluctuation. Therefore, the evaporator outlet superheat is actually a vital parameter
in system stability, and its control dynamics should be explored deeply, especially
real appliances, and the refrigerant distribution and merging among circuits would
make the hunting behavior more complicated and influential. However, little work has
multi-circuit evaporators, and its effect has been studied extensively regarding the
systems, but few studies were found in open literature except for the two by the
authors [25, 26]. Finally, it is notable that most researches on the effect of air/water
[15-17]. However, it is not the case in real applications. The variations in air/water
distribution would change the overall flow resistance, thus inevitably altering the
4
overall flowrate. Moreover, the changed overall flowrate often exerts additional
was a pertinent study of the previous work [26], but with different objectives. This
article addressed superheat control dynamics of the two-circuit evaporator, while Ref.
[26] paid special attention to its heat transfer performance. Therefore, this article
mainly focused on the hunting period of the system, but Ref. [26] covered both the
stable period and the hunting period to conduct a comparative study. Besides, the
superheat control dynamics were studied in this article experimentally. However, the
heat transfer performance was explored in Ref. [26] mainly in simulation ways.
TEV loop, two environmental simulation rooms and a set of data acquisition system,
as shown in Fig.1.
The specifications of main components in the test loop are listed in Table 1,
including the compressor, the condenser, the TEV and the evaporator. The evaporator
had two circuits coiled up from two double-pipes with the same length. Water flowed
inside the inner pipe while refrigerant flowed in the annulus in the same direction.
Besides, a regulating valve was installed downstream of one circuit, labelled Circuit 2,
to alter water flow percentages between the paralleled two circuits. The TEV was an
externally equalized type, as schematically shown in Fig.2. Three pressures act on the
5
valve diaphragm during working: the spring pressure P3, the evaporating pressure P0
detected at the overall outlet of the evaporator and the bulb pressure P1 converted
from the overall outlet temperature of the evaporator through the sensing medium in
the bulb. The static superheat (SS), which is the minimum superheat that could just
offset the initial tension of the spring and force TEV to open, was 5 K in this research.
Under stable working conditions, these forces reach balance, i.e. P1=P0+P3. Therefore,
refrigerant superheat at the overall outlet should be larger than the SS, depending on
the heat load of the evaporator. The evaporating temperature limit for TEV was
-40~10 . Detailed information about the test loop and the environmental rooms was
The data acquisition system automatically collected and stored experimental data
during the tests. Temperature sensors, pressure sensors and water flowmeters were
calibrated before using, and were positioned as shown in Fig.1. The temperature
sensors were T-type thermocouples with the relative error of 0.2 over the effective
measurement range of -30~120 . The relative error of pressure sensors over 0~25
bar was 0.25%, while that of water flowmeters was 0.50% with the water flowrate
below 0.28 kgs-1. Uncertainties reported in this article were summarized in Table 2,
where the relative error for calculated parameters was estimated following the method
The refrigerant was R22, and its charge 1.3 kg was determined when maximum
capacity of the evaporator was achieved under Chinese Standard GB/T 7725-2004,
6
without exceeding the limit of evaporating temperature for TEV. Note that the
Standard GB/T 7725-2004 was established for the split-type room air conditioner, but
also applied well for our setup. The reason was that in practical application, the
refrigerant plant would be placed outside the living space to generate cold water,
while the fan-coil unit inside the living space to release the cooling capacity stored in
the cold water. The ambience for the refrigeration plant and the fan-coil unit was
similar with that for the outdoor and indoor coils of the split-type air conditioner,
respectively; thus, we borrowed this standard when setting the experiment conditions
in our research.
Tests of the TEV control loop was conducted by gradually increasing water
maldistribution rate between the paralleled two circuits of the evaporator, as described
in Ref. [26]. The studied 7 sets of water percentages were shown in Table 3. It was
notable that the overall water flowrate decreased slightly with F2. It was inevitable,
because the local resistance in Circuit 2 increased due to the closing of the flow
regulation valve, and the on-way resistance in Circuit 1 increased because of higher
water flow velocity. As a result, the overall water flow resistance increased and
reduced the overall water flowrate slightly under the constant 115-W water pump
power.
