Notifications

Clear all

Flow rate vs emitter 'openness', and CoP?

Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs)

Last Post by JamesPa 9 months ago

3 Posts

2 Users

0 Reactions

923 Views

RSS

rhh2348

(@rhh2348)

Reputable Member Member

Joined: 2 years ago

Posts: 99

Topic starter 11/02/2025 2:28 pm

Struggling to get my head round this so grateful of others' thoughts:

Assuming the flow rate is fixed, and that lower flow rates (between 8 and 11L/m) still allow sufficient flow around all my emitters, am I correct in thinking a higher flow rate (14 - 17L/m) and more-closed emitters are preferable rather than the other way round?

It seems my system reports a higher CoP when I run in this way - I assume this means I can run at lower flow temps too, as the dT is smaller / the return temp is higher relative to the flow temp, and a higher flow rate allows the return temp to remain closer to the flow temp, and therefore reduces heating (and therefore power usage) and cycling.

My logical assumption would be a lower flow rate and more open UFH loops because more heat can be absorbed by the screed, but a higher flow rate for rads as it achieves higher mid-point temp, but I'm not sure why/if it's any different between emitter types nor how to determine the flow temp/rate 'tipping point', as it were.

In summary, if I had the choice of a lower flow rate and opening up the emitters more, or a higher flow rate and them being more closed, which should theoretically be better for efficiency / reducing flow temps / cycling?

This topic was modified 9 months ago by rhh2348

Quote

rhh2348

(@rhh2348)

Reputable Member Member

Joined: 2 years ago

Posts: 99

Topic starter 11/02/2025 3:25 pm

In another post, @jamespa wrote:

"In summary, if I had the choice of a lower flow rate and opening up the emitters more, or a higher flow rate and them being more closed, which should theoretically be better for efficiency / reducing flow temps / cycling?"

Im not sure you really have the free choice or what you are assuming is kept constant/varied in the two scenarios

Im assuming that you want to keep the heat output from the emitters constant, to preserve the room temperatures.

Yes!

Well, I guess slightly-more nuianced - see below.

The heat output from the emitters is determined by the difference between the average emitter temperature and IAT, not directly by flow rate.

However if you can increase the flow rate through the emitters you will reduce the deltaT across the emitters which means that the average temperature is closer to the flow temperature, which in turn means that the flow temperature can be lower (but only by a degree or so) for a given average emitter temperature.

The lower flow temp constraint (in bold) is useful to know, and noted - thank you.

This will be more efficient and is one of the reasons we operate heat pumps at a lower deltaT (across emitters) than boilers.

That makes sense as you've explained it.

This answer is independent of the emitter type.

Noted. I have read elsewhere that rads generally require a different flow rate to UFH loops (and if so, why - if they are the same diameter pipework?) - is this just in essence the same as flow-rate-to-emitter, whereby each UFH loop openness is adjusted to allow for required IAT?

Does that answer the question?

Perhaps a better way to have written it would be: "Flow rates + temps vs emitter 'openness', and CoP?" - thereby the question becomes "If the IAT can be maintained (or even raised?) by a higher flow rate, reduced flow temp (by up to 1deg C), and adjustment to emitter 'openness', which should result in the higher CoP/better system operation?"

or even: My logic says, if all UFH loops are more closed, less heated water is going round the loops and therefore the returning water is of a higher temperature and is therefore being 'wasted' / bypassing the emitters. If the dT were larger, the heater has to work harder to heat the LWT but more is being 'used'; which should be most-efficient?

This post was modified 9 months ago by rhh2348

ReplyQuote

JamesPa

(@jamespa)

Illustrious Member Moderator

Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 3180

11/02/2025 4:48 pm

Posted by: @rhh2348

↑

Noted. I have read elsewhere that rads generally require a different flow rate to UFH loops (and if so, why - if they are the same diameter pipework?) - is this just in essence the same as flow-rate-to-emitter, whereby each UFH loop openness is adjusted to allow for required IAT?

I guess that depends on where you measure it. If measured at the heat pump then the flow rate for any given heat transfer at any given deltaT (across emitters) is the same. If you measure it at the emitters then not so, because you generally have 10+ radiators and maybe 4-6 UFH loops. That said I dont know if you typically operate UFH at a lower deltaT even than radiators (it cant get much lower)!

Posted by: @rhh2348

↑

"If the IAT can be maintained (or even raised?) by a higher flow rate, reduced flow temp (by up to 1deg C), and adjustment to emitter 'openness', which should result in the higher CoP/better system operation?"

As always lower flow temperature = higher COP. However once you get down to UFH temperatures the effect gets smaller

Posted by: @rhh2348

↑

My logic says, if all UFH loops are more closed, less heated water is going round the loops and therefore the returning water is of a higher temperature and is therefore being 'wasted' / bypassing the emitters.

Qssuming you keep the flow temperature the same: If UFH loops are more closed the flow rate through the UFH will be less so the deltaT will be higher so the average temperature of the UFH will be lower so you emit less. The returning water is of a higher temperature but thats because the UFH emits less so the room will be colder.

Posted by: @rhh2348

↑

If the dT were larger, the heater has to work harder to heat the LWT but more is being 'used'; which should be most-efficient?

In principle the former for the reason stated

However, at low FTs the effect can be small and if its also a low loss house and mild weather than things like the consumption of the water pump become significant in comparison to the energy for actual heating. Also the effect of cycling may be important at this low output. At this point the simple thermodynamics-based arguments above break down and the engineering starts to matter. Whether anyone really cares at this level is a moot point, since the cost of heating is now very small!

4kW peak of solar PV since 2011; EV and a 1930s house which has been partially renovated to improve its efficiency. 7kW Vaillant heat pump.

ReplyQuote