“ALTERNATE REFRIGERANTS”

J.ILANGUMARAN

1
 CONTENTS

Environmental Impact of CFC Refrigerants

Alternative Refrigerants to CFCs

Energy Efficiency & User Friendliness of a

HFC134a / HC Mixture

Experimental Investigations

2
Environmental Impact
of
Refrigerants

3
Ozone absorbs UV radiation
Sunrays:
UV + Visible

Visible rays

4
 What happens if
Ozone layer is damaged?

• Ozone layer filters UV-B portion of

sun rays,
• If UV-B reaches earth, it causes: SUPPRESS BODY
IMMUNE SYSTEM

AFFECT FISH AND

OTHER OCEAN
SKIN CANCER EYE DAMAGE LIFE
5
 Chain Reaction by CFCs
Cycle repeats again

UV CFC-11 …& again …&…

Radiation F CFCl3 Cl
Chlorine O
C Cl monoxide Cl Chlorine
Radical
Cl Cl

O O
Cl O
F
Chlorine Ozone
C Cl Oxygen
Radical (O3) O O molecule
Cl CFCl2
(O2)

6
 India and
Montreal Protocol
• Montreal Protocol came into existence on 16 September
1987 at Montreal, Canada
• India Joined on 17 Sep. 1992
• India is an Article 5 country, alongwith 100 other countries
(less than 0.3 kg. per capita Ozone Depleting Source(ODS)
consumption)

7
 Phase-Out Schedule
as per Montreal Protocol
Ozone-depleting Total Phase - out by
substance 1st January of the year

Developed Developing
Countries Countries

CFCs 1996 2010

Halons 1994 2010
CTC 1996 2010
Methyl Chloroform 1996 2015
Methyl Bromide 2005 2015
HCFCs 2030 2040
8
 CFC Phase-Out Schedule
for India
90% Base level: 1995-97
Phasing out of manufacturing
CFC Consumption

75% + of appliances using CFCs

50%

15%

0%
1/1/2001 1/1/03 1/1/05 1/1/07 1/1/2010
Date
9
 India’s Initiatives towards
ODS Phase-Out
India Country •Awareness generation
Programme •Ozone day celebration
1993 / 1999

OZONE CELL
OF MoEF

Regulatory Fiscal
measures RACSSP measures
10
 ODS (Regulation & Control)
Rules, 2000

• Framed under
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
• Seeks to control production, consumption, export,
import, sale and destruction of ODS

• Operational with effect from 19 July 2000

11
 Key Features
• Manufacturing of new equipment / appliance using
CFCs is totally banned since 1st January 2003
• Compulsory registration is required for
 ODS producers
 Manufacturers of ODS based products
 ODS Traders/ Dealers/ Wholesalers/ Sellers
 Compressor manufacturers
 Firms engaged in reclamation & destruction of ODS

No Registration needed
for firms engaged in Servicing activities only
12
 Alternatives to CFCs F
Cl C

HCFC HFC HC

Cl F F C
C H C H H
e.g. HCFC-22 e.g. HFC-134a e.g. HC-600a

13
 Alternative Refrigerants:
Characteristics
GWP ODP

Alternatives
to CFCs
Flamm Toxicity
-ability
Performance
14
Environmental Characteristics
Atmospheric GWP
Refrigerant Lifetime (Years)
ODP
(100 Year)
CFC-11
CFC 50 1 4000
(Baseline ODP)
CFC-12 102 1 8500
CFC R-502 0.33 5260
HCFCs HCFC-22 13.3 0.055 1700
HCFC-123 1.4 0.02 93
HCFC-141b 9.4 0.11 630
HFCs HFC-134a 14.6 0 1300
HFC-245fa 7.3 0 820
HCs HC-290 (Propane) - 0 3
HC-600a - 0 3
Cyclopentane - 0 3
HFC R-404A - 0 3260
R-407A - 0 1770
R-407C - 0 1530
R-410A - 0 1730
15
 HFCs and HFC Blends
e.g. HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-507