Stability of the TEV control loop was covered in the previous study [26].
Generally speaking, the system underwent the stable period (F2 from 36.9% to 27.0%)
and the hunting period (F2 from 21.2% to 9.1%) sequentially with water
7
maldistribution rate increased. The latter hunting period was triggered by the smaller
superheat at the evaporator overall outlet than the MSS of TEV, because unevaporated
liquid refrigerant from Circuit 2 with smaller water flowrate was hardly evaporated by
the superheated vapor from Circuit 1 with F2 below 27.0%, which would inevitably
evoke hunting in the TEV control loop according to the MSS theory [5].
3.2 Lag between TEV actions and temperature responses at evaporator outlet
The externally equalized TEV detected pressure and temperature at the overall
outlet of the evaporator to regulate refrigerant flow. Fig.3~6 illustrated the variations
in evaporator parameters when F2 was 21.2%, 17.6%, 13.7% and 9.1%, respectively,
including the overall inlet pressure, the overall outlet pressure and the overall outlet
temperature. The same moment was taken as 0 min for all curves in each figure. Note
that valleys and peaks in the overall inlet pressure curve could denote the time TEV
started to open and close, respectively, because the pressure sensor was located close
to the TEV.
Fig.3~6 showed that pressure and temperature at the evaporator overall outlet
instantly each time TEV started to open or close, respectively. However, the overall
outlet temperature always responded later. When F2 was 9.1% (Fig.6), for example,
the overall outlet temperature ascended 5~10s after TEV closing, and descended
20~25s later than TEV opening within the illustrated period. Obviously, there existed
a hug lag in temperature responses at the evaporator overall outlet behind TEV actions.
Besides, the lag for TEV opening was larger than that for TEV closing, and the greatly
8
the evaporator might be the reason. The other three cases when F2 was 21.2%, 17.6%
and 13.7% had similar trend, which would not be repeated here.
Several factors might account for this lag. First, it took some time for refrigerant
to flow from the inlet to the outlet of the evaporator, since each circuit was 5.7-meter
long. Second, it also needed some time for the evaporation of refrigerant to actually
cool down the evaporator tube wall, because the steel material had a considerable
thermal capacity. Third, the response of the thermocouple to the temperature change
on the evaporator surface was not instant because of the contact resistance between
them. For the actual TEV bulb, this contact resistance also exists. Besides, the thermal
capacity of the bulb and the capillary resistance in the pipe connecting the bulb and
This lag might be a reason for the hunting behavior in TEV-evaporator systems.
Assuming the occasion when TEV has opened enough for the adequate refrigerant to
relieve the starvation of the evaporator. Since it would be several seconds later that the
evaporator outlet temperature could response to this opening and the evaporator outlet
superheat right now was still higher, the TEV had to open wider until the moment
evaporator outlet superheat reached the target value. Then, the over-opened TEV
would inevitably lead to flooding in the evaporator later. Similarly, the subsequent
over-closing of TEV would result in starvation in the evaporator again due to the lag.
Consequently, the TEV would open and close in an oscillatory manner, i.e. hunting
took place.
3.3 Superheat control dynamics
Fig.7~9 showed the calculated superheat at the overall outlet and both circuit
9
outlets under the representative 4 sets of water percentages. Not surprisingly, the
parameters, i.e. steady with F2 from 36.9% to 27.0%, but oscillated when F2 was from
21.2% to 9.1%. It was noteworthy that the calculated superheat in this article was
larger than the actual one, because the higher tube wall temperature was used to
represent the real refrigerant temperature. However, its oscillation amplitude, defined
as the difference between the maximum and minimum values under hunting
conditions, was relatively accurate and meaningful for exploring the TEV control
circuit outlets and the overall outlet under different water percentages. With F2 from
36.9% to 27.0%, all the three curves overlapped and shared the value close to zero
due to stable system operation. With F2 from 21.2% to 9.1%, by contrast, the
superheat oscillation amplitudes in all the three curves increased monotonously except
that at Circuit 2 outlet, which increased first but levelled off then after F2 was below
outlet was the largest under hunting conditions, followed by that at the Circuit 2 outlet
hunting conditions: the variation in refrigerant supply, and the unstable nature of
two-phase refrigerant at the evaporator outlet. Fig.7 showed that the overall outlet
superheat generally decreased with F2. The reason was that the increased water
10
maldistribution rate created more liquid refrigerant exiting Circuit 2 with smaller
water percentage, which was hardly offset by the increased superheat at Circuit 1
outlet because the sensible heat of refrigerant was smaller than the latent heat.
