Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Analysis and development trends of Chinese energy efficiency standards for T

room air conditioners
Jianghong Wu , Zhe Xu, Feng Jiang
⁎

School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510641, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Energy efficiency standards have crucial roles in reducing the energy consumption of room air conditioners
Energy efficiency standards (RACs) in many countries around the world. In this paper, a review of the policy rules of energy efficiency
Room air conditioners standards is presented. The characteristics and rationality for the evaluation metrics in various countries are
Development trends analyzed. The difference between the energy efficiency standards for RACs in China and those for other countries
China
are discussed. The development trends for the energy efficiency standards of Chinese RACs are provided in this
paper. The division of temperature zones, various operation modes and the long-term performance of RACs
should be considered when establishing the energy efficiency standards of RACs. Note that the improvement in
the energy efficiency standards of RACs is a vital measure for energy conservation and environmental protection.
Therefore, the environmental impact of the energy efficiency standards for RACs with refrigerants will become a
major direction in the enhancement of future standards of RACs. Finally, two methods based on a logarithmic
function and a linear function are proposed in this paper, which combine global warming potential (GWP) and
energy efficiency evaluation metrics. This paper will significantly contribute to the formulation and revision of
the energy efficiency standards of RACs and provide guidance to manufacturers of air conditioners.

1. Introduction performance (COP) were adopted as evaluation metrics in nominal

In China, an air conditioner is one of the main components of
electricity usage; and it accounts for more than 30% of the total re-
sidential electricity consumption (Peng, 2010). Because air conditioners
contribute to the greenhouse effect, reducing their energy consumption
is urgent for energy savings and environmental protection. Energy ef-
ficiency standards for room air conditioners (RACs) have been launched
in many countries as energy policy tools to achieve the goals of energy
conservation and emission reduction. As the estimation criteria for the
energy consumption of RACs, the standards of RACs have become the
compulsory threshold of RAC products that enter the market.
To reflect the actual energy efficiency of RACs, the development of
RACs and their standards have improved and become more reasonable
and precise. The energy efficiency ratio (EER) and coefficient of
conditions. However, the outdoor environment and the load rates of
RACs vary from hour to hour in annual operating conditions, which
produces a difference between room cooling and heating load. Thus, the
effective utilization degree of energy consumption for RACs during its
life cycle usage cannot be accurately represented only by nominal
evaluation metrics.
The development and popularization of various frequency room air
conditioners (VFRACs) accelerate the phase-out of nominal energy ef-
ficiency evaluation metrics. For VFRACs, the characteristics of energy
saving can only be reflected in partial load operating conditions, and
the operating condition can be significantly influenced by the software
design of various frequency systems. Therefore, the energy efficiency
evaluation metric of VFRACs is substantially more complex than that of
constant frequency room air conditioners (CFRACs). In addition to the

Abbreviations: ACOP, Annual Coefficient of Performance (W/W); AEER, Annual Energy Efficiency Ratio (W/W); APF, Annual Performance Factor; CC, Cooling
Capacity (W); CFRACs, Constant Frequency Room Air Conditioners; CO2, Carbon Dioxide; COP, Coefficient of Performance (W/W); CSPF, Cooling Season
Performance Factor; CSTE, Cooling Seasonal Total Electricity Consumption; CSTL, Cooling Seasonal Total Load; EER, Energy Efficiency Ratio (W/W); EU, European
Union; GWP, Global Warming Potential; HFC, Hydrofluorocarbons; HSPF, Heating Seasonal Performance Factor; HSTE, Heating Seasonal Total Electricity
Consumption; HSTL, Heating Seasonal Total Load; LTPP, Long-term Pavement Performance; PLF, Part Load Factor; RACs, Room Air Conditioners; SEER, Seasonal
Energy Efficiency Ratio; SCOP, Seasonal Coefficient of Performance; TAPF, Total Annual Performance Factor; Temp, Temperature; VFRACs, Various Frequency Room
Air Conditioners
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pmjhwu@scut.edu.cn (J. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.038
Received 14 June 2018; Received in revised form 3 October 2018; Accepted 22 October 2018
Available online 16 November 2018
0301-4215/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

frequency regulation characteristics of VFRACs, the outdoor environ- environmental impact of GB19577-2004 and GB19576-2004.
ment, cooling and heating load and the using habits should be con- However, the current RACs standards cannot fully satisfy the de-
sidered. In most cases, RACs do not work at the design cooling condi- mand of energy saving and environment protection. Note that minimal
tions. To rate the energy efficiency of RACs, seasonal evaluation metrics comprehensive work has focused on the analysis and development
were adopted in energy efficiency standards. In early 1975, the seasonal tendency of the energy efficiency standards of RACs. The rationality
energy efficiency ratio (SEER) and heating seasonal performance factor and problems encountered in the energy efficiency standards of RACs
(HSPF) were defined by American scholars, which can be expressed need to be discussed. In this paper, the global development of the en-
according to the following equations: ergy efficiency standards of RACs is reviewed. The characteristics of the
standards for RACs and the difference among China and other countries
CSTL 1
SEER = are analyzed. In addition, two methods—the first method is based on a
CSTE 2 (1)
logarithmic function, and the second method is based on a linear
HSTL function—which combine the refrigerant global warming potential
HSPF = (GWP) value with the energy efficiency standards of RACs, are pro-
HSTE (2)
posed. The development tendency and improvement of Chinese RACs
The comprehensive calculation method, which is described by standards are suggested for future revisions. This paper will contribute
American standards AHRI 210/240, enables the assessment of these to the revised standards for policy makers and the enhancement of air
efficiency metrics, which considers the effect of temperature and energy conditioners for manufacturers to save energy and mitigate greenhouse
load variations on performance. Compared with nominal energy effi- gas emission.
ciency, seasonal energy efficiency does not consider the rated operating
condition in isolation but also considers the high-temperature condi-
2. Review of energy efficiency standards for RACs in the world
tion, low-temperature condition and intermittent condition. The change
in room cooling and heating load is expressed by a linear function. The
2.1. Chinese standards
difference in the using habits is reflected by the running times of RACs
for different ambient temperatures. To reflect the on-off energy losses of
Regarding standards for CFRACs, GB/T 7725 Room air conditioners
RACs, the part load factor (PLF) and the degradation coefficient (CD ) are
was established and revised to evaluate the performance of CFRACs.
considered. Although the calculation of the energy efficiency of RACs
GB12021.3 The minimum allowable value of the energy efficiency and
becomes complex with the consideration of previously mentioned fac-
energy efficiency grades for room air conditioners was proposed to regulate
tors, the characteristics of various frequency, on-off energy losses and
the test method of power consumption and the allowable minimum
the differences in cooling and heating load can be accurately reflected
performance coefficient of CFRACs. In these standards, the EER is ap-
to ensure that seasonal energy efficiency metrics become the most
plied to evaluate the performance of CFRACs. In addition to setting the
important standards for evaluating whether the performance of RACs
minimum efficiency threshold of RACs, the classification requirements
are excellent.
for the established Energy Information Label are also included in
In 2006, Japan passed the second Japanese Top Runner Program,
Chinese standards for RACs. The Chinese Energy Information Label is
which adopted the annual performance factor (APF) as an energy effi-
similar to the Australian and EU energy labels.
ciency evaluation metric of RACs. The APF can be formulated as fol-
The latest CFRACs standard GB 12021.3–2010 (GB 12021.31-2010,
lows:
2010b) stipulates that the EER is the energy efficiency evaluation me-
CSTL + HSTL tric for CFRACs. Compared with the previous standard GB 12021.3-
APF =
CSTE + HSTE (3) 2004, GB 12021.3–2010 has reduced the energy efficiency grades from
5 grades to 3 grades and improved the threshold energy efficiency
Compared with seasonal evaluation metrics, a comprehensive con-
grade, which can be stated as follows: for packaged air conditioners, the
sideration of cooling energy efficiency and heating energy efficiency in
allowable EER has been increased from 2.3 to 2.9; for split air condi-
an entire year is proposed by the APF (Zhu et al., 2015); GB 12021.3-
tioners whose rated cooling capacity (CC) is less than 4500 W, the en-
2010 (GB 12021.3-2010, 2010a), which reflects the annual perfor-
ergy efficiency grade allowed to enter the market has been improved
mance of RACs. The redundancy of evaluating the same RAC by SEER
from grade 5 (EER is 2.60) to grade 3 (EER is 3.20), with an increase in
and HSPF can be avoided by the application of the APF, especially for
the allowable energy efficiency to 23%. The new energy efficiency
heat pump RACs. The evaluation metrics are simplified to ensure their
grades for CFRACs are listed in Table 1.
understanding by consumers. Therefore, the APF has been extensively
The energy efficiency standards for RACs have been improved with
applied by various RACs standards, including standards in China,
the advent and development of VFRACs. Therefore, the APF, which uses
Japan, America and the ISO.
a “two point” method in the cooling season and a “three point” method
In conclusion, the energy efficiency standard is not the single test
in the heating season is adopted to evaluate VFRACs. The first standard
result of energy efficiency for RACs in standard operating conditions.
GB 21455-2008.The minimum allowable values of the energy efficiency and
The annual operating consumption, in which the ambient temperature
energy grades for variable speed room air conditioners (GB 21455-2008,
difference, energy consumption in active mode and standby mode, and
2008) was issued in 2008. In this standard, the SEER, which is divided
long-term performance of RACs are included, should be considered.
into 5 grades, is applied to be the evaluation index of VFRACs. Grade 1
Research has been performed to evaluate the energy savings and the
environmental impact on the energy efficiency of RACs. Lin and
Table 1
Rosenquist (Lin and Rosenquist, 2008) considered that Chinese stan- Energy efficiency grade specifications for CFRACs in GB 23021.3-2010.
dards for RACs (with the first tier going into effect on March 1, 2005
and the second tier taking effect on January 1, 2009) are expected to Category Rated cooling capacity CC Energy efficiency grades EER W/
(W) W
yield cumulative national energy savings greater than 330 billion kWh
that translate into a reduction of carbon emissions from power plants by 3 2 1
323 million tons of CO2 by 2020. Yu and Tang (Yu and Tang, 2015)
investigated the electricity savings and CO2 emission reduction from Single-package 2.90 3.10 3.30
Split CC≤ 4500 3.20 3.40 3.60
RACs for the period 2005–2015 in China. They suggested that the
4500 < CC≤ 7100 3.10 3.30 3.50
standards should be revised every 4 or 5 years. Lu (Lu, 2007) estab- 7100 < CC≤ 14,000 3.00 3.20 3.40
lished a mathematic model to evaluate the potential energy savings and