 Advantages  Disadvantages
• Zero ODP • Moderate GWP
• Non-flammable • Do not work with Mineral Oil
• Capacity close to • Reliability/Compatibility issues
CFCs with the materials of system
construction
• Major system changes necessary

16
 HFC-134a: Characteristics
• Single fluid
• Boiling point: - 26°C
• Capacity similar to CFC-12 at high evaporation
temperature
• Capacity lower than CFC-12 at low evaporation
temperature (below -10°C)
• Sensitive to contamination
• Non-miscible with Mineral oils
17
 Polyol Ester Oil Issues

• Very hygroscopic
 Reliability problems
 Servicing issues

18
 Hydrocarbons (HCs)
e.g. HC - 600a(Isobutane), HC - 290 (Propane), HC Blend

Advantages  Disadvantages
• Zero ODP • Flammable
• Negligible GWP • Changes needed to
some electrical
• Long term solution
components
• Work with Mineral Oil and can be
used in existing and new systems
• Few refrigeration system changes &
capacity close to CFCs with HC Blends
Being safely used in Europe, China & now in India
19
 HC & HFC Blend Issues
• Many alternatives are azeotropic blends
• Do not behave as single substance
 have temperature glide
 different behaviour in system
 different charging procedure
 leakages are more problematic

20
 HC Blends: Characteristics
• HC-290 (propane) / HC - 600a (iso - butane)
• Approximately 50 / 50% by weight (most common)
• Zeotropic blend
• Fully miscible with Mineral Oil
• Compatible with compressor materials

21
 HFC134a&HC Blend
Operating Conditions
140
120 1 Bar = 14.5 psi HFC-134a
Pre ssure (psi)

100
80 HC CFC-12
60 Blend
40
20
0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Temperature (deg C)
22
 HC Blend Performance
Compared to CFC-12

• Capacity similar
• Drop in substitute for CFC-12
• Retrofit necessary for electrical components
• Same size compressor
• COP will be more or less same as CFC-12

23
 Issues with
Alternative Refrigerants
HFC-134a Hydrocarbons
 Polyol Ester Oil  Require safer design
lubricants being highly
 Better manufacturing &
hygroscopic
service practices
 Better manufacturing &
 Training required
servicing practices
 commercial LPG should
 Training required
not be used as refrigerant

24
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS IN
A DOMESTIC REFRIGERATOR

25
 REFRIGERANT SELECTION

• EVAPORATION OF ZEOTROPIC MIXTURES

• HFC134a/HC600a MIXTURE
• HFC134a/HC290 MIXTURE
• HC-BLEND (HC600a/HC290 - 54.8:45.2 MASS
PERCENTAGE)
• HFC134a/HC-BLEND MIXTURE
• M07, M09, M11 (7%, 9% AND 11% HC-BLEND WITH
HFC134a)
• PROPERTY COMPARISON-REFPROP SOFTWARE
26
 VAPOUR PRESSURE
19
M07
Vapour Pressure (bar)

16
M09
13
M11
10
CFC12
7

1
-23 -13 -3 7 17 27 37 47 57
o
Temperature ( C)

• PRESSURE RATIOS - M09: 8.16, CFC12: 9.77 27

 LATENT HEAT OF EVAPORATION

215 M09
M11
Latent Heat (kJ/kg)

195 M07

175 CFC12

155

135

115
-23 -13 -3 7 17 27 37 47 57
Temperature (oC)

• LATENT HEAT OF M09 IS 20 TO 35% HIGHER THAN CFC12 28

COP TEST RIG FOR DOMESTIC REFRIGERATOR

29
30
 EXP. PROCEDURE - DOMESTIC REFRIGERATOR

• CHARGE OPTIMISATION - CFC12: 135g AND 175g FOR

RC AND RW RESPECTIVELY, M09: 142g FOR RW
• CAPILLARY OPTIMISATION - 335cm (11 ft.) FOR M09
AND CFC12
• PULL DOWN TEST
• ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER DAY
• TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION IN EVAPORATOR
• PRESSURE DROP AND COMPRESSOR TEMP.
• ACTUAL COP USING CALORIMETER
• OIL MISCIBILITY STUDY
31
Energy Consumption (kWh/day) 3
CFC12
M09
2.7