Therefore, the overall outlet superheat reduced, though TEV closed in response and
compensate for part of its reduction. Under hunting conditions, the decrease in the
overall outlet superheat would call for the wider regulation of TEV and then a larger
at Circuit 2 outlet and the overall outlet would randomly hit the tube wall and
vaporize, thus reducing its surface temperature and the calculated superheat there.
Since the liquid refrigerant existed only when the evaporator outlet superheat was
Circuit 1 outlet was superheated under all the 7 sets of water percentage; hence,
the superheat oscillation amplitude there could only increase with larger fluctuation in
refrigerant supply when F2 decreased under hunting conditions. For Circuit 2 outlet
and the overall outlet, by contrast, the superheat oscillation there was also affected by
the unevaporated liquid refrigerant under hunting conditions. With F2 from 21.2% to
17.6%, the liquid refrigerant increased at both Circuit 2 outlet and the overall outlet,
which could enlarge refrigerant droplets or enhance the frequency of their hitting the
tube wall; thus, the superheat oscillation amplitude increased due to the combined
effect of the increased liquid refrigerant fraction and the larger fluctuation in
refrigerant flowrate. With F2 from 17.6% to 9.1%, however, the liquid fraction at
11
Circuit 2 outlet might have exceeded a critical value where the liquid-vapor two-phase
refrigerant low turned into more stable regime. The continuous contact between the
liquid refrigerant and the tube wall declined the magnifying effect on superheat
oscillation; thus, the superheat oscillation amplitude at Circuit 2 outlet levelled off
under the trade-off between the stable flow regime and the larger fluctuation in
refrigerant flowrate. By contrast, the liquid fraction at the overall outlet never reached
this critical value, because the refrigerant flowrate was amplified after the merging of
two streams from both circuits. Besides, some liquid refrigerant was evaporated by
the superheated vapor from Circuit 1. Therefore, superheat oscillation amplitude there
Moreover, since the overall outlet had the largest variation in refrigerant flowrate,
and stable two-phase regime hardly formed, the superheat oscillation amplitude there
was the largest under hunting conditions, followed by that at Circuit 2 outlet. Circuit 1
outlet was always superheated without the magnifying effect of unevaporated liquid
refrigerant, so the superheat oscillation amplitude at Circuit 1 outlet was the smallest.
4 Conclusions
dynamics of TEV system was studied experimentally. With smaller water percentage
of Circuit 2 (F2) dropped from 36.9% to 9.1%, the system experienced the stable
period (F2 from 36.9% to 27.0%) and the hunting period (F2 from 21.2% to 9.1%)
12
further reducing the overall outlet superheat below the MSS of TEV and evoking
(2) The lag of evaporator outlet temperature responses behind TEV actions
induced the oscillatory opening and closing of TEV under hunting conditions.
increased, but then levelled off due to the trade-off between lager variation in
refrigerant supply and more stable two-phase flow after the liquid fraction exceeded
(4) The overall outlet never reached the critical value due to the evaporation of
some liquid refrigerant and the amplifying effect of refrigerant flowrate after the
References
[1] N. Liang, S.Q. Shao, H.B. Xu, et al., Instability of refrigeration systemA review,
[2] W.R. Zahn, A visual study of two-phase flow while evaporating in horizontal
[3] G.L. Wedekind, W.F. Stocker, Theoretical model for predicting the transient
[4] G.L. Wedekind, An experimental investigation into the oscillatory motion of the
13
(1) (1971) 47-54.