369
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

Table 2
Distribution of cooling hours within the cooling season temperature bins (GB 21455-2008, 2008).
Temp 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Total
(°C)

Bin hours 54 96 97 113 98 96 110 107 105 94 76 61 22 5 2 1136

(h)

is the highest efficiency level, and grade 5 is the lowest efficiency level. Table 4
Grade 2 is the certification requirement for the energy conservation Energy efficiency grades for single-cold VFRACs (GB 21455-2013, 2013).
label. Grades 3 and 4 represent the average efficiency of the products. Type Cooling Capacity/W SEER/[(W h)/(W h)]
Grade 5 is a benchmark for air conditioning equipment that enters the
market (Wei, 2007). The distribution of cooling hours within the Energy efficiency grades
cooling season temperature bins has been presented in GB 21455-2008
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
and is listed in Table 2.
In 2013, the latest standard GB 21455–2013 Minimum allowable Split CC≤ 4500 5.40 5.00 4.30
values of the energy efficiency and energy efficiency grades for variable 4500 < CC≤ 7100 5.10 4.40 3.90
speed room air conditioners (GB 21455-2013, 2013) was issued to replace 7100 < CC≤ 14,000 4.70 4.00 3.50

GB 21455-2008. This standard stipulates that SEER and APF are applied
as the energy efficiency metrics for single-cold RACs and heat pump
RACs, respectively. Compared with GB 21455-2008, GB 21455-2013
has added heating hours within the heating season temperature bins
(Table 3) and further improved the benchmark for air conditioning
equipment that enters the market. The energy efficiency grades have
reduced from five grades to three grades, where grade 2 is defined as
the energy-saving level for VFRACs in this new energy efficiency grade.
Tables 4 and 5 present the allowable value of the SEER and the al-
lowable value of the APF, respectively.
The testing methods are a continuation of the “two point” method
and the “three point” method, as presented in GB/T 7725 2004 Room
air conditioners. The “Two-point” method tests the cooling capacity and
cooling power input in the rated operating condition when the com-
pressor operates with rated capacity and half capacity in the cooling
season. The “three-point” method tests the heating capacity and the
heating power input when the compressor is at rated capacity and half
capacity for not only the high-temperature operating condition but also
the low-temperature operating condition when the compressor is at
rated capacity in the heating season. In addition, −8.5 °C~5.5 °C is
defined as the frosting interval, where the heating capacity of RACs will
significantly degrade. Throughout these testing methods, the cooling
and heating hours and the energy efficiency (SEER, HSPF and APF) of
RACs can be easily calculated.
2.2. Japanese standard
Japan has been performing research on seasonal evaluation metrics.
The testing and calculation methods of SEER were inserted in the ap-
pendix of Japanese standards in 1994. JISC 9612 and JAR 4046 were
formed after a large number of modifications (Li and Cheng, 2008).
JISC 9612 is a comprehensive standard that addresses thermal perfor-
mance, safety, noise, and test procedures. Consistent with international
standards, the independent standard JISB 8615 was launched to reg-
ulate the test procedures of RACs according to ISO 5151 in 1999. Prior
to 2006, the evaluation metrics of RACs in Japan primarily comprised
seasonal power consumption. In September 2005, JRA 4048 and JRA
4055 were combined to become the new standard JRA 4048:2006
Annual performance factor of package air conditioners (JRA 4048:2006,
Table 5
Energy efficiency grades for heat pump VFRACs (GB 21455-2013, 2013).
Type Cooling Capacity/W HSPF/[(W h)/(W h)]
Energy efficiency grades
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Split CC≤ 4500 4.50 4.00 3.50
4500 < CC≤ 7100 4.00 3.50 3.30
7100 < CC≤ 14,000 3.70 3.30 3.10
2006; Wu, 2013). In this standard, the cooling season performance
factor (CSPF), HSPF and APF are applied as the evaluation metrics of
RACs, and the testing method is also presented in this standard.
In the calculation of CSPF and HSPF, Japan is divided into 5 regions.
In the cooling season, the temperature zones and cooling time are di-
vided according to a unified region with 15 temperature zones from
24 °C to 38 °C. In the heating season, the second and third regions are
merged into the cold zone, and the fourth and fifth regions are merged
into the temperate zone. Each zone has independent heating hours. The
heating temperature in the cold zone ranges between −14 °C and 16 °C,
whereas the heating temperature in the temperate zone ranges from
−-6 °C to 16 °C.
In the current Japanese RACs standard JISC 9612:2013 Room air
conditioner (JISC 9612:2013, 2013), two calculating methods for the
energy efficiency metrics of RACs were proposed. The first calculating
method is the “two-point” method, which is based on the temperature
bins in Tokyo (JISC 9612 Tokyo). The second calculating method is the
“three-point” method, which is based on the average temperature bins
in Japan (JISC 9612 Japan). The “three-point” method adds the cooling
and heating tests for the lowest capacity condition to enhance the
precision compared with the “two point” method. By these two testing
methods, the APF can be calculated to evaluate the performance of
RACs. The testing and calculating methods in JISC 9612:2013 are si-
milar to those in GB/T 7725-2004. The main difference between the
methods pertains to the cooling/heating hours in the cooling/heating
season, which are listed in Table 6. The weighted mean temperature in

Table 3
Distribution of heating hours within the heating season temperature bins (GB 21455-2013, 2013).
Temp -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total
(°C)

Bin hours 1 1 3 7 8 21 44 26 35 46 46 38 32 30 30 21 16 9 8 4 3 3 1 433

(h)