2.4 CHARGE AND

2.1 CAPILLARY
1.8 OPTIMISATION
1.5
300 335 366 396 427
Capillary Length (cm)
2.5

Energy Consumption (kWh/day)

2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
135 145 155 165 175 185 195
32
Charge Quantity (gram)
Energy Consumption 2.15

2.05
(kWh/day)

1.95
CHARGE
OPTIMISATION M09
1.85

1.75
128 135 142 149 156
Charge Quantity (gram)
8
22 Deg. C Amb. 26 Deg. C Amb.
Heat Infiltration (W)
7
30 Deg. C Amb. 32 Deg. C Amb.
6
36 Deg. C Amb. 43 Deg. C Amb.
5
4
CALORIMETER 3
HEAT INFILTRATION 2
1
-18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3
Calorimeter Temperature (oC) 33
 VARIATION OF REFRIGERATION EFFECT WITH
AMBIENT AT -15OC FREEZER COMPARTMENT
110
P - Predicted CFC12(P) M07(P)
Refrigerantion Effect (W) 100 E - Experimental M09(P) M11(P)
CFC12(E) M07(E)
M09(E) M11(E)
90

80

70

60

50
22 26 30 34 38 42
Ambient Temperature (oC)

• PREDICTED VALUES ARE 12 TO 20.4% AND 13.3 TO 17.2% DEVIATING

FROM EXP. RESULTS FOR M09 AND CFC12
• M09 HAS 7.1 TO 12.3% HIGHER REF. EFFECT THAN CFC12 34
 COMPRESSOR WORK VS AMBIENT AT -15OC FREEZER
COMPARTMENT

130
CFC12 M07
M09 M11
Compressor Work (W)

125

120

115

110

105
22 26 30 34 38 42
Ambient Temperature (oC)

• M09 HAS 0.5 TO 1.5% HIGHER COMPRESSOR WORK THAN CFC12

35
 MASS FLOW RATE VS AMBIENT AT -15OC FREEZER
COMPARTMENT

0.8
Mass Flow Rate (X 10 -3 kg/s)

CFC12 M07
0.7 M09 M11

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
22 27 32 37 42
o
Ambient Temperature ( C)

• M09 HAS 25 TO 30% LESS MASS FLOW RATE THAN CFC12

36
 COP VS AMBIENT AT -15OC FREEZER COMPARTMENT
0.9
CFC12(P) M07(P)
M09(P) M11(P)
0.8 CFC12(E) M07(E)
M09(E) M11(E)
P - Predicted
0.7
E - Experimental
COP

0.6

0.5

0.4
22 27 32 37 42
Ambient Temperature (oC)
• THE COP (P) AND COP (E) FOR M09 ARE 11.5 TO 17% AND 3.8 TO 8.5%
HIGHER THAN CFC12 RESPECTIVELY
• THE COP (P) IS 15.8 TO 18% AND 10.7 TO 17.3% DEVIATING FROM COP
37
(E) FOR M09 AND CFC12 RESPECTIVELY
 ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER DAY VS AMBIENT AT -15OC
FREEZER COMPARTMENT
Energy Consumption (kW h/day) 2

CFC12 M09
1.8 M07 M11

1.6

1.4

1.2
22 26 30 34 38 42
Ambient Temperature (oC)

• M09 HAS 4.1 TO 7.6% LESS ENERGY CONSUMPTION THAN CFC12

38
 THEORETICAL COP VS AMBIENT AT -15OC FREEZER
COMPARTMENT
1.9
CFC12 M07
1.8 M09 M11

1.7
COP

1.6

1.5

1.4
22 26 30 34 38 42
o
Ambient Temperature ( C)

