Accepted Manuscript

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

PII: S1359-4311(16)31988-3
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.01.023
Reference: ATE 9787

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 28 September 2016

Revised Date: 21 December 2016
Accepted Date: 8 January 2017

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,

Xian Jiaotong University, Xian 710049, China

Abstract

Air/water mal-distribution widely occurs in multi-circuit evaporators, and may

deteriorate the stability of thermostatic-expansion-valve (TEV) controlled systems. In

this article, effect of water maldistribution on superheat control dynamics of a TEV

system was studied experimentally. The evaporator had two circuits, with the overall

outlet superheat controlled by TEV. By regulating the smaller water percentage of

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.

Keywords: Water maldistribution; Thermostatic expansion valve; Hunting; Superheat.

Corresponding author. Tel:+86-29-82668738. Fax:+86-29-82668725. Email: d_huang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

1
1. Introduction

The thermostatic expansion valve (TEV) is widely used in refrigeration and

air-conditioning systems to control refrigerant supply to evaporators, due to its

simplicity, high reliability and adaptiveness under wider working conditions. However,

an undesirable behavior known as hunting is often found in TEV-controlled systems

under some conditions. In this case of operation, the opening and closing of the TEV

occurs in an oscillatory manner, resulting in the oscillations in system parameters such

as refrigerant flowrate, evaporating pressure/temperature and evaporator outlet

superheat. Hunting significantly deteriorates the reliability and energy efficiency of

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]

studied the effect of minimal stable superheat on the hunting behavior of an

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

characteristics were also considered to be the reason of hunting. Relevant studies

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

systems to some extent.

The above researches were mostly conducted on the single-circuit evaporator,

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

potential by reducing refrigerant pressure drop. By contrast, its overall outlet

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

of multi-circuit evaporators, by 20~35% [15-18]. Some researchers also proposed

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.

From the literature above, it is concluded that previous researches concerning

hunting mainly focused on its possible reasons, but little attention was paid specially

to evaporator outlet superheat. Hunting originates from inadequate superheat at the

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

under off-design conditions. Second, those studies were mostly conducted on

single-circuit evaporators. Actually, multi-circuit evaporators are more widely used in

real appliances, and the refrigerant distribution and merging among circuits would

make the hunting behavior more complicated and influential. However, little work has

been done on them. Third, non-uniform air/water distribution widely exists in

multi-circuit evaporators, and its effect has been studied extensively regarding the

heat transfer performance of evaporators. Air/water maldistribution in multi-circuit

evaporators could also deteriorate the stability and reliability of TEV-controlled

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

maldistribution in multi-circuit evaporators maintained a constant overall flowrate

[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

effects on multi-circuit evaporator performance, thus should be taken into account.

Therefore, this article aimed at exploring the effect of water maldistribution on

superheat dynamics in a TEV-controlled two-circuit evaporator. Note that this article

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.

2. Experimental apparatus and procedure

2.1 Experimental apparatus

The experimental apparatus fundamentally consisted of three parts: the tested

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

shown in Ref. [26].

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

proposed by Moffat [27].

2.2 Test procedure

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.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 TEV control stability

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

were non-synchronized in timing. The overall outlet pressure rose or dropped

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

reduced refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient at the superheated overall outlet of

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

the valve diaphragm would also contribute to the lag.

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

variations in evaporator outlet superheat were consistent with those in other

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

dynamics, and would be analyzed in detail next.

Fig.10 illustrated the oscillation amplitudes of refrigerant superheat at both

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

17.6%. Moreover, the oscillation amplitude of refrigerant superheat at the overall

outlet was the largest under hunting conditions, followed by that at the Circuit 2 outlet

and Circuit 1 outlet in sequence.

Two factors contributed to the oscillations in evaporator outlet superheat under

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

fluctuation in refrigerant supply, thus contributing to the increased oscillation

amplitude in evaporator outlet superheat. Besides, the unevaporated liquid refrigerant

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

smaller, this reduction actually magnified the superheat oscillation amplitude.

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

increased monotonously with water mal-distribution rate.

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

Effect of water mal-distribution in two-circuit evaporator on superheat control

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%)

sequentially. Detailed conclusions were drawn as below:

(1) Liquid refrigerant in Circuit 2 hardly evaporated after F2 dropped to 21.2%,

12
further reducing the overall outlet superheat below the MSS of TEV and evoking

hunting in the system.

(2) The lag of evaporator outlet temperature responses behind TEV actions

induced the oscillatory opening and closing of TEV under hunting conditions.

(3) With F2 decreased, superheat oscillation amplitude at Circuit 2 outlet first

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

certain critical value.

(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

merging of two circuits. Therefore, superheat oscillation amplitude there increased

and was larger than that at circuit outlets.

References

[1] N. Liang, S.Q. Shao, H.B. Xu, et al., Instability of refrigeration systemA review,

Energy Conv. Manage. 51 (11) (2010) 2169-2178.

[2] W.R. Zahn, A visual study of two-phase flow while evaporating in horizontal

tubes, J. Heat Transfer 86 (3) (1964) 417-429.

[3] G.L. Wedekind, W.F. Stocker, Theoretical model for predicting the transient

response of the mixture-vapor transition point in horizontal evaporating flow, J.

Heat Transfer 90 (1) (1968) 165-174.

[4] G.L. Wedekind, An experimental investigation into the oscillatory motion of the

mixture-vapor transition point in horizontal evaporating flow, J. Heat Transfer 93

13
 (1) (1971) 47-54.

