A comparison between finite volume and switched moving boundary approaches for dynamic vapor compression system modeling

Herschel Pangborn, Andrew G. Alleyne, Ning Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Abstract Most work in dynamic heat exchanger modeling for control design can be classified as either a finite volume or a moving boundary formulation. These approaches represent fundamentally different discretization approaches and are often characterized as contrasting accuracy with simulation speed. This work challenges that characterization by validating finite volume and moving boundary heat exchanger models with experimental data from a vapor compression system in order to demonstrate that these approaches are capable of achieving similar levels of accuracy. However, there are differences. The moving boundary model is found to have faster simulation speed, while the finite volume model is more flexible for adaptation to heat exchangers of different physical configuration. The formulation of each modeling approach used in this work is described in detail and techniques to increase simulation speed and avoid numerical issues in implementation are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number2963
Pages (from-to)101-114
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Journal of Refrigeration
Volume53
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2015

Fingerprint

Heat exchangers
Vapors

Keywords

  • Finite volume
  • Heat exchanger model
  • Moving boundary
  • Vapor compression system

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Building and Construction
  • Mechanical Engineering

Cite this

A comparison between finite volume and switched moving boundary approaches for dynamic vapor compression system modeling. / Pangborn, Herschel; Alleyne, Andrew G.; Wu, Ning.

In: International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 53, 2963, 05.2015, p. 101-114.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e4fee3220c0742b1aa5f2c679abf7cdf,
title = "A comparison between finite volume and switched moving boundary approaches for dynamic vapor compression system modeling",
abstract = "Abstract Most work in dynamic heat exchanger modeling for control design can be classified as either a finite volume or a moving boundary formulation. These approaches represent fundamentally different discretization approaches and are often characterized as contrasting accuracy with simulation speed. This work challenges that characterization by validating finite volume and moving boundary heat exchanger models with experimental data from a vapor compression system in order to demonstrate that these approaches are capable of achieving similar levels of accuracy. However, there are differences. The moving boundary model is found to have faster simulation speed, while the finite volume model is more flexible for adaptation to heat exchangers of different physical configuration. The formulation of each modeling approach used in this work is described in detail and techniques to increase simulation speed and avoid numerical issues in implementation are discussed.",
keywords = "Finite volume, Heat exchanger model, Moving boundary, Vapor compression system",
author = "Herschel Pangborn and Alleyne, {Andrew G.} and Ning Wu",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.01.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "101--114",
journal = "International Journal of Refrigeration",
issn = "0140-7007",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison between finite volume and switched moving boundary approaches for dynamic vapor compression system modeling

AU - Pangborn, Herschel

AU - Alleyne, Andrew G.

AU - Wu, Ning

PY - 2015/5

Y1 - 2015/5

N2 - Abstract Most work in dynamic heat exchanger modeling for control design can be classified as either a finite volume or a moving boundary formulation. These approaches represent fundamentally different discretization approaches and are often characterized as contrasting accuracy with simulation speed. This work challenges that characterization by validating finite volume and moving boundary heat exchanger models with experimental data from a vapor compression system in order to demonstrate that these approaches are capable of achieving similar levels of accuracy. However, there are differences. The moving boundary model is found to have faster simulation speed, while the finite volume model is more flexible for adaptation to heat exchangers of different physical configuration. The formulation of each modeling approach used in this work is described in detail and techniques to increase simulation speed and avoid numerical issues in implementation are discussed.

AB - Abstract Most work in dynamic heat exchanger modeling for control design can be classified as either a finite volume or a moving boundary formulation. These approaches represent fundamentally different discretization approaches and are often characterized as contrasting accuracy with simulation speed. This work challenges that characterization by validating finite volume and moving boundary heat exchanger models with experimental data from a vapor compression system in order to demonstrate that these approaches are capable of achieving similar levels of accuracy. However, there are differences. The moving boundary model is found to have faster simulation speed, while the finite volume model is more flexible for adaptation to heat exchangers of different physical configuration. The formulation of each modeling approach used in this work is described in detail and techniques to increase simulation speed and avoid numerical issues in implementation are discussed.

KW - Finite volume

KW - Heat exchanger model

KW - Moving boundary

KW - Vapor compression system

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924933541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924933541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.01.009

DO - 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.01.009

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84924933541

VL - 53

SP - 101

EP - 114

JO - International Journal of Refrigeration

JF - International Journal of Refrigeration

SN - 0140-7007

M1 - 2963

ER -