National University of Singapore

Faculty of Engineering
(Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering)

CN3101: Chemical Engineering Laboratory I

Air Conditioning Study (T4)
Submitted By:
Group W7

Jiang Zicheng A0173426E

Joey Tay Yi Qin A0169990J
Sim Poh Aun, Tobias A0171331U
Tham Sin Che A0170838X

Date of Experiment: 16th October 2019

Date of Submission: 23rd October 2019
National University of Singapore

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Results......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Coefficient Of Performance And Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. 2

2.2 Estimation Of Uncertainty .................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Measure Pressure (P) And Temperature (T) For Refrigerant R134a .............................................. 2

2.4 Percentage Deviation Of Air And Refrigerant Flow ......................................................................... 3

2.5 Sample Calculation ................................................................................................................................ 3

3. Discussion................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Difference In COP And EER At Two Fan Speed .............................................................................. 8

3.2 Discrepancies In Mass And Energy Balances .................................................................................... 8

3.3 Non-Ideality Of Refrigeration Cycle ................................................................................................... 9

4. Error Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 11

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendix A (Raw Data) ....................................................................................................................

Appendix B (P-H and Psychometric Chart)......................................................................................

Appendix C (Safety Analysis) ............................................................................................................

ii
1. SUMMARY
This experiment aims to examine the refrigeration cycle of the provided air conditioner and evaluate
the cooling capacity and power consumption under two different operating conditions. Two different
fan speeds were used, one maximum and the other minimum, and the results were then compared and
discussed. Below shows a schematic diagram of our air conditioner unit.

Figure 1:Schematic diagram of air conditioner unit (A660)

During this experiment, the air conditioner was allowed to run for one hour to reach steady state. The
air conditioner is linked to a computer which records several data. After one hour, readings were
directly obtained from the computer screen. With the aid of a psychrometric chart and a P-H chart, the
mass flow rate (ma), sensible heat tranfer (Qs) and the latent heat transfer (Ql) were calculated. These
results are used to calculate the coefficient of performance (COP), which in turn is used to derive the
energy efficiency ratio (EER), (which is in the unit of BTU's (British Thermal Unit) per hour that the
equipment uses for each watt of power drawn), for the two different fan speed.

From the experimental result, it was found that both COP and EER are higher at high fan speed. The
COP values are 1.27 and 0.8958, whereas the EER values are 3057.25 and 4334.61 Btu/(h.kW) for
high fan speed and low fan speed respectively. At each fan speed, mass and energy balances were used
to analyse the experimental results. The uncertainties of these values were also calculated using known
measurement uncertainties.

1
2. RESULTS

2.1 Coefficient of Performance and Energy Efficiency Ratio

Table 1:COP and EER values for Low and High Fan Speed

Fan Speed: Low Fan Speed: High

Sensible Heat Transfer (kJ/s) 0.591 1.11

Latent Heat Transfer (kJ/s) 0.733 0.821

Capacity (kJ/s) 1.324 1.931

Coefficient of Performance 0.8958 1.27

Energy Efficiency Ratio (Btu / h.kW) 3057.25 4334.61

2.2 Estimation of Uncertainty

Table 2: Uncertainty Estimation

Estimation of Uncertainty

Fan Speed: Low Fan Speed: High

𝑸𝑺 (W) 591 ± 110.8 11111 ± 381.4

𝑸𝒍 (W) 733 ± 39.9 821 ± 94.6

Capacity (W) 1324 ± 150.7 1931 ± 476

Power (P) (W) 1477.98 ± 29.56 1520 ± 30.41

COP 0.8958 ± 0.1199 1.27 ± 0.338

EER (𝑩𝒕𝒖 𝒉𝒓−𝟏 𝒌𝑾−𝟏 ) 3057.25 ± 409.13 4334.61 ± 1155.2

Condensate Flow Rate (mL/s) 26.5 ± 0.0084 14.0 ± 0.00837

2.3 Measure Pressure (P) and Temperature (T) for Refrigerant R134a

Table 3: P and T of R134A based on P-H chart

Fan Speed: Low Fan Speed: High

P (bar) T (°C) P (bar) T (°C)

Point 1 (Inlet evaporator) 2.633 -0.3 3.177 3

Point 2 (Outlet evaporator) 2.633 0.3 3.177 7.2

Point 3 (Inlet condenser) 10.15 70.5 11.263 73.9

Point 4 (Outlet condenser) 10.14 38.7 11.233 42.4

2
2.4 Percentage Deviation of Air and Refrigerant Flow

Table 4: % deviation of low and high fan speed

% Deviation
Fan Speed: Low Fan Speed: High
Mass Balance 8.098 42.8
Energy Balance 7.783 11.66