• M09 HAS 3.8 TO 10% HIGHER COP VALUES THAN CFC12

39
 COMPRESSOR POWER DURING PULL DOWN - CUT 0FF
AT -15OC FREEZER COMPARTMENT
175
CFC12
Power Consumption (W)

160 M09

145
Cut-off
130 Points

115
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Time (minutes)

• ENERGY CONSUMED BY M09 IS 0.196 kWh AS AGAINST 0.216 kWh

FOR CFC12.
• PULL DOWN FOR M09 IS 11 MINUTES FASTER THAN CFC12 40
TEMPERATURE VARIATION INSIDE THE REFRIGERATOR
DURING PULL DOWN (32OC AMBIENT)
40

30
M09 Crisper
M09 Food CFC12 Food
Temperature ( C)

20
o

CFC12 Crisper
10

M09 Freezer
0
CFC12 Freezer

-10

-20
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000
Time (seconds)
41
 REFREGERATION EFFECT VS CALORIMETER
TEMPERATURE (32OC AMBIENT)
120
Refrigeration Effect (W) CFC12 M07
M09 M11
100

80

60

40
-15 -12 -9 -6 -4
Calorimeter Temperature (oC)

• M09 HAS 7 TO 26.5% HIGHER REF. EFFECT THAN CFC12

• AT -15OC IMPROVEMENT IS 7 TO 10.5% (AMBIENT 22 TO 43OC) 42
 COP VS CALORIMETER TEMPERATURE (32OC AMBIENT)

0.9
CFC12 M07
0.8 M09 M11

0.7
COP

0.6

0.5

0.4
-15 -12 -9 -6 -4
Calorimeter Temperature (oC)

• AT - 4OC IMPROVEMENT IS 9.3 TO 14.1 (AMBIENT 22 TO 43OC)

• AT -15OC IMPROVEMENT IS 3.8 TO 8.5% (AMBIENT 22 TO 43OC) 43
TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE LENGTH OF
THE EVAPORATOR COIL (32OC AMBIENT)

-15
CFC12 M07
M09 M11
Temperature (oC)

-17

-19

-21
Accumulator entry
-23
20 100 180 260 340 420 500 580
Distance (cm)
• FOR M09 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF EVAPORATOR COIL IS
1.5 TO 6% LESS THAN CFC12 44
 COMPRESSOR DOME TEMPERATURE VS AMBIENT AT -
15oC FREEZER COMPARTMENT
80
CFC12 M07
Dome Temperature (oC)

75 M09 M11

70

65

60

55
22 26 30 34 38 42
o
Ambient Temperature ( C)

• FOR M09 AVERAGE DOME TEMP. IS 3 TO 6% LESS THAN CFC12

45
 COP VS AMBIENT (1oC CUT-OFF AND 4oC CUT-IN TEMP.)
3
CFC12 (P) CFC12 (E)
M09 (P) M09 (E)
2.5 M11 (P) M11 (E)
COP

1.5
P - Predicted
E - Experimental
1
22 26 30 34 38 42
o
Ambient Temperature ( C)

• THE PREDICTED VALUES ARE 14.8 TO 19.6% DEVIATING FROM EXP. VALUES
• M09 HAS 15.5 TO 18.5% AND 10.4 TO 16.3% HIGHER PREDICTED AND ACTUAL COP
46
RESPECTIVELY THAN CFC12
WALK IN COOLER

47
48
49
 ENERGY CONSUMPTION VS TEV POSITIONS (2.5oC CUT-
OFF AND 5oC CUT-IN TEMP.)
30
Energy Consumption (kWh/day) CFC12
25 M09

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
TEV Positions

• FOR CFC12 LOWEST ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS AT POSITION 4 ( 16.5 kWh/day)

• FOR M09 LOWEST ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS AT POSITION 5 ( 11.51 kWh/day)
50
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF M09 WITH CFC12 AT
32oC AMBIENT

