Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform

The energy performance of a variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system was evaluated using an occupancy-emulated research building in the southeastern region of the United States. Full- and part-load performance of the VRF system in heating and cooling seasons was compared with a conventional rooftop un...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Je-hyeon Lee, Piljae Im, Jeffrey D. Munk, Mini Malhotra, Min-seok Kim, Young-hak Song
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2018-01-01
Series:Advances in Civil Engineering
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7867128
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832561004373868544
author Je-hyeon Lee
Piljae Im
Jeffrey D. Munk
Mini Malhotra
Min-seok Kim
Young-hak Song
author_facet Je-hyeon Lee
Piljae Im
Jeffrey D. Munk
Mini Malhotra
Min-seok Kim
Young-hak Song
author_sort Je-hyeon Lee
collection DOAJ
description The energy performance of a variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system was evaluated using an occupancy-emulated research building in the southeastern region of the United States. Full- and part-load performance of the VRF system in heating and cooling seasons was compared with a conventional rooftop unit (RTU) variable-air-volume system with electric resistance heating. During both the heating and cooling seasons, full- and part-load conditions (i.e., 100%, 75%, and 50% thermal loads) were maintained alternately for 2 to 3 days each, and the energy use, thermal conditions, and coefficient of performance (COP) for the RTU and VRF system were measured. During the cooling season, the VRF system had an average COP of 4.2, 3.9, and 3.7 compared with 3.1, 3.0, and 2.5 for the RTU system under 100%, 75%, and 50% load conditions and resulted in estimated energy savings of 30%, 37%, and 47%, respectively. During the heating season, the VRF system had an average COP ranging from 1.2 to 2.0, substantially higher than the COPs of the RTU system, and resulted in estimated energy savings of 51%, 47%, and 27% under the three load conditions, respectively.
format Article
id doaj-art-2641f52b1f944cddb22291576392e4a8
institution Kabale University
issn 1687-8086
1687-8094
language English
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Advances in Civil Engineering
spelling doaj-art-2641f52b1f944cddb22291576392e4a82025-02-03T01:26:13ZengWileyAdvances in Civil Engineering1687-80861687-80942018-01-01201810.1155/2018/78671287867128Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research PlatformJe-hyeon Lee0Piljae Im1Jeffrey D. Munk2Mini Malhotra3Min-seok Kim4Young-hak Song5Department of Digital Appliances R&D Team, Samsung Electronics, Suwon 17804, Republic of KoreaBuilding Technologies Research and Integration Center (BTRIC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USABuilding Technologies Research and Integration Center (BTRIC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USABuilding Technologies Research and Integration Center (BTRIC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USADepartment of Architectural Engineering, Graduate School of Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Architectural Engineering, ERI, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Republic of KoreaThe energy performance of a variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system was evaluated using an occupancy-emulated research building in the southeastern region of the United States. Full- and part-load performance of the VRF system in heating and cooling seasons was compared with a conventional rooftop unit (RTU) variable-air-volume system with electric resistance heating. During both the heating and cooling seasons, full- and part-load conditions (i.e., 100%, 75%, and 50% thermal loads) were maintained alternately for 2 to 3 days each, and the energy use, thermal conditions, and coefficient of performance (COP) for the RTU and VRF system were measured. During the cooling season, the VRF system had an average COP of 4.2, 3.9, and 3.7 compared with 3.1, 3.0, and 2.5 for the RTU system under 100%, 75%, and 50% load conditions and resulted in estimated energy savings of 30%, 37%, and 47%, respectively. During the heating season, the VRF system had an average COP ranging from 1.2 to 2.0, substantially higher than the COPs of the RTU system, and resulted in estimated energy savings of 51%, 47%, and 27% under the three load conditions, respectively.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7867128
spellingShingle Je-hyeon Lee
Piljae Im
Jeffrey D. Munk
Mini Malhotra
Min-seok Kim
Young-hak Song
Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform
Advances in Civil Engineering
title Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform
title_full Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform
title_fullStr Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform
title_short Comparison Evaluations of VRF and RTU Systems Performance on Flexible Research Platform
title_sort comparison evaluations of vrf and rtu systems performance on flexible research platform
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7867128
work_keys_str_mv AT jehyeonlee comparisonevaluationsofvrfandrtusystemsperformanceonflexibleresearchplatform
AT piljaeim comparisonevaluationsofvrfandrtusystemsperformanceonflexibleresearchplatform
AT jeffreydmunk comparisonevaluationsofvrfandrtusystemsperformanceonflexibleresearchplatform
AT minimalhotra comparisonevaluationsofvrfandrtusystemsperformanceonflexibleresearchplatform
AT minseokkim comparisonevaluationsofvrfandrtusystemsperformanceonflexibleresearchplatform
AT younghaksong comparisonevaluationsofvrfandrtusystemsperformanceonflexibleresearchplatform