370
J. Wu et al.
Table 6
Weighted mean temperature in cooling and heating seasons in China and Japan.
GB/T 7725–2004 JISC 9612:2013
Weighted mean temperature in heating 4.31 °C 8.84 °C
season
Weighted mean temperature in cooling 29.62 °C 27.09 °C
season
the cooling season in JSIC 9612:2013 is lower than that in GB/T 7725-
2004, whereas the weighted mean temperature in heating season is the
opposite.
2.3. American standards
The seasonal energy efficiency ratio was proposed in ASHRAE 58
(ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA 2014), 2014) first. ANSI/AHRI 214/240
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
((ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008, 2008)) stipulates the performance re-
quirements and test methods of fixed frequency air conditioners and
variable speed air conditioners. Particularly, the calculation method of
SEER was presented. This standard has laid a foundation for the de-
velopment of variable-speed air conditioners and promoted the devel-
opment of RACs standards in the majority of the countries.
In American RACs standards, the “two-point” method and the “three
point” method are applied to evaluate the energy efficiency of CFRACs
in the cooling season and the heating season, respectively. The “five-
point” method is applied to evaluate VFRACs in both the cooling season
and the heating season. In particular, two testing conditions—the high-
temperature and low-temperature conditions when RACs operate with
the lowest capacity—are added to the “five point” method. The APF is
calculated by combining these test methods and the cooling/heating
hours, which vary between areas. In ANSI/AHRI 214/240–2008 (ANSI/
AHRI 210/240-2008, 2008), the calculating methods of SEER, HSPF
and APF, which are similar to those in GB/T 7725-2004, are proposed.
The main difference among these methods pertains to the heating hours
within the heating season temperature bins. In the heating season,
America is divided into 6 zones, where the outdoor design temperature
and heating hours are independent in the calculation of the HSPF
(Fig. 1). In the cooling season, the weighted average cooling hours
throughout America are adopted to calculate the SEER.
Although the calculating methods of the SEER and HSPF are similar
to those in GB/T 7725-2004, some difference exists in computing the
APF according to the following expressions:
CLHR QCk (95) + HLHR DHR C
APFR =
CLHR QCk (95) HLHR DHR C
SEER
+ HSPF
Fig. 1. Distribution of heating hours within heating season temperature bins in
America (ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008, 2008).
Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383
Table 7
Representative cooling and heating load hours for each generalized climatic
region (ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008, 2008).
Region I II III IV V VI
CLHR/h 2400 1800 1200 800 400 200
HLHR/h 750 1250 1750 2250 2750 2750
where
APFR ——representative regional annual performance factors.
CLHR ——representative cooling hours for each generalized climatic
region (Table 7), h.
QCk (95)——space cooling capacity of the unit as determined from the
A or A2 Test, Btu/h.
HLHR ——representative heating hours for each generalized climatic
region (Table 7), h.
DHR ——design heating requirement used to determine the HSPF,
Btu/h.
C ——0.77, a correction factor that tends to improve the agreement
between the calculated building load and the measured building
load, dimensionless.
In the process of calculating the APF, the influence of the cooling
and heating hours in different regions is carefully considered. The de-
sign heating requirement instead of the heating capacity is used to
determine the HSPF for different operating conditions. This method can
reduce the complexity of calculating the APF and the precision of the
results. As shown in Table 7, using one region to unify the cooling and
heating hours is difficult due to the large difference among the various
regions. Therefore, the method of distinguishing the regions adopted in
the American standard can veritably reflect the annual performance for
RACs in actual operation.
In addition, the DOE replaced the EER with the combined energy
efficiency ratio (CEER) in the energy efficiency assessment of window
air conditioners in regulation 10 CFR PART 430 (10 CFR PART 430).
The measured standby/off-mode power consumption is added to the
CEER compared with the EER. The minimum CEER value of window air
conditioners is specified in Energy Star Program Partner Commitments and
Eligibility Criteria for Room Air Conditioners (ENERGY STAR), which is
the threshold for products that enter the market.
2.4. European Union (EU) standards
The energy efficiency of RACs was characterized by the EER and
(4) COP in EU standards first. Then the standard was updated with two
seasonal performance metrics: SEER and SCOP (seasonal coefficient of
performance) (Grignon-Masse et al., 2011). Although the SEER and
SCOP are applied to evaluate the performance of RACs, the effects of
temperature and energy load variations on performance and electricity
consumption in various modes are also considered. European seasonal
efficiencies are used to evaluate the average energy efficiency of air
conditioners. In 2012, BS EN 14825-2012 Air conditioners, liquid chilling
packages and heat pumps, with electrically driven compressors, for space
heating and cooling-Testing and rating at part load conditions and calcu-
lation of seasonal performance ((BS EN 14825-2012, 2012)), which
presents the calculating methods of the SEER and SCOP, was issued.
These two metrics can be formulated as
QC
SEER = QC
SEERon
+ HTO × PTO + HSB × PSB + HCK × PCK + HOFF × POFF
(5)
371
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

SCOP =
Qh two metrics can be calculated using the following equations in the is-
Qh
+ HTO × PTO + HSB × PSB + HCK × PCK + HOFF × POFF sued AS/NZS 3823.2:2013 Performance of electrical appliances—Air
SCOPon
conditioners and heat pumps Part 2: Energy labeling and minimum energy
(6)
performance standards (MEPS) requirements ((AS/NZS 3823.2:2013,
where 2013)) in Australia in 2013.

QC , QH ——the reference annual cooling/heating demand, kWh. Qc × 2000

AEER =
HTO , HSB , HCK , HCK ——the number of hours the unit is considered to Pc × 2000 + Pnoc × 6.76 (7)
work in thermostat off mode, standby mode, crankcase heater mode
and off mode, respectively, h. Qh × 2000
ACOP =
PTO , PSB , PSB , PSB ——the electricity consumption during thermostat Ph × 2000 + Pnoh × 6.76 (8)
off mode, standby mode, crankcase heater mode and off mode, re-
where
spectively, kW.

Qc , Qh ——tested cooling/heating output, kW.

In the process of calculating SEERon and SCOPon , the EU method is
Pc , Ph ——tested cooling/heating effective power input, kW.
not as complex as the calculation methods in Chinese and Japanese
Pnoc , Pnoh ——factor that represents the assumed hours of operation
standards. The EU method does not need to find the balance between
per year in cooling/heating mode.
the capacity and the room load of RACs as the segment point of the
2000——non-operating power in watts in cooling/heating mode.
energy efficiency and electricity consumption curves in Chinese and
6.76——factor that converts power (watts) to energy (kWh) for
Japanese standards. Several typical conditions are selected to calculate
(8760-2000) h per year.
the rated capacity of RACs, which is regarded as the removed heating or
cooling load in an air-conditioned room, whereas the values in the re-
These equations show that the energy efficiency standard for
maining conditions can be achieved by linear interpolation. Therefore,
Australian RACs is simpler than standards in other countries. The main
the EU method simplifies the calculation of the seasonal energy effi-
innovations are listed as follows: first, few testing points for the RACs
ciency and reduces the precision of the evaluation metrics.
are tested only in the rated condition; second, the operating time in the
The test conditions of the SEER and SCOP for VFRACs in EU stan-
cooling and heating seasons is uniform and not analyzed by region. In
dards are similar to the American standard. In the EU standard, the
the process of calculating the annual electricity consumption, the con-
“four-point” method and “six-point” method are applied to VFRACs in
sumption in non-operating mode, which is similar to the EU standards,
the cooling season and heating season, respectively. The partial load at
is also considered. Although the evaluating method in Australian RACs
each point differs from the American standard. Regarding the testing
standards has the significant advantage of calculation simplicity, the
method, the compressor speed is determined according to the percen-
precision, comprehensiveness and facticity will be substantially dis-
tage of building load; thus, the cooling capacity curve is consistent with
counted.
the building load curve. To improve the SEER, the performance at
Air conditioners that are manufactured in Australia or imported into
minimum speed should be enhanced to match the building load. When
Australia shall satisfy or exceed the minimum requirements and add
calculating the energy efficiency of RACs in the heating season, both the
mandatory energy labels. The minimum requirements for air-to-air heat
EU standard and the American standard divide the heating bins into
pumps and air conditioners at rated capacity are listed in Table 8. In
three bins: average (A), warmer (W) and colder (C). Each bin has an
Australian energy labels, the star rating index (SRI) provides an in-
independent part load ratio and the outdoor temperature, which are
dication of the claimed energy efficiency at rated conditions, which is
similar to the actual operating condition. The auxiliary power con-
derived from the measured AEER or ACOP. A higher SRI indicates a
sumption (oil heater, thermostat off, standby and off mode) are con-
higher energy efficiency.
sidered in EU standards in the calculation of the SEER and SCOP (Wu
et al., 2014). Each mode has independent operating hours and elec-
tricity consumption; thus, the evaluation of the energy efficiency of 2.6. ISO standards
RACs will further improve its authenticity.
For the ISO RACs standards, the total annual performance factor
2.5. Australian standards (TAPF) which adds the electricity consumption in inactive mode based
on the APF, is adopted to evaluate the performance of RACs. In 2013,
The standard AS 3823.2-2013 Performance of electrical appliances-air ISO 16358-1-2013 (ISO 16358-1-2013, 2013), ISO 16358-2-2013 (ISO
conditioners and heat pumps (AS/NZS 3823.2:2013, 2013) stipulates the 16358-2-2013, 2013), and ISO 16358-3-2013 (ISO 16358-3-2013,
energy labeling, minimum energy performance standards requirements, 2013), which present the calculating methods of CSPF, HSPF, APF and
calculation of performance, and test procedures. The testing and rating TAPF, were issued. The main differences between the ISO standards and
for performance are equivalent to those in ISO 5151. The energy effi- GB/T 7725-2004 are the testing conditions and the operating hours in
ciency metrics annual energy efficiency ratio (AEER) and annual coef- the cooling and heating seasons. However, the calculation of the TAPF
ficient of performance (ACOP) are adopted to evaluate the performance is more comprehensive than the calculation of the APF in GB/T 7725-
of RACs. The calculating formulas are simplified and the heating and 2004 because the electricity consumption in the inactive mode is con-
cooling hours at various ambient temperatures are not included. These sidered. The calculation is formulated as

Table 8
Minimum requirements for air-to-air heat pumps and air conditioners at rated capacity (MEPS).
Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (GEMS) product class Product description Minimum AEER/ACOP

1 Non-ducted unitary cc < 10 kW 3.10

2 10 kW < cc < 19 kW 3.10
3 Non-ducted split systems cc < 4 kW 3.66
4 4 Kw < cc < 10 kW 3.22
5 10 kW < cc < 19 kW 3.10

