Purdue University Purdue e-pubs International Compressor Engineering Conference School of Mechanical Engineering 01 Compressor Performance Comparison When Using R134 and R134YF as Working Fluids Kim Tiow Ooi mktooi@ntu.edu.sg Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec Ooi, Kim Tiow, "Compressor Performance Comparison When Using R134 and R134YF as Working Fluids" (01). International Compressor Engineering Conference. Paper 146. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/146 This document has been made available through Purdue e-pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information. Complete proceedings may be acquired in print and on CD-ROM directly from the Ray W. Herrick Laboratories at https://engineering.purdue.edu/ Herrick/Events/orderlit.html
1113, Page 1 COMPRESSOR PERFORMANCE COMPARISON WHEN USING R134AAND R134YF AS WORKING FLUIDS OOI K.T. School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798. Email: mktooi@ntu.edu.sg ABSTRACT This paper examines the detailed effects on the compressor performance when using as compared to. Firstly, the effects on the compressor performance of the existing compressors which was designed for when using the new refrigerant will be presented and discussed. Secondly, the design aspects of a new compressor to be designed for will also be presented and discussed. In the paper the rolling piston compressor was used to carry out the simulation tests. The detailed comparison of various performance parameters for the compressor are discussed and shown. 1. INTRODUCTION In order to reduce the negative effects on the environment caused by the use of environmentally unfriendly refrigerants, worldwide efforts have been focused on replacing currently used refrigerants with one that is more environmentally friendly. One such refrigerant that has been singled out for replacement is HFC-134a (henceforth will be referred to as ). Most of the automotive air conditioners today use as the working fluid. Legislation has been passed in Europe to dictate that by 017, all new cars in Europe must use refrigerants that have a global warming potential (GWP) of lower than 150. has a GWP of 1430. The HFO-134yf (henceforth will be referred to as ) has been introduced specifically to replace, the latter has been used in air-conditioning system in automobiles for about 0 years. has a GWP of only 4. Extensive tests [1-5] have been carried on to establish and determine its suitability (in all aspects including health and safety) in replacing by scientists and engineers from DuPont and Honeywell. All these tests [1] show that HFO-134yf give comparable if not better results in terms of cycle performance. In this paper the various detailed aspects of compressor performance when using and will be compared using a rolling piston compressor.. MATHEMATICAL MODEL For completion, a brief account of the mathematical model is shown here, readers can refer to references [6-8] for more details. The mathematical model consists of volume, kinematics, roller dynamics, thermodynamics, valve dynamics, in-chamber heat transfer, mechanical frictional and lubrication. The volume V(θ) of the working chamber of the rolling piston compressor can be expressed in terms of the length of the compressor l, radii of the cylinder R c and rotor R r, the rotational angle θ and the vane thickness t v as given by eqn. (1).,,,, 1 The variation of the properties of the working fluid in the working chamber can be obtained by applying the First Law of thermodynamics onto the working chamber of the compressor, i.e. where E in and E out and (mu) c are energy into and out of working chamber during a compressor cycle and the internal energy of the working chamber, respectively. The real gas properties [9] of the refrigerant relate the enthalpy h c of the working fluid in the chamber to the pressure P and its specific volume v, that is,
1113, Page, 3 The conservation of mass in the working chamber gives eqn. (4). dm dt dm dt i o dm dt c (4) where m is the mass of the working fluid in the chamber and subscripts i, o and c represent in, out and chamber, respectively. The compressor simulation model assumes that the flow through valves is a steady one-dimensional adiabatic flow [7]. Thus, the mass flow rate through valves can be expressed as dm dt C d A h v s 1 h s (5) where C d indicates the combined effect of non-isentropic and flow losses, A the flow area, v s the specific volume of the refrigerant and h the enthalpy of the working fluid. Indices 1, and s indicate the upstream, downstream and isentropic conditions, respectively. The area of the valve requires that the valve opening to be known at any instant of time. This is obtained by modelling the valve s dynamic [7] under the pressure force during the discharge process. The computer model was written in Fortran programming language solving simultaneously eqns. (1) to (5) using the 4 th order Runge-Kutta numerical integration method. The model has been verified using R as the working fluid operating at operational conditions -3.3 C and 54.4 C at 875 rev/min, by comparing its prediction with measured results, generally less than 10.0% discrepancy has been obtained, as shown in Fig.1 [6]. +10% 10% Fig. 1 Comparison between measured and predicted results [6]. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS To compare the detailed performance of compressors when using to that of, simulation runs have been carried out using a rolling piston compressor with a displacement volume of 3 cm 3 and operating at 875 rev/min. Fig. shows the basic simulation results when running the compressor at T cond =54.4 C and T evap =-10.6 C.