2.5 Sample Calculation

~ Calculations are all based on Low Fan Speed~

Psychrometric and Pressure-Enthalpy Charts
Psychrometric Chart
Table 5: Psychrometric Chart Values
Fan Speed: Low Fan Speed: High
Before Evaporator
Moisture Content (kg H2O / kg dry air) 0.0114 0.0114
Specific Volume of Air (m3/kg) 0.857 0.855
Specific Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 54 53.5
After Evaporator
Moisture Content (kg H2O / kg dry air) 0.0069 0.0095
Specific Volume of Air (m3/kg) 0.815 0.829
Specific Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 28.75 41.5

Pressure-Enthalpy Chart
Table 6: Pressure-Enthalpy Chart Values
Fan Speed: Low Fan Speed: High
Enthalpy (kJ/ kg)
Evaporator outlet, H1 157 160
Condenser inlet, H2 303 305
Condenser outlet, H3 356 355
Evaporator inlet, H4 157 160

3
Air Flow Rate

The flow rate of air can be measured using the following equation:
𝑧
𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 0.0517 × √
𝑉𝐷

Where, z is the orifice differential pressure (𝑚𝑚𝐻2 𝑂)

VD is the specific volume of air (𝑚3 𝑘𝑔−1).

Based on the experimental results,

1.1
𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 0.0517 × √ = 0.06006𝑘𝑔/𝑠
0.815

Table 7: Mass Flowrate of Fan Speed

Fan Speed: Low Fan Speed: High
Mass Flowrate (kg/s) 0.06606 0.1754

Coefficient of Performance and Energy Efficiency Ratio

Air is cooled down by passing through the evaporator as heat is being transferred from the air to
refrigerant. Therefore, the outlet air has a lower humidity and temperature. The performance of the
air-conditioner can be calculated based on the Coefficient of Performance.

𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (𝐶𝑂𝑃) =
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑

The capacity of the air conditioner can be determined from the sum of sensible and latent heat transfer.
The individual formulas of sensible and latent heat transfer are as shown below:

𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 = 𝑚𝑎 𝐶𝑝𝑎 (𝑇𝑎𝑖 − 𝑇𝑎𝑜 )

𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 = 𝑚𝑎 ℎ𝑓𝑔 (𝑊𝑎𝑖 − 𝑊𝑎𝑜 )
Where, ma is the air flow rate
Cpa is the specific heat of moist air
hfg is the latent heat of water
Tai and Tao are the inlet and outlet temperatures of air
Wai and Wao are the inlet and outlet absolute humidity of air (obtainable from
Psychometric Chart)

Another means of measuring the performance of the air-conditioner would be the Energy Efficiency
Ratio. The main difference is the unit expression, where the capacity in EER is expressed as Btu/h and
power consumed is expressed as kW/h.

4
Capacity

Assuming 𝐶𝑝𝑎 = 1.005𝑘𝐽𝑘𝑔−1 𝐾 −1 and ℎ𝑓𝑔 = 2465𝑘𝐽𝑘𝑔−1 ,

𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 = 0.06606 × 1.005 × (18.7 − 9.8) = 0.591𝑘𝐽/𝑠

𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 = 0.06606 × 2465 × (0.0114 − 0.0069) = 0.733𝑘𝐽/𝑠
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.591 + 0.733 = 1.324𝑘𝐽/𝑠

Power Consumed
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 × 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡
= 234.6𝑉 × 6.3𝐴
= 1477.98𝑊
COP
1.324 × 1000
𝐶𝑂𝑃 = = 0.8958
1477.98
EER
1.324 × 3412.8
𝐸𝐸𝑅 = = 3057.25𝐵𝑡𝑢 ℎ−1 𝑘𝑊 −1
1477.98 ÷ 1000

Estimation of the uncertainties of the derived quantities

~ Uncertainty of literature values are assumed to be 0~

Simple error analysis was conducted for the following parameters: sensible heat transfer (Qs), latent
heat transfer (Ql), coefficient of performance (C.O.P), energy efficiency ratio (EER), cooling capacity,
condensate flow rate and power supply.