372
J. Wu et al.
LCST + LHST
FTAP =
CCSE + CHSE + CIAE
CIAE = Hia × Pia
where
LCST ——total annual amount of heat that is removed from the in-
door air when the equipment is operated for cooling in active mode,
kWh.
LHST ——total annual amount of heat, including make-up heat,
which is added to the indoor air when the equipment is operated for
heating in active mode, kWh.
CCSE ——total annual amount of energy consumed by the equipment
when it is operated for cooling in active mode, kWh.
CHSE ——total annual amount of energy consumed by the equipment,
including make-up heat, when it is operated for heating in active
mode, kWh.
CIAE ——inactive energy consumption, kWh.
Hia ——number of hours in inactive mode, h.
Pia ——weighted average power consumption, kW.
The RACs operating modes are divided into active, inactive and
disconnected modes based on these equations. Due to the large span of
annual temperature, the electricity consumption in inactive mode at
various temperatures must be considered for RACs. In ISO 16358-3-
2013, the annual temperatures are separated into 4 temperature points,
where the electricity consumption of RACs is tested at each point. The
weighted average electricity consumption can be achieved by multi-
plying the weighting factor at each temperature point (Table 9).
The test standards and procedure of RACs are present in ISO 5151,
which are employed by many other countries for reference. The cooling
capacity rating conditions of ISO 5151-2017 (ISO 5151:2017, 2017) are
listed in Table 10. T1 represents the moderate climates, T2 represents
the cool climates and T3 represents the hot climates. The RACs in dif-
ferent climates shall have ratings determined by a test conducted at
different temperature conditions.
3. Analysis of RACs standards in various countries
3.1. Characteristics and rationality of RACs standards in various countries
Currently, the energy efficiency of RACs is primarily evaluated by
SEER, HSPF and APF. A summary of global RAC standards is shown in
Table 11. The specific steps include determining the temperature dis-
tribution and operating time of RACs in the cooling/heating season,
experimenting at each point and calculating the seasonal energy effi-
ciency by weighting each point. The main difference focuses on the
testing and calculation methods.
Chinese RACs standards are revised based on the American and
Japanese standards. In addition to the “three point” method in GB/T
17758 2010 Unitary air conditioners, a simplified “two point” method is
adopted to test the performance of air conditioners. The main mod-
ifications are the zero-load base temperature and the annual operating
time, which are corrected according to Chinese climate characteristics.
Compared with the vast territory of China, the same annual operating
time of RACs adopted in Chinese standards hinders the ability to obtain
a match between the annual energy efficiency and the climate char-
acteristics in various regions.
Table 9
Default weighting factors for determination of reference inactive energy con-
sumption (ISO 16358-3-2013, 2013).
Temperature condition 5 °C 10 °C 15 °C 20 °C
Weighting factor 0.05 0.13 0.27 0.55
Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383
Table 10
(9) Cooling capacity rating conditions.
Parameter Standard rating conditions
(10)
T1 T2 T3
Temperature of air entering indoor-side
—dry bulb 27 °C 21 °C 29 °C
—wet bulb 19 °C 15 °C 19 °C
Temperature of air entering outdoor-side
—dry bulb 35 °C 27 °C 46 °C
—wet bulb 24 °C 19 °C 24 °C
As the most advanced country from the aspect of VFRACs, the
corresponding standards in Japan are ranked first in the world.
Although the conception of the SEER and HSPF were proposed by
America, further improvements, including the simplified “two-point”
testing method for the SEER and HSPF, were proposed by Japan. The
allowable energy efficiency values in Japan also precede other coun-
tries. The conception of the APF presented by Japanese RACs standards
is more acceptable by consumers. The annual operating characteristics
for RACs and the advancement in various countries are present in
Japanese RACs standards.
The difference in calculating the energy efficiency between
American standards and Japanese standards is minimal. However, the
testing conditions in American standards are more complicated than
those in Japanese standards. For American standards, the “two-point”
method is applied to CFRACs in the cooling season, the “three-point”
method is applied to CFRACs in the heating season and the “five-point”
method is applied to VFRACs in the cooling and heating seasons.
America is separated into 6 generalized climatic regions in the process
of calculating the HSPF. Each region has an independent operating time
and outdoor design temperature, which enhances the accuracy of the
evaluation index. Although the calculation and test in the American
standards are more complex, the precision can be further improved.
Compared with the standards of China, Japan and America, the
calculation for the RACs in the EU standards is simpler because the
balance point between the room load and the capacity does not have to
be calculated for the RACs. Regarding the aspect of electricity con-
sumption, various modes including thermostat off mode, standby mode,
crankcase heater mode and off mode are considered. Although the EU
standard is not as accurate as the Chinese, Japanese and American
standards in terms of balancing room load with capacity, it is more
comprehensive in calculating electricity consumption, which coincides
with the actual operating conditions.
Australian RAC standards are the simplest among the previously
mentioned standards due to fewer testing conditions and given annual
operating time, which create a great lag behind the previously men-
tioned countries with regard to precision and accuracy.
ISO testing standards have been extensively employed in many
countries. The calculation of the APTF in ISO standards is more com-
prehensive than the APF in Chinese standards due to the consideration
of electricity consumption in inactive mode.
3.2. Differences in RACs standards among China and other countries
The differences in RAC standards among China and other countries
can be described as follows:
a) External environmental or climatic factors
First, different countries/regions have different climate types, which
generate different cooling and heating times. The operating time in the
Chinese standards and Japanese standards are illustrated in Figs. 2 and
3, respectively. The distribution of cooling hours and heating hours in
China are more uniform than that in Japan. However, the heating hours
373
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

Table 11
Summary of international RAC standards.
Standard category Test Performance calculation method standard Energy efficiency standard Energy efficiency index
method standard

China GB/T 7725-2004 GB/T 7725-2004 GB 12021.3–2010(CFRACs) SEER, HSPF, APF

GB 21455–2013(VFRACs)
Japan JISC 9612: 2013 JISC 9612:2013 JRA 4046 CSPF, HSPF, APF
JRA 4048: 2006 JRA 4046 Top Runner Program
JISB 8615
America AHRI 210/240: 2008 AHRI 210/240–2008 Energy Star (Endorsement) SEER, HSPF, APF
DOE
EU EN 14511-2011 EN 14825-2012 (EU) No 206/2012 SEER, SCOP
(EU) No 626/2011
G/TBT/N/EEC/362G/TBT/N/EEC/363
Australia AS/NZS AS/NZS AS/NZS AEER, ACOP, SRI
3823.1.1 3823.2-2013 3823.2-2013
AS/NZS 3823.1.2
ISO ISO 5151-2017 ISO 163581-2013(CSPF) —— CSPF, HSPF, APF, TAPF
ISO 16368-2-2013(HSPF)
ISO 16358-3-2013(APF,TAPF)

400 produces a greater contribution of middle-temperature to the APF and

China
Japan
accounts for more than 50%. For China, the operating time for RACs is
350
similar in all conditions.
high-temp
300 low-temp condition middle-temp condition conditon APF = 5.7%EERr + 18.9%EERm + 22%COPr + 53.1%COPm + 0.3%COPl
(11)
Cooling hours (h)

250

200 APF = 0.468 + 4.6%EERr + 4.68%EERm + 25%COPr + 18%COPm

+ 27%COPl (12)
150
where
100

50 r ——RACs operate in rated cooling/heating condition

m ——RACs operate in middle-temperature condition
0 l ——RACs operate in low-temperature condition
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Temperature(°C) Second, the difference in the zero-load base temperature is caused
Fig. 2. Cooling hours in Chinese and Japanese standards. by the variation in climates and architectural structure. As shown in
Table 12, the difference in the zero-load base temperature will produce
an increase in number of cooling hours and a decrease in the number of
450
heating hours throughout the year in American standards compared
with Chinese and Japanese standards.
low-temp middle-temp high-temp
400
condition condition condition
350
Third, some countries/regions are vast in territory; thus, using the
extremely low-temp
China same operating time in all countries/regions yields inaccurate results.
condition
300 Japan For EU and American standards, the country is separated into several
Heating hours (h)

250 frosting interval

regions when calculating the HSPF. The operating time is based on
different climate types. However, the same operating time is applied in
200 Chinese standards, which causes less precision in calculating the APF.
150
b) Difference in testing methods
100

50 The testing and calculation methods vary among countries. The

differences between Chinese standards and EU standards are listed in
0
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Table 13. A simplified method is adopted in GB/T 7725-2004 to cal-
culate the SEER. The cooling capacity and EER of the rated speed and
Temperature(°C)
intermediate speed at 35 °C are experimentally tested; these parameters
Fig. 3. Heating hours in Chinese and Japanese standards. at 29 °C are obtained by calculation. Compared with Chinese standards,
the test conditions stipulated in EN 14825-2010 are more complex and

are substantially longer than the cooling hours in Japan due to the Table 12
smaller territory and higher latitude. Zero-load base temperature for Chinese, Japanese and American RAC stan-
dards.
Formula (11) (Qi and Li, 2011) and formula (12) (Wang, 2013)
provide the calculation equations of the APF in Japan and China, re- Cooling season Heating season
spectively. These formulas indicate the difference in the weights of the
China 23 °C 17 °C
rated condition, middle-temperature condition and low-temperature
Japan 23 °C 17 °C
condition due to the different climates between Japan and China. The America 18.3 °C 18.3 °C
RACs in Japan primarily operate in the middle-temperature, which