[5] Z.R. Huelle, The Mass-linea new approach to the hunting problem, ASHRAE

14 (1972) 43-46.

[6] H. Yasuda, S. Touber, C.H.M. Machielsen, Simulation model of a vapor

compression refrigeration system, ASHRAE Trans. 89 (1983) 408-425.

[7] W. Chen, Z.J. Chen, R.Q. Zhu, et al., Experimental investigation of a minimum

stable superheat control system of an evaporator, Int. J. Refrigeration 25 (8) (2002)

1137-1142.

[8] W.F. Stocker, Stability of an evaporator-expansion valve control loop, ASHRAE

Trans. 72 (1966) 4.3.

[9] P.M.T. Broersen, M.F.G. Vanderjagt, Hunting of evaporators controlled by a

Thermostatic Expansion Valve, J. Dyn. Sys., Meas. Control 102 (2) (1980),

130-135.

[10] G.A. Ibrahim, Theoretical investigation into stability of a refrigeration system

with an evaporator controlled by a thermostatic expansion valve, Can. J. Chem.

Eng. 76 (1998) 722-727.

[11] P. Mithraratne, N.E. Wijeysundera, T.Y. Bong, Dynamic simulation of a

thermostatically controlled counter flow evaporator, Int. J. Refrigeration 23 (3)

(2000) 174-189.

[12] V. Mulay, A. Kulkarni, D. Agonafer, et al., Effect of the location and the

properties of thermostatic expansion valve sensor bulb on the stability of a

refrigeration system, J. Heat Transfer 127 (2005) 85-94.

14
[13] P. Mithraratne, N.E. Wijeysundera, An experimental and numerical study of the

dynamic behavior of a counter-flow evaporator, Int. J. Refrigeration 24 (6) (2001)

554-556.

[14] P. Mithraratne, N.E. Wijeysundera, An experimental and numerical study of

hunting in thermostatic-expansion-valve-controlled evaporators, Int. J.

Refrigeration 25 (7) (2002) 992-998.

[15] A.A. Aganda, J.E.R. Coney, C.G.W. Sheppard, Airflow maldistribution and the

performance of a packaged air conditioning unit evaporator, Appl. Therm. Eng.

20 (2000), 515-528.

[16] P.A. Domanski, Simulation of an evaporator with nonuniform one-dimensional

air distribution, ASHRAE Trans. 97 (1991) 793-802.

[17] T.J. Fagan, The effects of air flow maldistributions on air-to-refrigerant heat

exchanger performance, ASHRAE Trans. 86 (1980) 699-713.

[18] X.Z. Song, D. Huang, X.Y. Liu et al., Effect of non-uniform air velocity

distribution on evaporator performance and its improvement on a residential air

conditioner, Appl. Therm. Eng. 40 (2012) 284-293.

[19] E.S. Kirby, C.W. Bullard, W.E. Dunn, Effect of airflow nonuniformity on

evaporator performance, ASHRAE Trans. 104 (1998) 755-762.

[20] J.H. Kim, J.E. Braun, E.A. Groll, A hybrid method for refrigerant flow balancing

in multi-circuit evaporators: upstream versus downstream flow control, Int. J.

Refrigeration 32 (2009) 1271-1282.

[21] M.R. Krn, W. Brix, B. Elmegaard, et al., Performance of residential

15
 air-conditioning systems with flow maldistribution in fin-and-tube evaporators,

Int. J. Refrigeration 34 (2011) 696-706.

[22] T.J. Zhang, J.T. Wen, A. Julius, et al., Stability analysis and maldistribution

control of two-phase flow in parallel evaporating channels, Heat and Mass

Transfer 54 (2011) 5298-5305

[23] H.Z. Li, P. Hrnjak, An experimentally validated model for microchannel heat

exchanger incorporating lubricant effect, Int. J. Refrigeration 59 (2015) 259-268.

[24] H.Z. Li, P. Hrnjak, Quantification of liquid refrigerant distribution in parallel

flow microchannel heat exchanger using infrared thermography, Appl. Therm.

Eng. 78 (2015) 410-418.

[25] D. Huang, Z.L. He, X.L. Yuan, Dynamic characteristics of an air-to-water heat

pump under frosting/defrosting conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007)

1996-2002.

[26] D. Huang, R.J. Zhao, Q.Q. Gong, et al., Effects of water maldistribution on

thermostatic-expansion-valve stability and its controlled two-circuit evaporator

performance, Int. J. Refrigeration 48 (2014) 38-47.

[27] R.J. Moffat, Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Exp. Therm.

Fluid Sci. 1 (1998) 3-17.

16
Figure Captions

Fig.1 Schematic diagram for the experimental apparatus

Fig.2 Schematic diagram for the externally equalized TEV

Fig.3 Variations in evaporator parameters when F2 was 21.2%

Fig.4 Variations in evaporator parameters when F2 was 17.6%

Fig.5 Variations in evaporator parameters when F2 was 13.7%

Fig.6 Variations in evaporator parameters when F2 was 9.1%

Fig.7 The overall outlet superheat under different water maldistribution

Fig.8 Circuit 1 outlet superheat under different water maldistribution

Fig.9 Circuit 2 outlet superheat under different water maldistribution

Fig.10 Superheat oscillation amplitude under different water maldistribution

Tables

Table 1 Specifications of the main components in the refrigeration plant

Table 2 Uncertainties for the measured and calculated parameters

Table 3 Selected 7 sets of water flow distribution

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