1113, Page 3 Fig. (a) shows that the variation of the pressure-volume diagram is very similar when using and, with, shows a higher final discharge pressure, with the difference in the indicated work for compressor when using both fluids to be less than %, as shown in Fig. (e). A careful check on Fig. (e) reveals that the indicated work for is higher than that of the because of the higher pressure of during the early stage of the compression, when the specific volume of the gas is large. This latter effect has resulted in a higher shaft torque required for the case of, as shown in Fig. (g). Fig. (b) shows that the has about 5% more mass than. However this 5% more mass indicated by the did not produces an equivalent increase in cooling capacity because the refrigerating effect of is about 18% lower than that of the, as shown in Table 1. Fig. (a) and (c) also show that has a higher final discharge pressure and temperature. As a result of marginally higher discharge pressure and lower suction pressure for, the frictional losses in the are marginally higher, as shown in Fig. (d). Fig. (f) and (h) show that the behaviour for compressor discharge valve and vane contact forces are very similar for both working fluids. Table 1 Comparison of and properties at -10.6 C. [-] /[]*100% Sat. vapour density(kg/m 3 ) 9.8164 1.96-5.6% Latent heat of vaporisation(kj/kg) 06.40 169.81 +17.73% Saturated pressure @-10.6 C (kpa) 195.90 16.9-10.73 % Saturated pressure @54.4 (kpa) 1469.8 1444.5 +1.7 % In order to compare the performance of these two fluids over a wider range of operational conditions, 10 cases of simulation runs have been performed. Table (a) shows the cases with the a fixed condensing temperature at 54.4 C but with varying evaporating temperatures from -40 C to 0 C, while Table (b) shows the operational conditions with a fixed evaporating temperature at -10.6 C when condensing temperature varies from 35 C to 55 C. Fig. 3 shows the results of the simulation run correspond to the operational conditions shown in Table (a), while Fig. 4 shows the results for cases when working under conditions given in Table (b). Fig. 3(a) shows that the cooling capacity for is always higher than that of the despite the fact that shows more mass flows through the compressor, as seen in Fig. 3(b), this is because has a higher latent heat of vaporisation. This has resulted in the higher cycle COP for, see fig. 3(c). The averaged torque input for compressor when using these two fluids are very similar in magnitude, as shown in Fig. 3(d). Fig. 3(e) shows that exhibits a marginally lower mechanical efficiency as it shows marginally higher frictional losses, as shown in Fig. 3(f) and 3(g). The marginally higher frictional losses exhibited by the compressor when using is mainly caused by the larger pressure difference between the two chambers when using as the working fluid. Table Operating conditions for cases of simulation runs T cond ( C) T evap ( C) T evap ( C) T cond ( C) 54.4-40 -35-0 -10 0-10.6 35 40 45 50 55 Figs. 3(h) and 3(i) show that marginally higher suction and discharge losses occur in compressor using, which is caused by its higher mass flow rate. Fig. 3(j) shows that compressor using has a
1113, Page 4 higher volumetric efficiency. This is because the higher pressure differential between the suction and the compression chamber results in higher internal leakage in the compressor, and the situation is exacerbated by a lower total mass flow of. The results show that when using in low refrigerating temperature and high condensing temperature conditions, the performance of is expected to be slightly lower than that of, however the difference in COP and cooling capacity is expected to be less than %. Fig. 4 shows the compressor performance comparison when using and and operating at lower condensing temperature situations. The results show that the compressor using in this case is clearly a winner. The compressor gives a higher cooling capacity, higher COP and lower required torque when using. The results also show that the differences can be as high as up to 5% better for cooling capacity and 10% better in cycle COP for compressor using. 4. CONCLUSIONS The results show that the performance for compressor when using and are comparable and this has reconfirmed the results available in the literature. The results also shows that the compressor working with performed better than that working with when operating under high condensing and low evaporating temperatures. However when the condensing temperature gets lower, outperformed. Over the range of operational conditions tested, the maximum difference in terms of cooling capacity is less than 5% and the COP is less than 10%. 5. REFERENCES 1. Minor, B., Spatz, M., 008, HFO-134yf Low GWP Refrigerant Update,1th International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, paper no.349. Brown, J. S., Zilio, C. and Cavallini A., 010, Critical Review of the Latest Thermodynamic and Transport Property Data and Models, and Equations of State for R-134yf. 13th International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, paper no. 450 3. Minor, B., Montoya, C. and Kasa, F. S., 010, HFO-134yf Performance in a Beverage Cooler, 13th International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, paper no. 4 4. Reasor, P., Aute, V. and Radermache, R., 010, Refrigerant Performance Comparison Investigation. 13th International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, paper no. 300 5. Endoh, K., Matsushima, H. and Takaku, S., 010, Evaluation of Cycle Performance of Room Air Conditioner Using HFO134yf as Refrigerant. 13th International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, paper no. 08 6. Ooi, K.T., 008, Assessment of a rotary compressor performance operating at transcritical carbon dioxide cycles, Applied Thermal Engineering 8 1160 1167 7. Ooi, K.T. and, Wong, T.N., 1997, A computer simulation of a rotary compressor for household refrigerators, Appl. Therm. Eng. 17 (1) 65 78. 8. Ooi, K.T., 003. Heat transfer study of a hermetic refrigeration compressor. Appl. Therm. Eng. 3 (15), 1931-1945. 9. Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., McLinden, M.O., 007. NIST Standard Reference Database 3: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties REFPROP, Version 8.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg.
