PNNL

Abstract

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.