374
J. Wu et al.
Table 13
Test procedure differences between EN 14825-2010 and GB/T 7725-2004.
Parameter EN 14825-2010
Number of operating points in cooling 4 2
test
Number of operating points in heating 6 3
test
Compressor speed setting Compressor speed is determined based on
building load.
Outdoor temperature Outdoor temperature varies among testing
conditions.
specified. The speed of the compressor is determined according to the
percentage of building load, and the outdoor temperature varies with
the speed of the compressor. The differences in the testing methods
between the Chinese standards and the EU standards are primarily re-
flected in the outdoor temperature and the setting point of the com-
pressor speed.
For the Chinese standards, only active mode is considered, whereas
inactive mode is considered in the EU, Australian and ISO standards.
For EU standard BS 14825, additional operating modes, including
thermostat off mode, standby mode, crankcase heater mode and off
mode, are considered. In EN 14825, the standby energy consumption
and inactive mode energy consumption of a VFRAC are 0.0020 kW/24 h
and 0.0296 kW/24 h respectively. The SEER is 8.56 if inactive mode is
considered; otherwise, the SEER is 9.57.
4. Development trends for Chinese RACs standards
4.1. Combination of temperature zone and standards
The equation of the APF indicates that the cooling and heating times
are key factors for the final value. In the EU and American standards, a
country is divided into several regions, in which each region has in-
dependent heating hours in the heating season. Conversely, for the
Chinese standards, the same operating time is applied to represent the
climate characteristics in China. This method does not reflect the dif-
ference between the energy efficiency and the consumption of RACs in
different regions in China due to the variation in climates and habits.
The annual cooling times and heating times of RACs in different tem-
perature zones obtained by investigating hundreds of typical air con-
ditioners in 6 representative cities in China during the process of setting
VFRACs standard GB21455-2013 are shown in Fig. 4.
China has five major climate zones which can be distinguished
based on the average outdoor air temperatures of the coldest and hot-
test months (Yan and Hong, 2017): the severe cold zone (average
temperature of the coldest month is less than 10 °C and that of the
highest month is less than 25 °C), the cold zone (average temperature of
the coldest month ranges from −10 °C to 0 °C and that of the highest
month ranges from 18 °C to 28 °C), the hot summer and cold winter
zone (average temperature of the coldest month ranges from 0 °C to
10 °C and that of the highest month ranges from 25 °C to 30 °C), the hot
summer and warm winter zone (average temperature of the coldest
month is higher than 10 °C and that of the highest month ranges from
25 °C to 29 °C), and the moderate zone (average temperature of the
coldest month ranges from 0 °C to 13 °C and that of the highest month
ranges from 18 °C to 25 °C). In these 6 cities, Guangzhou is in the “hot
summer and warm winter” zone; Chengdu, Wuhan and Shanghai are in
the “hot summer and cold winter” zone; and Qingdao and Beijing are in
the “cold” zone. The climate condition has a significant effect on the
operating times of RACs. However, the zones based on operating time
differ from traditional temperature zones, which can be described as
follows: for cooling hours, the operating times of RACs in the “hot
summer and warm winter” zone is very long with minimal differences
among the remaining temperature zones; for heating hours, a
375
Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383
GB/T 7725-2004
Rated speed and intermediate speed is based on rated cooling/heating capacity and 50%
of rated cooling/heating capacity, respectively.
In addition to low temperature heating, the temperature for rated and intermediate
conditions is the same.
considerable difference exists in each temperature zone, and a central
heating system is extensively employed in most cities in northern China
(Fig. 5):
Due to extremely low temperatures in the majority of the areas
north of the Qinling Mountains and the Huaihe River, a central heating
system is extensively employed to maintain room temperature in the
winter. Regarding the differences in climate, the heating season varies
among cities in China. The heating season in the “cold” zone extends
from November 15 to March 15, whereas the heating season in the
“severe cold” zone ranges from mid-October to mid-April of the fol-
lowing year. In Fig. 5, six cities with central heating systems represent
different climates. Zhengzhou, Shijiazhuang and Beijing are in the
“cold” zone, whereas Xining, Changchun and Harbin are in the “severe
cold” zone. As shown in Fig. 5, when the use of central heating starts in
October and November, the temperature ranges from 4 °C to 8 °C in the
“severe cold” zone and the “cold” zone. The green shadow represents
the average monthly temperature when the use of central heating starts.
The use of central heating starts from 4 °C to 8 °C in the “severe cold”
and “cold” zones.
The outdoor environment can produce an effect on the operating
time and the calculation of the APF. Therefore, two suggestions for
Chinese RACs standards are described according to the previously dis-
cussed characteristics:
(1) The cooling hours should be divided into the “hot summer and
warm winter” zone and the non-“hot summer and warm winter”
zone when calculating the SEER;
(2) The heating hours should be divided into the “hot summer and
warm winter” zone, “hot summer and cold winter” zone, “mod-
erate” zone and “central heating” zone. For the “central heating”
zone, the time when RACs operate below 15 °C, as regulated in
Chinese standards, is not applied as long as the heating hours. The
temperature 6 °C, which is the average value of 4 °C and 8 °C, is
adopted as the ending heating temperature, and 15 °C remains as
the starting heating temperature, as regulated in Chinese standards.
The operating time between these two temperatures is used as the
heating hours for “central heating” zone.
4.2. Combination of RACs long-term performance and standards
In other fields, the long-term performance has been directly linked
to standards, such as road, bridge, and composite materials. For road
and bridge construction, scientific researchers and administrative de-
partments have considered research on long-term performance. More
than 20 countries have participated in the long-term pavement per-
formance (LTPP) international research scheme. In China, GB/T 50082-
2009 (GB/T 50082-2009, 2009) has been issued to limit the long-term
performance and durability performance of concrete. The noise gener-
ated by the friction between the road surface and the tires will increase
with the length of driving time. Therefore, the EU has passed BS EN
14389-2-2004 (BS EN 14389-2-2004, 2004) and DIN EN 14389-2-2004
(DIN EN 14389-2-2004, 2004) to regulate the change in road traffic
noise. In the area of composite materials, both dynamic mechanical
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

Cooling/Heating hours - Guangzhou (h)

Cooling/Heating hours-Chengdu (h)

700 heating condition 700 heating condition
cooling condition cooling condition
600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature(°C) Temperature(°C)

(a) Guangzhou (b) Chengdu

Cooling/Heating hours-Shanghai (h)

heating condition
Cooling/Heating hours-Wuhan (h)

700 700 heating condition

cooling condition cooling condition
600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature(°C) Temperature(°C)

(c) Wuhan (d) Shanghai

Cooling/Heating hours-Qingdao (h)

700 heating condition 700 heating condition

Cooling/Heating hours-Beijing (h)

cooling condition cooling condition

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature(°C) Temperature(°C)

(e) Qingdao (f) Beijing

Fig. 4. Annual cooling and heating hours in different temperature zones in China.

properties and static mechanical properties are relevant to time, such as the use of the device; thus, establishing long-term performance stan-
the phenomenon of creepage and fatigue under long-term loads. dards in different areas is critical.
America has issued ANSI/UL 746B-2013 to evaluate the long-term The design life-span for RACs is usually 8–10 years. During its
performance of polymeric material. ISO (ISO 10467-2004, 2004) and running period, the performance of the main components after a long
ASTM have also passed several standards (ASTM D2992, 2006) (ASTM operation will decline, such as a decline of cooling capacity and energy
D5365, 2006) to predicate material properties via the long-term testing efficiency due to wear of the compressor, the leakage of refrigerant, the
of data using the method of linear regression to redesign its structure. fatigue of the fan blade, and the attenuation of heat transfer perfor-
The original performance of a device will changed with an increase in mance (Ahn et al., 2003). CQC 9202-2012 The technology requirements

376
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

35 Zhengzhou Xining
30 Shijiazhuang Changchun
Beijing Harbin
25
20
central heating central heating
15
Temperature(°C)

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20 central heating central heating
-25
-30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fig. 5. Temperature distribution of central heating system in China.

for long-term energy conservation evaluation of air conditioner (CQC

9202–2012, 2012), including the long-term performance and evalua-
tion of air conditioners for different conditions, has been proposed by
the China Quality Certification Center. However, the long-term per-
formance for RACs has not been adopted for the energy efficiency
evaluation index by Chinese RACs standards.
Figs. 6–9 show the current status of the main components of 26
RACs that have been employed for more than 5 years. The surfaces of
the condenser and the evaporator are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 respec-
tively. The condenser and evaporator are prone to accumulate ash due
to their intermittent operation in dry/wet conditions. The ash primarily Fig. 7. Surface of evaporator.
accumulates between the fins and the heat pipes, as shown in Figs. 6
and 7, which causes an increase in the heat resistance. The wind tur-
bines of the outdoor unit and the indoor unit are shown in Figs. 8 and 9
respectively. The long-term operation will cause fatigue and fouling of
the blades (Figs. 8 and 9), which will cause weakening of the air supply

Fig. 8. Wind turbine of outdoor unit.

and a decline in the performance of RACs. These RACs have been tested
in the rated cooling condition, high-temperature condition, rated
heating condition and low-temperature condition. To ensure the re-
Fig. 6. Surface of condenser. presentation and omnipotence of the testing results, the chosen units

377
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

4.0
decrease value of APF
3.5 APF after using

3.0

2.5

APF after using

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

ho an
ng g

n
Ku ing

Sh ing

Be i

N ou
Sh ning

ng

ng
a

na
gh

Xi
ya

qi
zh
j
j
nm

i
an

Ji
an

an

ng
en
N

ua

C
G
Fig. 11. Decrease in APF for RACs in 10 cities.