1113, Page 5 16 0.40 Pressure ( bar) 14 1 10 8 6 4 Refrigerant mass (g) 0.30 0.0 0.10 Refrigerant Temperature (K) Gas compression power (W) 390.0 370.0 350.0 330.0 310.0 90.0 70.0 0e+000 1e-005 e-005 3e-005 Volume (m 3 ) 50.0 0 90 180 70 360 450 540 630 70 4000 3000 000 1000 (a) (c) 0 0 45 90 135 180 5 70 315 360 (e) Frciotnal Power Loss (W) Valve reed displacement (mm) 0.00 0 90 180 70 360 450 540 630 70 30 10 190 170 150 130 110 90.40 1.0 (b) 0 45 90 135 180 5 70 315 360 (d) 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.0 0.00 0 90 180 70 360 450 540 630 70 (f) Shaft torque (Nm) 1 10 8 6 4 0 0 45 90 135 180 5 70 315 360 (g) Vane side contact force (N) 80 70 60 50 40 30 0 10 R t1 () R t1 () R t () R t () 0 0 45 90 135 180 5 70 315 360 (h) Fig. Basic simulation results when T cond =54.4 C and T evap = 10.6 C.
1113, Page 6 Cooling Capacity (kw).80.60.40 1.0 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.0 T evap ( o C) Refrigerant mass Flow rate (g/s) 5 1 17 13 9 5 1 T evap ( o C) (a) (b) COP 1.0 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.0 Average Torque (Nm) 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00.50 T evap ( o C) Mechanical Efficiency (%) 86.00 85.00 84.00 83.00 8 8 80.00 79.00 78.00 (c) Total Frictional Power (W) 135 134 133 13 131 (d) 77.00 130 (e) (f) Vane side friction loss (W) Discharge Valve loss (W) 34.00 33.00 3 3 30.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 (g) Volumetric Efficiency (%) Suction loss (W) 5.00 4.00 3.00 0.00 97.00 96.00 95.00 94.00 93.00 9 9 90.00 (h) (i) 89.00 (j) Fig. 3 Results when T cond =54.4 C and T evap varies from 40 C to 0 C.
1113, Page 7 Cooling Capacity (kw) COP 1.90 1.70 1.50.60.40 35 1 40 45 3 50 4 55 5 Case No. T cond ( C) (a) Average Torque (Nm) Refrigerant mass Flow rate (g/s) 0 15 10 5 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 1 3 4 5 35 40 45 50 55 Case No. T cond ( C) (b).50 Mechanical Efficiency (%) Vane side friction loss (W) Discharge Valve loss (W) 1.0 84.60 84.10 83.60 83.10 8.60 8.10 8 38.00 36.00 34.00 3 30.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 18.00 4.10 3.90 3.70 3.50 3.30 3.10.90.70.50 35 1 40 45 3 50 4 555 Case T cond No. ( C) (c) 35 1 40 45 3 50 4 555 Case No. T cond ( C) (e) (g) 35 1 40 45 3 50 4 55 5 Case T No. cond ( C) 35 1 40 45 3 504 555 Case T cond No. ( C) 135 40 345 450 55 Case No. T cond ( C) (i) (j) Fig. 4 Results when T evap = 10.6 C and T cond varies from 35 C to 55 C. Volumetric Efficiency (%) Total Frictional Power (W) Suction loss (W) 150 140 130 10 110.80.70.60.50.40.30 98.00 97.00 96.00 95.00 94.00 (d) 35 1 40 45 3 50 4 55 5 Case T No. cond ( C) (f) (h) 35 1 40 45 3 50 4 555 Case T No. cond ( C) 35 1 40 45 3 504 555 Case T No. cond ( C)