The estimated uncertainty in the calculated quantities is determined based on the instruments reading
accuracies. For quantities that are derived through addition or subtractions, the estimated uncertainty
is determined by:

𝛥𝑧 = 𝛥𝑥 + 𝛥𝑦

For quantities that are derived through multiplication or division, the estimated uncertainty is
determined by:

𝛥𝑧 𝛥𝑥 𝛥𝑦
= +
𝑧 𝑥 𝑦
Where, z is the uncertainty of the derived quantity
x and y are the uncertainties of the independent variables

5
Sensible Heat Transfer (Qs)
𝛥 𝑄𝑠 𝛥𝑚𝑎 𝛥𝐶𝑝𝑎 𝛥(𝑇𝑎𝑖 − 𝑇𝑎𝑜 )
= + +
𝑄𝑠 𝑚𝑎 𝐶𝑝𝑎 𝑇𝑎𝑖 − 𝑇𝑎𝑜
1.1 + 1.1
𝛥𝑄𝑠 = 0.591 × (0.01 + 0 + ) = ±0.1108𝑘𝐽/𝑠 = ±110.8𝑊
23.7 − 11.3

Latent Heat Transfer (Ql)

𝛥 𝑄𝑙 𝛥𝑚𝑎 𝛥ℎ𝑓𝑔 𝛥(𝑊𝑎𝑖 − 𝑊𝑎𝑜 )
= + +
𝑄𝑙 𝑚𝑎 ℎ𝑓𝑔 𝑊𝑎𝑖 − 𝑊𝑎𝑜
0.0001 + 0.0001
𝛥𝑄𝑙 = 0.733 × (0.01 + 0 + 0.0114−0.0069
)= ±0.0399𝑘𝐽/𝑠 = ±39.9𝑊

Uncertainty in Capacity
𝛥𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝛥𝑄𝑠 + 𝛥𝑄𝑙 = 110.8 + 39.9 = ±150.7𝑊

Uncertainty in Power Supply

𝛥𝑃 𝛥𝑉 𝛥𝐼
= + = 0.01 + 0.01 = 0.02
𝑃 𝑉 𝐼

𝛥𝑃= 𝑃 × 0.02 = (234.6 𝑉 × 6.3 𝐴) × 0.02 = ±29.56𝑊

Uncertainty in COP
𝛥𝐶𝑂𝑃 𝛥 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝛥𝑃
= +
𝐶𝑂𝑃 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑃
150.7 29.56
𝛥𝐶𝑂𝑃 = 0.8958 × ( + ) = ±0.1199
1324 1477.98
Uncertainty in EER
𝛥𝐸𝐸𝑅 𝛥 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝛥𝑃
= +
𝐸𝐸𝑅 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑃
150.7 29.56
𝛥𝐸𝐸𝑅 = 3057.25 × ( + ) = ±409.13𝐵𝑡𝑢 ℎ𝑟−1 𝑘𝑊−1
1324 1477.98
Uncertainty in Condensate Flow Rate
𝛥𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = ±5𝑚𝑙

𝛥𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 = ±0.1𝑠 (human reaction time)

𝛥𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝛥𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝛥𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
= +
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
16.5 5 0.1
𝛥𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = ×( + ) = 0.0084𝑚𝑙/𝑠
60 165 600

6
Indicate the measured pressures and temperatures on a P-h Chart for the refrigerant R134a

~ Refer to Chart in Appendix A~

Evaluating the energy and mass balances for the air and refrigerant flowing through the
evaporator
Assuming density of water, ρ = 1g/ml
Mass balance
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 × 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
16.5
= × 1 = 0.275𝑔/𝑠
60
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝑚𝑎 (𝑊𝑎𝑖 − 𝑊𝑎𝑜 )
= 0.06606 × (0.0114 − 0.0069) × 1000
= 0.29727𝑔/𝑠
Therefore,
0.29727 − 0.275
% 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = × 100%
0.275
= 8.098%
Energy Balance
Based on psychrometric Chart, 𝐻𝑖 = 54𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔 and 𝐻𝑜 = 28.75𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑏𝑦 𝑎𝑖𝑟 = −𝑚𝑎 (𝐻𝑜 − 𝐻𝑖 )
= −0.06606 × (28.75 − 54) × 1000
= 1668.015𝐽/𝑠
Based on P-H chart, 𝐻𝑖 = 157𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔 and 𝐻𝑜 = 303𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡 = 𝑚𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡 (𝐻𝑜 − 𝐻𝑖 )
10.6
= × (303 − 157) × 1000
1000
= 1547.6𝐽/𝑠
Therefore,
1668.015 − 1547.6
% 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = × 100%
1547.6
= 7.783%

