Advanced search
Publication Cover
Science and Technology for the Built Environment Volume 29, 2023 - Issue 9: Innovative Research in the Built Environment Presented at the 2022 ASHRAE Annual Conference; Guest editors: Kristen Cetin and Brian M. Fronk
Submit an article Journal homepage
420
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Articles

Detailed evaluation of electric demand load shifting potential of heat pump water heaters in a hot humid climate

Karen Fenaughty1 FSEC, University of Central Florida, Cocoa, FL, USACorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information
,
Danny S. Parker1 FSEC, University of Central Florida, Cocoa, FL, USAView further author information
,
Joshua Butzbaugh2 Building Systems Group, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USAView further author information
&
Carlos Colon1 FSEC, University of Central Florida, Cocoa, FL, USAView further author information
Pages 905-926 | Received 25 Jan 2023, Accepted 24 Aug 2023, Published online: 18 Oct 2023

Figures & data

Table 1. Test facility water heater model numbers, capacity and UEF.Table Footnotea

Table 2. Monitoring and instrumentation equipment specifications.

Fig. 1. Hot water test facility draw profiles for connected water heater experiment.

Fig. 1. Hot water test facility draw profiles for connected water heater experiment.

Table 3. Draw during load-up hours.

Table 4. Total daily and peak hours water heater energy and demand: shed versus critical peak.

Fig. 2. Outdoor and inlet water temperature, shed versus critical peak, warm weather.

Fig. 2. Outdoor and inlet water temperature, shed versus critical peak, warm weather.

Fig. 3. Outdoor and inlet water temperatures, shed versus critical peak, cooler weather.

Fig. 3. Outdoor and inlet water temperatures, shed versus critical peak, cooler weather.

Table 5. Total daily and peak hours water heater energy and demand: 1-h versus 2-h load up.

Fig. 4. 1-3-1-4-S compared to 1-3-1-4-CP command structure, with ERWH baseline.

Fig. 4. 1-3-1-4-S compared to 1-3-1-4-CP command structure, with ERWH baseline.

Fig. 5. “X: HP 50” unit under 1-3-1-4-S compared to 1-3-1-4-CP structure.

Fig. 5. “X: HP 50” unit under 1-3-1-4-S compared to 1-3-1-4-CP structure.

Table 6. Baseline performance for X:HP80 hybrid versus efficiency mode, under 57 G (216 L) per day draw profile.

Fig. 6. Baseline demand profile for “X: HP 80” hybrid versus efficiency mode, under 57 G (216 L) per day draw profile.

Fig. 6. Baseline demand profile for “X: HP 80” hybrid versus efficiency mode, under 57 G (216 L) per day draw profile.

Table 7. Performance during 2-3-2-4-S command scheme, hybrid versus efficiency mode, under 57 GPD (216 L) draw profile.

Fig. 7. 1-5-1-6-CP demand profile for “Y: HP 50” and “X: HP 80” hybrid versus efficiency mode, under 57 G (216 L) per day draw profile.

Fig. 7. 1-5-1-6-CP demand profile for “Y: HP 50” and “X: HP 80” hybrid versus efficiency mode, under 57 G (216 L) per day draw profile.

Table 8. Performance during 1-5-1-6-CP command scheme, hybrid versus efficiency mode, under 57 G (216 L) per day draw profile.

Fig. 8. Temperatures for manufacturer Z 50 G (189 L) HPWH with CTA-2045-B protocol capability including advanced load up capability.

Fig. 8. Temperatures for manufacturer Z 50 G (189 L) HPWH with CTA-2045-B protocol capability including advanced load up capability.

Fig. 9. Manufacture Z prototype CTA-2045-B unit under 1-3-3-4-S structure.

Fig. 9. Manufacture Z prototype CTA-2045-B unit under 1-3-3-4-S structure.

Table 9. Total daily and peak hours water heater energy and demand of advanced load up prototype.

Fig. 10. Repeated testing of the 0-5-4-6-S profile on 13 days of similar weather.

Fig. 10. Repeated testing of the 0-5-4-6-S profile on 13 days of similar weather.

Fig. A1. Frost line depth in inches around the U.S. (Source: U.S. Weather Bureau).

Fig. A1. Frost line depth in inches around the U.S. (Source: U.S. Weather Bureau).

Fig. A2. Predicted vs. measured inlet water temperature in Cocoa, FL, 2021.

Fig. A2. Predicted vs. measured inlet water temperature in Cocoa, FL, 2021.

Fig. A3. Regression of measured inlet water temperature against prediction with hourly data.

Fig. A3. Regression of measured inlet water temperature against prediction with hourly data.

Fig. A4. Comparison of measured (blue) inlet temperature, ground temperature and outdoor air temperature.

Fig. A4. Comparison of measured (blue) inlet temperature, ground temperature and outdoor air temperature.

Table A1. Typical soil physical properties.

Table A2. Method estimate versus prediction for inlet water temperature of 2021 data.

Table B1. Shed versus critical peak: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Fahrenheit).

Table B2. 1-h Versus 2-h load up: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Fahrenheit).

Table B3. Hybrid (H) versus efficiency (E) 2-3-2-4-S: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Fahrenheit).

Table B4. Hybrid (H) versus efficiency (E) 1-5-1-6: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Fahrenheit).

Table B5. Shed versus critical peak: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Celsius).

Table B6. 1-h Versus 2-h load up: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Celsius).

Table B7. Hybrid (H) versus efficiency (E) 2-3-2-4-S: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Celsius).

Table B8. Hybrid (H) versus efficiency (E) 1-5-1-6: daily average outdoor, lab, and inlet, and minimum delivery temperatures (Celsius).

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.