Guangzhou, Nanning and Shenyang have the same service time, the
average attenuation rate of the performance in Beijing and Shenyang is
larger than that in Guangzhou and Nanning. As shown in Fig. 11, the
APF of the RACs in Beijing demonstrate the largest decrease, followed
by Shenyang. The main reason is the significant difference in climate
and air quality between the northern and southern regions. Beijing and
Shenyang are located in northern China, whereas Guangzhou and
Nanning are located in southern China. The air quality in northern
Fig. 9. Wind turbine of indoor unit. China is worse than that in southern China with a greater amount of
dust and haze; thus, the outdoor units of RACs are prone to gather dirt,
which contributes to a decline in performance.
60%
rated cooling Service life If the energy efficiency in the factory state is always adopted in RAC
rated heating standards, air conditioner manufacturers will focus on the factory
Attenuation rate of performance

10
50%
performance and disregard the abrasion of the compressors, the leakage
high-temp cooling
low-temp heating
8 of refrigerants, the distortion of fans and the decline in the performance
Service life (year)

40%
of the heat exchangers. In the long term, this approach will not favor
6 the development of energy savings and environmental protection. In
addition, Wu (Wu et al., 2015) et al. proposed a comprehensive eva-
30%
4 luation of long-term performance for RACs (Eq. (13)), which is sim-
20%
plified using the method of a BP neural network. The comprehensive
2 evaluation is simplified as the weighted energy efficiency value for
10% different operating conditions (Eq. (14)).
0
APFo
0% =
APFn (13)
ho ian
u a ijing

n
Ku ing

Sh ing

Be i

N ou

ng

ng
Sh n i n g
a

na
gh

ya
zh

qi
X
j
nm
an

Ji
an

an

ng
en
ng

where
N

C
G

Fig. 10. Long-term performance of RACs in 10 cities. ——synthetical evaluation of long-term performance of RACs.
o——subscript, long-term operating state.
n ——subscript, factory state.
are distributed among 10 cities in each temperature zone. The testing
= 0.187EERr + 0.312EERh + 0.298COPl + 0.203COPr (14)
results and comparison with the factory performance (one unit per city)
are shown in Fig. 10. where
The varying degree of performance degradation were observed after
long-term use; the performance of the RACs demonstrated a substantial EERr ——the retention rate of energy efficiency for rated cooling
decrease with an increase in the operating time. For example, the APF condition.
of the RAC in Chongqing, which has operated for 11 years, for the rated EERh ——the retention rate of energy efficiency for high-tempera-
cooling condition, high-temperature cooling condition, rated heating ture cooling condition.
condition and low-temperature heating condition has reduced by COPl ——the retention rate of energy efficiency for low-temperature
41.28%, 38.59%, 14.86% and 21.86%, respectively, and the range of heating condition.
decline was significant. The comparison of the APF between the factory COPr ——the retention rate of energy efficiency for rated heating
and the current state is shown in Fig. 11. Throughout the RACs in 10 condition.
cities, the performance of the RACs showed a significant decrease,
especially in Chongqing, of which the APF decreased to 0.8328. To optimize RAC standards, the long-term energy efficiency of RACs
The service life and the performance degradation of RACs are clo- that have operated for 5 years, 10 years and 15 years can be added to
sely related to the climate. As shown in Fig. 10, although Beijing, pre-existing standards with the calculating method of comprehensive

378
J. Wu et al.
50000
Energy savings (million kWh)
CO savings (million tons)
40000
Carbon savings (million tons)
30000
million kWh
20000
10000
0 mental image of HFCs has been questioned. In 2006, specific regula-
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year
Fig. 12. Natural benefits of the development of Chinese RAC standards
(Rosenquist and Lin, 2005).
evaluation of the long-term performance . Production of RACs can be
restricted to the condition when the allowable energy efficiency in both
the factory state and the long-term operating state are attained.
4.3. Combination of environmental protection properties and standards for
refrigerants
4.3.1. Environmental impacts of energy efficiency standards for RACs in the
present stage
Since the first RAC standard was issued, energy efficiency metrics
have developed from the EER to the COP to the APF, which are more
comprehensive and similar to actual operation. The improvement and
perfection of RAC standards have not only promoted the development
of air conditioning technology but also substantially reduced their en-
ergy consumption and made significant contributions to the environ-
ment, especially for the greenhouse effect (Lin and Rosenquist, 2008).
The effects of Chinese RAC standards on the environment are illustrated
in Fig. 12, where the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and
energy consumption are distinct.
The evaluation of RACs considers the aspect of energy efficiency.
The APF, SEER and HSPF are used to evaluate the energy consumption
and efficiency of RACs. In environmental protection, the environmental
performance of refrigerants is primarily evaluated by the global
warming potential (GWP) and ozone depression potential (ODP). Note
that the perfection of RAC standards and the increase in the energy
efficiency grade will ultimately influence the extent of damage to the
environment. If the environmental factors can be incorporated into RAC
standards, a substantial contribution to the decline in the greenhouse
effect will be achieved. Hung M. Pham et al. Hung and Autumn (Hung
and Autumn, 2014) proposed the importance of balancing the effi-
ciency of air conditioners and the GWP of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) on
AHRI's Low-GWP AREP Conference in New York. For the development
process of refrigerants, the refrigerants performance and the environ-
mental protection properties were considered. New refrigerants have
superiority with regard to environmental protection properties,
whereas the operating performance will slightly decrease. If environ-
mental factors such as GWP are adopted in RAC standards, refrigerants
with excellent environmental protection properties will exhibit a
Table 14
Regulation for air conditioners that enter the European market.
product
Movable room air conditioning equipment (hermetically sealed equipment that is movable between rooms by the end user) that contains HFCs with minimum
GWP of 150
Single split air conditioning systems that contain less than 3 kg of fluorinated greenhouse gases, that contain, or whose functioning relies upon, fluorinated
greenhouse gases with a minimum GWP of 750
Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383
50 tolerance degree of energy efficiency. However, refrigerants with poor
environmental protection properties will exhibit the opposite results.
Thus, a direct link with RAC standards and environmental protection
40
will become evident and urge air conditioner manufacturers to produce
30 RACs charged with new refrigerants, which is beneficial to the reduc-
tion of carbon emissions and greenhouse effects.
million tons
20 Minimal research has been performed to incorporate the environ-
mental protection properties of refrigerants into energy efficiency
10 standards in China, whereas the GWP values of refrigerants have been
adopted in the energy efficiency standards of RACs in the EU. Since the
0 adoption of the < Kyoto Protocol > at the end of 1997, the environ-
-10
tions for fluorinated greenhouse gases (EU NO 517/2014, 2014), which
stipulates the threshold of air conditioners and other refrigeration
equipment that enters the European market, were implemented and
subsequently revised in 2014 (Table 14). Directive 2006/40/EC
(Directive 2006/40/EC, 2006) restricts the use of refrigerants with a
GWP value less than 150 in automobile air conditioners. In the EU RAC
standards, a GWP value of 150 is the classification standard. The re-
quirements of minimum energy efficiency for air conditioning units
with a cooling capacity less than 12 kW are listed in Table 15 (G/TBT/
N/EEC/362, 2011). The minimum energy efficiencies for VFRACs are
listed in Table 16 (G/TBT/N/EEC/363, 2011).
As shown in Table 15, the same tolerance value of 10% is applied to
the minimum energy efficiency of air conditioners with a low-GWP
refrigerant. According to Table 16, the EER/SEER of VFRACs with a
low-GWP refrigerant can be lower than that of RACs with a high GWP
value until 2019. After 2019, VFRACs with high-GWP refrigerant and
high energy consumption will be phased out in the European market to
reduce the greenhouse effect and energy consumption.
4.3.2. Optimization proposal to combine environmental protection
properties and standards of refrigerants with feasibility analysis
4.3.2.1. Optimization proposal to combine environmental protection
properties of refrigerants and threshold value of energy
efficiency. Although some optimizations of the energy efficiency of
RACs for the use of low-GWP refrigerant have been proposed by
Directive 2009/125/EC, the tolerance value of 10% is applied to all
RACs regardless of the GWP value of the new refrigerant, which is
unjust for more environmental friendly refrigerants, such as R290 and
R1234yf. A new optimization proposal to adopt the GWP for the energy
efficiency of RACs is presented in this paper (Eq. (15)). When the GWP
value of refrigerant is 0, a maximum tolerance value of 10% can be
attained, as defined in Directive 2009/125/EC. If the GWP of
refrigerant exceeds 0, the tolerance value varies from 0% to 10% by
linear interpolation. The alternate optimization proposal is to apply
linear interpolation based on the logarithm of GWP (Eq. (16)), which is
advantageous to refrigerants with significantly low GWP.
GWPalt ref
EERalt ref = EERbaseline 0.1 + 0.9
GWPbaseline (15)
ln( GWPnew ref )
EERnew ref = EERbaseline 0.1 + 0.9
ln( GWPbaseline ) (16)
where
date
1 January 2020
1 January 2025
379
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

Table 15 where
Requirements of minimum energy efficiency of air condition units with cooling
capacity less than 12 kW in the European market according to the EU regula- f (x ) ——energy efficiency of RACs, SEER is adopted in this equa-
tion. tion.
Air conditioners (with the exception of single x ——environmental values of refrigerants, GWP is adopted in this
and double duct air conditioners) equation.