7
3. DISCUSSION
3.1 Difference in COP and EER at two fan speed

From experimental results shown in Section 2.1, it can be observed that both values of COP and EER
are relatively smaller at the lower fan speed compared to the ones obtained from the higher fan speed.
This can be explained by the heat transfer theory. At higher fan speed, the air flow rate is relatively
larger. As a result, there is shorter time for the air to pass through the heat exchanger and hence results
in a smaller temperature drop in the outlet temperature. This causes a larger temperature difference
between the air passing through the heat exchanger and the refrigerant. Therefore, the rate of heat
transfer from the air to refrigerant is grater as the heat transfer rate is directly proportional to the
temperature difference. As a result, the capacity of air conditioner increases with an increase in air
flow rate. Since the supply voltage and current used for this air conditioner were kept constant
throughout the experiment, the power supply at both fan speeds were same. As a result, the increase in
the fan speed will increase the capacity and hence both COP and EER of the air conditioner will
increase.

3.2 Discrepancies in Mass and Energy Balances

Discrepancy in Mass Balance

For mass balance, it can be observed that for both fan speeds, the rate of condensate collected was
smaller than the rate of moisture loss. The difference can be explained by the following reasons. Firstly,
it could be due to loss in the condensate. During the experiment, it is observed that there is leakage of
condensed water from the equipment. It is also possible that some amount of water might condense
on the other surface of the pipeline and accumulate within the air conditioner without reaching the
collection point. This would result in a smaller amount of condensate collected compared to the actual
amount. Secondly, during the experiment, it was observed that the value displayed on the computer
screen kept changing. This suggests that there is a constant electrical noise which results in the
fluctuation of readings. As a result, the wet bulb and dry bulb may not be accurate and hence the rate
of moisture loss calculated from the chart may also deviate from the actual values.

Discrepancy in Energy Balance

For energy balance, the deviation could be explained by the following reasons. Firstly, as shown in the
calculation section, it can be observed that the total energy calculated only accounts for the sensible
heat transfer of dry air and latent heat transfer of the condensed water. The sensible heat transfer
required for the moisture inside the air stream to cool down to the outlet temperature was ignored.
Although the moisture content inside the air stream is relatively small due to a much larger heat

8
capacity of water compare to the dry air, this sensible heat transfer of the moisture may still result in
the calculated energy being smaller than the actual value.

Secondly, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, fluctuation in the readings was observed during the
experiment. This would result in the inaccuracy of the calculated values from both P-H chart and
psychometric chart.

Lastly, there is some heat transfer from the surroundings to the refrigerant being used to cool the air
entering the air conditioner.

Comparison between the two fan speeds

From the results shown in Section 2.4, it can be found that for both mass and energy balance, the
deviation is smaller at lower fan speed. This could be resulted from the uncertainties of the value. From
Section 1.2, it can be observed that the uncertainty for air flow rate is 1% of the reading values. Since
dry air flow rate at high fan speed is much larger than that at the low fan speed, this results in a very
large uncertainty at high speed. This is because for both mass and energy balance, the calculation
involves the dry air flow rate and other values used in calculation are relatively close to each other
compared to the difference in the air flow rate, so the uncertainty in the air flow rate dominates. Hence,
at higher fan speed, the discrepancies in both mass and energy balance are larger compared to lower
fan speed.

3.3 Non-ideality of Refrigeration Cycle

The most ideal type of the air conditioner system is a Carnot system which would result in the largest
values for both COP and EER of the system. The assumption for a Carnot system is that the
temperatures of hot and cold reservoir are constant because they are infinitely large, and the heat loss
can be assumed to be negligible. The COP of this ideal cycle can be calculated by the following
expression:
𝑇𝐶
𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐼𝑑 =
𝑇𝐻 − 𝑇𝐶
For this experiment, Tc refers to the outlet temperature of the condenser and TH refers to the outlet
temperature of the evaporator.
At lower fan speed: COPId = (0.3 + 273.15) / (38.7 – 0.3) = 7.121
At higher fan speed: COPId = (7.2 + 273.15) / (42.4 – 7.2) = 7.964

Comparing the ideal values of COP with the experimental values, it can be found that the experimental
values, which is 0.8958 at low fan speed and 1.27 at high fan speed, are much smaller than the Carnot
values. This difference results from the non-ideality of the system as well as the uncertainties in the
equipment.