Sl.No Description CFC12 M09

1 Evaporator inlet temperature (OC) -7 -9

2 Compressor outlet temperature (OC) 77 65
3 Condenser outlet temperature (OC) 35.6 36
4 Refrigerant flow during steady state (kgs-1) 0.0116 0.01012
Power consumption during
5 1032 1020
steady state (W)
6 Average on cycle time (minutes) 12 8
7 Average off cycle time (minutes) 12 13
8 COP-Theoretical 3.38 3.76
9 COP-Actual 1.44 1.577
10 Energy consumption per day (kWh/day) 16.5 11.51
51
SPACE TEMP VS TIME AT 32oC AMBIENT (2.5oC CUT-OFF
AND 5oC CUT-IN TEMP.)
6
CFC12
M09
5
Temperature (oC)

2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (minutes)

• AT NO LOAD CONDITION M09 HAS 30% LESS ON CYCLE TIME THAN CFC12
52
SPACE TEMPERATURE VS TIME DURING PULL DOWN
(2.5oC CUT-OFF TEMP.)
35
30 CFC12
Space Temperature (oC)

M09
25
20
15
Cut-off
10 Points

5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (hours)

• CUT-OFF TIME FOR M09 IS 30 MINUTES EARLIER THAN CFC12

53
 Temperature (oC)

-20
0
20
40
60
80
100

Compressor
outlet

Condenser
outlet

TEV inlet

Evaporator
STEADY STATE

coil inlet
RTD Sensor Points
Evaporator
coil outlet
M09
CFC12

Compressor
inlet
TEMPERATURE AT SPECIFIED LOCATIONS DURING

54
 TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE
EVAPORATOR COIL AT 32oC AMBIENT

-2 CFC12
M09
Temperature (oC)

-4

-6

-8

-10
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56
Distance (m)
55
COMPARISON OF SOME IMPORTANT
PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

56
Test setup Performance parameters CFC12 M09
COP 0.518 to 0.718 0.543 to 0.87
Per day energy
1.42 to 1.86 1.33 to 1.786
consumption (kWh/day)
Domestic Pull down time (min.) 99 88
Refrigerator
Pull down energy
0.216 0.196
(kWh/day)
Temp. difference across
negligible Less than 3oC
the evaporator
COP 0.357 to 1.191 0.381 to 1.384
Pull down time (min.) 295 245
Deep Pull down energy
Freezer 2.817 2.54
(kWh/day)
Temp. difference across Less than 3oC
Negligible
the evaporator in 80% length
57
 setup Performance parameters CFC12 M09
COP 1.295 to 1.784 1.489 to 1.936
Per day energy consumption
Visi 3.23 to 7.07 2.83 to 6.04
(kWh/day)
cooler
Pull down time (min.) 49 39
Pull down energy (kWh/day) 0.255 0.214
COP 1.44 1.57
Per day energy consumption
16.5 11.51
(kWh/day)
Walk in
Pull down time 300 270
cooler
Pull down energy (kWh/day) 5.1 4.64
Temp. difference across the 2oC in 80% 4oC in 80%
evaporator length length
58
SOME IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS

59
 CONCLUSIONS
• THE MASS FLOW RATE OF M09 IS 25 TO 30% LESS THAN CFC12
• THE EXISTING CONDENSER AND EVAPORATOR OF THE CFC12
APPLIANCES COULD BE USED FOR M09 WITHOUT ANY
MODIFICATIONS.
• 4 TO 28% ELECTRICAL ENERGY COULD BE SAVED BY
RETROFITTING THE CFC12 SYSTEMS WITH M09.
• THE M09 MIXTURE COULD REDUCE THE PULL DOWN TIME AND
ENERGY CONSUMPTION DURING PULL DOWN.
• THE M09 MIXTURE IS AN ENERGY EFFICIENT, OZONE FRIENDLY
AND USER FRIENDLY SUBSTITUTE FOR CFC - 12.

60
THANKS!

61