SEER SCOP
Because both the first-order derivative and the second-order deri-
GWP > 150, CC < 6 kW 4.6 3.8 vative of the logarithmic function are positive, the allowable energy
GWP≤ 150, CC < 6 kW 4.14 3.42 efficiency has a positive correlation with the environmental protection
GWP > 150, 6 kW ≤CC ≤ 12 kW 4.3 3.8 properties of refrigerants. Compared with the original standard, a tol-
GWP≤ 150, 6 kW ≤ CC≤ 12 kW 3.87 3.42
erance value, which reflects the difference between the specified value
and the calculated f (x ) , can be obtained using new refrigerants. An
increase in the environmental protection properties will cause an in-
Table 16
EU standard for the energy efficiency of variable speed room air conditioners. crease in the tolerance value. The square roots of the environmental
protection values renders f (x ) more sensitive to x . Considering the
GWP EN2013-1-1 EN2014-1-1 EN1019-1-1 SEER grade in Directive 2010/30/EU as an example, the benchmark
SEER SEER SEER
refrigerant is R410a (GWP=2100). According to these conclusions, a
GWP＞150 3.60 4.30 7.00 tolerance value of the energy efficiency will be obtained when the RAC
GWP≤ 150 3.06 3.66 7.00 is charged with new refrigerants. However, this decreased allowable
energy efficiency value should not be less than the upper value in the
previous energy efficiency grade. Considering RACs whose CC≤ 12 kW
EERalt ref ——the threshold value of energy efficiency for RACs with as an example, the lower value of a C grade energy efficiency after
alternative refrigerants. optimizing can decrease to 3.6, which is the upper value of a D grade
EERbaseline ——the threshold value of energy efficiency for RACs with energy efficiency prior to optimization (GWP of new refrigerant is 0 at
traditional refrigerants. this stage). The upper value of C grade can decrease to 4.1, which is the
GWPalt ref ——the GWP of alternative refrigerants. lower value of a C grade energy efficiency prior to optimization (GWP
GWPbaseline ——the GWP of traditional refrigerants. of new refrigerant is 0 at this stage). The optimized upper and lower
values of a C grade energy efficiency can be formulated as follows:
The feasibility of the two proposals is validated by experiments of
R134a and R404a alternative refrigerants conducted by Alex Alvey SEERupper = ln( GWP + 70.64) 0.16 (18)
(Alvey, 2014). The alternative refrigerants against R134a and R404a
are listed in Tables 17 and 18, respectively, and the validation results SEERlower = ln( GWP + 70.64) 0.66 (19)
are shown in Fig. 13. The comparison between the logarithmic function and linear func-
As shown in Fig. 13, the optimization proposal that applies the tion of SEER and GWP are shown in Table 19.
logarithmic function is satisfied with a decreasing rate of energy effi- As shown in Table 19, the difference in the energy efficiency cannot
ciency for different evaporating temperatures, with the exception of be increased using better refrigerants, such as R290 and R1234yf, based
AC5X. This result can be explained by the GWP of AC5X and N-13a, on the linear function method. For refrigerant R32, whose environ-
which is approximately 600 and yields the same tolerance value, mental protection properties are general, the tolerance value is slightly
whereas the declining rate of energy efficiency in AC5X is significantly larger. However, these problems can be solved using a logarithmic
higher than that in N-13a, which almost reaches 8%. Thus, AC5X is not function.
suitable as an alternative refrigerant for RACs without optimizing an air To validate the feasibility of the previously mentioned optimization
conditioning system. The tolerance value with the method of loga- proposal with a logarithmic function, the experimental data reported by
rithmic function is unable to satisfy the energy efficiency of RACs using Larry D. Burns (Larry, 2014) on the AHRI's Low-GWP AREP Conference
new refrigerants in addition to the refrigerant with a small GWP. is adopted. As shown in Fig. 14, in addition to DR-5, the energy effi-
Regarding the setting threshold value of the energy efficiency, the ciency for RACs with alternative refrigerants has declined to various
method that combines the maximum tolerance value of 10% and a degrees, which indicates the need to optimize the grade value of the
linear function can satisfy the requirement of the energy efficiency energy efficiency for refrigerant environmental characteristics.
decreasing rate for RACs with alternative refrigerants. Compared with the optimized SEER in Table 19, the SEER for all
RACs with alternative refrigerants that operate at C grade adopted the
4.3.2.2. Optimization proposal to combine refrigerants’ environmental method of logarithmic function, whereas the RACs with L-41a directly
protection properties and grade value of energy efficiency. For the energy improve to a B grade using a linear function without any improvement
efficiency limit value of RACs, the grade value is as important as the in the original refrigeration system. For alternative refrigerants, which
threshold value. Based on the GWP value of refrigerant, an optimization will decrease the energy efficiency of a refrigeration system, improving
proposal to limit the allowable energy efficiency is expressed as the energy efficiency grade is not reasonable due to the environmental
properties.
f (x ) = ln( x + a) + b (17) Above all, using linear function to combine environmental

Table 17
R134a alternative refrigerants.
Baseline Alternative refrigerants Composition (Mass%) Classification GWP100

R134a R1324yf R1324yf 100 A2L 4

N-13a R-134a/R-1234yf/R-1234ze(E) 42/18/40 A1 604
AC5X R-32/R-134a/R-1234ze(E) 7/40/53 A1 622
R1234ze R1234ze 100 A2L 6

380
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

Table 18
R404a alternative refrigerants.
Baseline Alternative refrigerants Composition (Mass%) Classification GWP100

R404a N-40a R-32/R-125/R-134a/R-1234yf/R-1234ze(E) 25/25/21/9/20 A1 1346

D2Y-65 R-32/R-1234yf 35/65 A2L 239

protection properties of refrigerants and grade value of energy effi- 5. Conclusion

ciency is undesirable, while using the method of logarithmic function is
able to avoid the unreasonable phenomenon of energy efficiency grade Energy efficiency standards are important for reducing the energy
ranking up too fast. consumption of RACs and enhancing their efficiency. However, the
existing standards in China are unable to match the actual use of RACs.

Evaporating Temp (°F) Evaporating Temp (°F)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0% 0%
Decreasing rate of energy efficiency

Decreasing rate of energy efficiency

-1%
-2%
-2%
-4%
(based on R134a)

(based on R134a)
-3%

-6% -4%

-5%
-8%
-6%
-10%
logarithmic function R1234yf -7% logarithmic function N-13a
linear function linear function
-12% -8%

(a) Validation of tolerance value of R1234yf (b) Validation of tolerance value of N-13a

Evaporating Temp (°F) Evaporating Temp (°F)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0% 0%
Decreasing rate of energy efficiency

Decreasing rate of energy efficiency

-2%
-2%

-4%
(based on R134a)

(based on R134a)

-4%
-6%
-6%
-8%

-8%
-10%
logarithmic function AC5X logarithmic function R1234ze
linear function linear function
-10% -12%

(c) Validation of tolerance value of AC5X (d) Validation of tolerance value of R1234ze

Evaporating Temp (°F) Evaporating Temp (°F)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0% 0%
Decreasing rate of energy efficiency

Decreasing rate of energy efficiency

-1%
-2%
-2%
(based on R404a)

-4%
(based on R404a)

-3%

-4% -6%

-5%
-8%
-6%
-10%
-7% logarithmic function N-40a logarithmic function D2Y-65
linear function linear function
-8% -12%

(e) Validation of tolerance value of N-40a (f) Validation of tolerance value of D2Y-65
Fig. 13. Validation of tolerance value of energy efficiency based on different alternative refrigerants.

381
J. Wu et al. Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383

Table 19 paper to present the tolerance value for RACs by adopting alter-
Comparison between the logarithmic function and linear function of SEER and native refrigerants. The validation results indicate that the opti-
GWP. mized energy efficiency can not only solve the problem of the de-
SEERupper SEERlower clining energy efficiency of RACs with alternative refrigerants but
also properly classify the energy efficiency grade.
Refrigerants GWP Logarithmic Linear Logarithmic Linear
function function function function
The existing Chinese RACs standards have some limitations. Thus,
R410A 2100 4.60 4.60 4.10 4.10 the standards should be revised to provide more accurate, en-
R32 675 4.41 4.26 3.91 3.76 vironmentally friendly and efficient standards. This paper contributes
L41b 494 4.37 4.22 3.87 3.72 to the promotion of Chinese RACs standards and provides guidance for
L41a 494 4.37 4.22 3.87 3.72
manufacturers who aim to design and perfect products.
DR5 490 4.37 4.22 3.87 3.72
ARM-70a 482 4.37 4.21 3.87 3.71
R290 20 4.16 4.10 3.66 3.60 Acknowledgments
R1234yf 4 4.13 4.10 3.63 3.60
The author is grateful for the financial support from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 51776076] and the
Cooling Seasonal Efficiency
16.0 Program of International Science and Technology Cooperation of China
[grant number 2016YFE0118100].
4.6
15.5
References
15.0 14.61 14.70 4.4
14.51 14.50

14.5 10 CFR PART 430. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products.
Ahn, Y.C., Cho, J.M., Shin, H.S., Hwang, Y.J., Lee, C.G., Lee, J.K., et al., 2003. An ex-
SCOP