9
4. ERROR ANALYSIS
Fluctuation of Readings of Data Loggers

During the experiment, the fluctuation of readings of air conditioner unit was observed. Since the air
conditioner was allowed to run for one hour to reach the steady state, the fluctuation was not caused
by the non-steady state of the system. Instead, it can be explained by the following factors. Firstly, the
fluctuation of the readings may be due to the unstable system dynamic resulting from the unsatisfactory
parameter settings of the controller in the closed loop system. Secondly, the non-consistent air
circulation from the air conditioners in the laboratory might also cause the readings to fluctuate.
Thirdly, it could be due to slight fluctuations in the relative humidity of the air. Therefore, the data
recorded may deviate from the actual value which may add to the uncertainties of the results obtained.
Conducting the experiment in an isolated room will reduce the second and third factors that contribute
to the fluctuations of readings. To reduce the uncertainties induced, the average values of the readings
were taken. However, leaving the air conditioner unit switched on for a long period is expected to
result in the overheating of the unit. Therefore, the repetition of the experiment should not be done too
many times as the overheated unit may cause the values of temperature to be higher than the intended
values.

Uncertainty of Measuring Apparatus

After each cycle of the experiment, the condensed water was collected using a measuring cylinder with
a reading scale of 10 mL. The scale is considerably large and is expected to result in discrepancies of
the volume readings recorded. Further compounded with parallax error, this results in significant
uncertainty in the values recorded. To minimize the error, all readings were taken by the same person.
To reduce the uncertainty caused by the large scale, a measuring cylinder with a smaller scale (e.g. 1
mL) can be used instead to collect the condensed water so that more accurate readings can be obtained.
Alternatively, such errors can be minimized by using computerized systems to carry out the steps to
reduce human error and to achieve higher accuracy.

Non-ideal system

The calculations of enthalpy were done based on two assumptions: the expansion across the expansion
valve was isenthalpic and the operation of the evaporator was in an isobaric manner. In addition, the
plot of the refrigeration cycle on the P-H chart was based on the assumption that the system undergoes
a reversed Carnot cycle, which in turn relies on the following assumptions: no heat loss in any parts of
the system, negligible changes in the potential and kinetic energy as well as negligible friction loss and
therefore negligible pressure drop experienced by the fluid. However, these assumptions are likely
invalid for our experiments as they are made based on ideal systems. For example, heat loss, especially

10
in the form of convection, was inevitable since the air conditioner unit was exposed to the
surroundings. Also, friction which results in pressure drop across the pipes cannot be entirely
eliminated from the system in real-life situations. These invalid assumptions are expected to cause
significant discrepancies of our experimental results from the actual data. In order to account for the
deviation of the real-life experiment from the ideal situations, the experiment can be modified to
include pressure and temperature measurements at the evaporator inlet.

Uncertainty of Temperature Readings

The accuracy of measurement of temperature is ± 1.1 oC. Since the range of temperature of our
experiment was within a span of 100 oC, the uncertainty is considered to be significantly large and is
expected to cause significant deviation in determining the true values of temperature. Moreover, as the
temperature readings taken were used to determine other values using the psychometric chart and P-h
chart, a false conclusion might be obtained due to the inaccuracies of the temperature readings as well
as the values determined using the deviated temperature values.

5. CONCLUSION
Two objectives have been achieved in this experiment: to examine the refrigeration cycle of the air
conditioner, as well as to evaluate the cooling capacity and power consumption under different
operating conditions, that is, under two different fan speeds. The performance of the air conditioner
was evaluated in the form of Coefficient of Performance (COP).

Using data obtained from the data logging program, it was found that both cooling capacity and power
consumption are higher for the high fan speed. Therefore, the COP of the high fan speed is higher than
that of the low fan speed. The cooling capacities of high fan speed and low fan speed are 1.931 kJ/s
and 1.324 kJ/s respectively, whereas the COP values are 1.27 and 0.8958 for high fan speed and low
fan speed respectively.

The irreversibility of the experimental system suggests that the calculated values of COP are different
from that of an ideal system. The numerous assumptions made according to an ideal situation also
resulted in large discrepancies of our experimental results, as observed in the evaluations of mass and
energy balances, especially the mass balance for high fan speed. Other factors contributing to the
inaccuracy of our experimental data have been discussed in Section 4.

11
References
1. Smith, J. M., Van Ness, H. C., & Abbott, M. M. (2001). Introduction to chemical engineering
thermodynamics (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

2. Van Wylen, G. J., Sonntag, R. E., & Borgnakke, C. (1994). Fundamentals of classical
thermodynamics (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

12