[5] Z.R. Huelle, The Mass-linea new approach to the hunting problem, ASHRAE
14 (1972) 43-46.
[7] W. Chen, Z.J. Chen, R.Q. Zhu, et al., Experimental investigation of a minimum
1137-1142.
Thermostatic Expansion Valve, J. Dyn. Sys., Meas. Control 102 (2) (1980),
130-135.
(2000) 174-189.
[12] V. Mulay, A. Kulkarni, D. Agonafer, et al., Effect of the location and the
14
[13] P. Mithraratne, N.E. Wijeysundera, An experimental and numerical study of the
554-556.
[15] A.A. Aganda, J.E.R. Coney, C.G.W. Sheppard, Airflow maldistribution and the
20 (2000), 515-528.
[17] T.J. Fagan, The effects of air flow maldistributions on air-to-refrigerant heat
[18] X.Z. Song, D. Huang, X.Y. Liu et al., Effect of non-uniform air velocity
[19] E.S. Kirby, C.W. Bullard, W.E. Dunn, Effect of airflow nonuniformity on
[20] J.H. Kim, J.E. Braun, E.A. Groll, A hybrid method for refrigerant flow balancing
15
air-conditioning systems with flow maldistribution in fin-and-tube evaporators,
[22] T.J. Zhang, J.T. Wen, A. Julius, et al., Stability analysis and maldistribution
[23] H.Z. Li, P. Hrnjak, An experimentally validated model for microchannel heat
[25] D. Huang, Z.L. He, X.L. Yuan, Dynamic characteristics of an air-to-water heat
1996-2002.
[26] D. Huang, R.J. Zhao, Q.Q. Gong, et al., Effects of water maldistribution on
[27] R.J. Moffat, Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Exp. Therm.
16
Figure Captions
Tables
17
Illustration number: Figure 1
18
Illustration number: Figure 2
19
Illustration number: Figure 3
20
Illustration number: Figure 4
21
Illustration number: Figure 5
22
Illustration number: Figure 6
23
Illustration number: Figure 7
24
Illustration number: Figure 8
25
Illustration number: Figure 9
26
Illustration number: Figure 10
27
Table 1 Specifications of the main components in the refrigeration plant
Component Item Specification
3 -1
Displacement /cm r 33.8
Compressor Nominal cooling capacity /W 5860
Nominal COP 3.1
Maximum Charge of R22 /kg 1.7
Evaporator Inner pipe /mm Copper 300.75700
Outer pipe /mm Steel 371.55700
Width-Height-Depth /mm 810-660-45
Inner tube diameter /mm 8.82
Outer tube diameter 9.52
Condenser Row number 2
Tubes per row 30
Fin type Flat
Fin pitch/mm 1.5
Type External balanced
TEV Range of evaporation temperature / -40~10
Static temperature /K 5
28
Table 2 Uncertainties for the measured and calculated parameters
Parameter Unit Uncertainty
Temperature 0.2
Pressure kPa 0.25%
Water flowrate kgs-1 0.5%
Superheat K 0.22
29
Table 3 Selected 7 sets of water flow percentages
Circuit 1 Circuit 2 Overall Circuit 1 Circuit 2
No.
water water water flow water water
flow/kgs-1 flow/kgs-1 /kgs-1 percentage F1 percentage F2
1 0.1833 0.1071 0.2904 63.1% 36.9%
2 0.1941 0.0919 0.2860 67.9% 32.1%
3 0.2053 0.0761 0.2814 73.0% 27.0%
4 0.2173 0.0586 0.2759 78.8% 21.2%
5 0.2245 0.0481 0.2726 82.4% 17.6%
6 0.2322 0.0369 0.2691 86.3% 13.7%
7 0.2410 0.0241 0.2651 90.9% 9.1%
30
Highlights
Water maldistribution in two-circuit evaporator induced hunting in TEV control
Hunting was explored from the perspective of superheat control dynamics
Liquid refrigerant from Circuit 2 with less water reduced overall outlet superheat
Superheat amplitude at Circuit 2 outlet increased first but kept unchanged then
Overall outlet had larger superheat amplitude than each circuit
31