13.95
SEER

13.91
14.0
13.5
13.0
12.5
R-410A R-32 L-41b L-41a DR-5 ARM-70a
Refrigerant
Fig. 14. Performance results of low GWP R-410A alternative testing (Larry,
2014).
The energy efficiency standards comprise the foundation of sustainable
development. Therefore, perfecting the standards is imperative. Based
on the literature, the following conclusions are obtained:
(1) With the energy efficiency development of RACs from EER/COP to
APF, the comprehensiveness of the evaluation metrics is enhanced,
and the evaluation metrics resemble actual operating conditions;
(2) RACs standards in each country have independent characteristics:
The “two-point”, “three-point” and “five-point” testing methods are
commonly employed in many countries to evaluate the perfor-
mance of VFRACs. To accurately reflect the performance of RACs,
the division of temperature zones and energy consumption in var-
ious modes has been considered in some areas;
(3) Compared with RAC standards in other countries, RAC standards in
China have the following optimizations: In the cooling season,
China should be incorporate a “hot summer and warm winter” zone
to calculate the cooling hours. In the heating season, China should
be separated into the “hot summer and warm winter” zone, “hot
summer and cold winter” zone, “moderate” zone and “central
heating” zone.
(4) Long-term performance should be considered in the Chinese RAC
standards, which can be described as follows: the long-term energy
efficiency of RACs that have operated for 5 years, 10 years and 15
years should be added to the pre-existing standards with the cal-
culating method of synthetical evaluation of the long-term perfor-
mance . Only the RACs that satisfy the allowable energy efficiency
both in the factory state and the long-term operating state should be
produced or sold;
(5) The final purpose of the optimization of RAC standards is to protect
the environment. Thus, the environmental protection properties
should considered. Two optimization proposals are proposed in this
4.2
perimental study of the air-side particulate fouling in fin-and-tube heat exchanger of
air conditioners. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 20 (5), 873–877.
Alvey A., 2014. Compressor Calorimeter Tests of Low GWP Refrigerants. AHRI’s Low-
4.0
GWP AREP Conference. New York, USA.
ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008, 2008. Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-
Source Heat Pump Equipment. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
3.8
Arlington, VA.
ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA 2014), 2014. Method of Testing for Rating Room Air
Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner Heating Capacity. American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
AS/NZS 3823.2:2013, 2013. Performance of electrical appliances—Air conditioners and
heat pumps Part 2: Energy labelling and minimum energy performance standards
(MEPS) requirements. Standards Australia International, Sydney; Standards New
Zealand, Wellington.
ASTM D2992, 2006. Standard Practice for Obtaining Hydrostatic or Pressure Design Basis
for "Fiberglass"(Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting Resin) Pipe. American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM D5365, 2006. Standard Test Method for Long-Term Ring-Bending Strain of
"Fiberglass" (Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting Resin) Pipe and Fittings.
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
BS EN 14389-2-2004, 2004. Road Traffic Noise Reducing Devices – Procedures for
Assessing Long Term Performance - Non-Acoustical Characteristics. British Standards
Institution, London.
BS EN 14825-2012, 2012. Air conditioners, liquid chilling packages and heat pumps, with
electrically driven compressors, for space heating and cooling-Testing and rating at
part load conditions and calculation of seasonal performance. British Standards
Institution, London.
CQC 9202–2012, 2012. The Technology Requirements for Long-term Energy
Conservation Evaluation of Air Conditioner. China Quality Certification Center.
DIN EN 14389-2-2004, 2004. Road Traffic Noise Reducing Devices - Procedures for
Assessing Long Term Performance - Part 2: Non-Acoustic characteristics; German
version EN 14389-2:2004. German Institute forStandardization, Berlin.
Directive 2006/40/EC, 2006. Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and the
Council, Administrative Provisions for the EC type-approval of vehicles, and a
Harmonised Test for Measuring Leakages from Certain Air Conditioners. European
Commission.
ENERGY STARVersion 4.0. Energy Star Program Partner Commitments and Eligibility
Criteria for Room Air Conditioners.
EU NO 517/2014, 2014. REGULATION (EU) No 517/2014 on Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gases and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 824/2006. European Commission.
G/TBT/N/EEC/362, 2011. Draft Commission Regulation Implementing Directive 2009/
125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign
requirements for air conditoners and comforts. European Commission.
G/TBT/N/EEC/363, 2011. Draft Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing
Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to
energy labelling of air conditioners. European Commission.
GB 12021.3-2010, 2010a. The Minimum Allowable Value of the Energy Efficiency and
Energy Efficiency Grades for Room Air Conditioners. Standards Press of China,
Beijing.
GB 12021.3-2010, 2010b. The Minimum Allowable Value of the Energy Efficiency and
Energy Efficiency Grades for Room Air Conditioners. Standards Press of China,
Beijing.
GB 21455-2008, 2008. The Minimum Allowable Values of the Energy Efficiency and
Energy Grades for Variable Speed Room Air Conditioners. Standards Press of China,
Beijing.
GB 21455-2013, 2013. Minimum Allowable Values of the Energy Efficiency and Energy

382
J. Wu et al.
Efficiency Grades for Variable Speed Room Air Conditioners. Standards Press of
China, Beijing.
GB/T 50082-2009, 2009. Standard for Test Methods of Long-term Performance and
Durability of Ordinary Concrete. Standards Press of China, Beijing.
Grignon-Masse, Laurent, Riviere, Philippe, Adnot, Jerome, 2011. Strategies for reducing
the environmental impacts of room air conditioners in Europe. Energy Policy 39,
2152–2164.
Hung M.P., Autumn N.N., 2014. Compressor Tests with Low GWP Refrigerants for Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration. AHRI’s Low-GWP AREP Conference. New York, USA.
ISO 10467-2004, 2004. Plastic piping systems for pressure and non-pressure drainage and
sewerage Glass-reinforced thermosetting plastics(GRP) system based on unsaturated
polyester(UP) resin. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 16358-1-2013, 2013. Air-cooled air conditioners and air-to-air heat pumps—Testing
and calculating methods for seasonal performance factors—Part1: Cooling seasonal
performance factor. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 16358-2-2013, 2013. Air-cooled air conditioners and air-to-air heat pumps—Testing
and calculating methods for seasonal performance factors—Part2: Heating seasonal
performance factor. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 16358-3-2013, 2013. Air-cooled air conditioners and air-to-air heat pumps—Testing
and calculating methods for seasonal performance factors—Part3: Annual perfor-
mance facto. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 5151:2017, 2017. Non-ducted air conditioners and heat pumps—Testing and rating
for performance.
JISC 9612:2013, 2013. Room Air Conditioner. Japanese Industrial Standards Committee,
Tokyo.
JRA 4048:2006, 2006. Annual Performance Factor of Package Air Conditioners. The
Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry Association, Tokyo.
Larry D.B., 2014. Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Session I. AHRI’s Low-GWP AREP
Conference. New York, USA.
Li, H.Q., Cheng, J.H., 2008. Variable Speed Room Air Conditioners and Energy Efficiency
Grades. Standards Press of China, Beijing.
Lin, J., Rosenquist, G., 2008. Stay cool with less work: China's new energy-efficiency
383
Energy Policy 125 (2019) 368–383
standards for air conditioners. Energy Policy 36 (1095-1095).
Lu, Wei, 2007. Potential energy savings and environmental impacts of energy efficiency
standards for vapor compression central air conditioning units in China. Energy
Policy 35, 1709–1717.
Peng, R.C., 2010. The new national air conditioner energy efficiency standard comes into
effect on June 1. Power Demand Side-. Manag. 12, 3.
Qi W.D., Li J.B., 2011. The standard of energy evaluation efficiency of inverter air-con-
ditioner and contrastive studies of APF. In: Proceedings of the 10th Refrigerator, Air
conditioner and Compressor Academic Conference. Qingdao, China.
Rosenquist G., Lin J., 2005. Chinese Room Air-Conditioning Heat Pumps: An Engineering
and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of 3500W and 7100W Cooling Capacity Units, LBNL-
57992, Berkeley, CA.
Wang, S.Y., 2013. The difference between APF of Chinese and Japanese standard. China
Appl. Technol. (09), 38–40.
Wei, L., 2007. Potential energy savings and environmental impacts of energy efficiency
standards for vapor compression central air conditioning units in China. Energy
Policy 35 (3), 1709–1717.
Wu, C.B., 2013. Seasonal Performance Evaluation of Refrigeration Equipment Used for
Air-conditioning. Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Wu, J.H., Liu, C.P., Liang, Z.H., Zhang, C.J., 2015. Research on the room air conditioner
long-term performance prediction and optimization strategy. J. Mech. Eng. 18,
158–166.
Wu, X.L., Cai, N., Hu, Z.Q., 2014. Comparative analysis of testing and calculating methods
for seasonal performance factors of air conditioner. China Appl. Technology 04,
40–42.
Yan, Da, Hong, Tianzhen, et al., 2017. A thorough assessment of China's standard for
energy consumption of buildings. Energy Build. 143, 114–128.
Yu, Hao, Tang, Bao-Jun, 2015. How do the appliance energy standards work in China?
Evidence from room air conditioners. Energy Build. 86, 833–840.
Zhu J.D., Chen Z., Liu R., 2015. Research Status and Development Trend of Evacuation
System of Long-term Energy Conservation for Room Air Conditioners. Electrical
Appliances; (02): 17-23.