CHAPTER 2

WINDOW AIR CONDITIONER AND LITERATURE REVIEW

 17

CHAPTER 2

WINDOW AIR CONDITIONER AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Air conditioning is a simultaneous control of temperature, humidity and distribution of

air for the purpose of human comfort or for industrial utilization. Several types of
comfort systems are in common use. Globally, air-cooled air conditioners have the largest
stake in the air conditioning market. In general, air-cooled air conditioners are grouped
into four categories, which include window mounted, non-ducted split residential and
commercial, ducted split residential, and split and packaged ducted commercial air
conditioners. Other air conditioning systems include central air conditioning plants
consisting dry-expansion and chilled water coils, chilled water air washer, and industrial
air conditioners. The window or wall mounted comfort air conditioners are very popular
in countries like India, China, Japan, and U. S. A. The air conditioning system selected
for the present study is 'window air conditioner'.

In the last few years, many studies have been undertaken to search for alternatives to
HCFC-22. The research institutes and industry are still working on such programs. In
terms of volume of work, it is not as large as the studies related to CFC-12, as the
deadline for phase out of HCFCs is still far away. At present, many countries are taking
efforts to phase out HCFC-22. In Europe, HCFCs have already been phased out in new
equipment (below 100 kW capacity) in 2002, and the total phase out of HCFCs is
scheduled for 2015. The phase out schedule of HCFC-22 may occur much earlier than the
targeted date in developing countries such as India due to market forces.

This chapter presents the refrigeration cycle used in window air conditioner, general
description of the window air conditioner, and the review on reported literature.
 18

2.2 WINDOW AIR CONDITIONER

Small air conditioning systems are generally classified into window units, through the
wall units and cabinet units. The window unit is mounted on a window frame and the
installation is relatively easy. Figure 2.1 shows the schematic diagram of window air
conditioner. The condenser is located in the section of a cabinet that is outside the
building. Outside air is forced over the condenser by a fan. Inside the room, blower
(another fan) draws air through a filter and forces it over the evaporator. The same motor
may drive the two airflow fans or each may have its own motors.

Window units are available in several types. One type cools and filters the air and has a
fresh air intake. Another type, in addition, has an electrical resistance-heating unit to
furnish heat. The third type uses a reverse cycle system to permit the use of the
refrigerating units both for comfort cooling and heating.

Window units may be obtained to fit casement windows. Units can be installed in special
wall openings. The condensate from the evaporator is often drained to the base of the
motor compressor and the condenser where it aids to cool these parts. A capillary tube or
a bypass type automatic expansion valve refrigerant control is usually used. Some units
change the direction of the cooled airflow from side to side as the unit runs. This is done
by a set rotating angle deflector plates.

Thermostats control the systems. The sensitive bulb is usually mounted at the outlet of
the evaporator. A differential of about 3°C is normal. If the part of the bulb farthest from
the evaporator is insulated, the bulb will respond better to the evaporator temperatures. It
will stop the unit before it overcools. It will also stop the unit if the evaporator ices up
and will prevent it from starting again until the ice melts.

The cooling capacities of commercially available units are usually 1.71, 3.42, 5.13 and
6.84 kW (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 TR) and are adequate for rooms between five and
twenty square meters in size. Larger spaces may be handled by using multiple units.
 Condenser discharge air

Cooled room air

Warm room air

Figure 2.1: Schem atic diagram of window air conditioner

19
 20

Window air conditioners are equipped with line cords, which may be plugged into
standards or special electrical circuits. In India, most designs are designed to operate at
230 V, single phase, 50 Hz power. In case of three phase power supply, the ratings in
Watts shall be based on standard 400V, 50Hz power supply.

2.2.1 Refrigeration Cycle

Vapour compression refrigeration cycle is the most widely used in the window air
conditioning system. Figure 2.2 shows the basic refrigeration cycle. Refrigeration is
produced by continuously circulating, evaporating, and condensing a fixed supply of
refrigerant in a closed system. The evaporation occurs at a low temperature and low
pressure while the condensation occurs at a high temperature and high pressure. Thus it is
possible to transfer heat from an area of low temperature (conditioned space) to an area
of high temperature (outdoor space).

Beginning the cycle at the evaporator inlet, the low pressure liquid absorbs heat, and
evaporates, changing to a low pressure vapour at the evaporator outlet. The compressor
pumps this vapour from the evaporator, increases its pressure, and discharges the high
pressure vapour to the condenser. In the condenser, heat is removed from the vapour as it
condenses and becomes a high pressure liquid. Between the condenser and the
evaporator, an expansion device is located. The flow of refrigerant into the evaporator is
controlled by the pressure differential across the expansion device. As the high pressure
liquid refrigerant enters the evaporator, it is subjected to a much lower pressure due to the
suction of the compressor and the pressure drop across the expansion device. The
refrigerant tends to expand and evaporate. In order to evaporate, the liquid must absorb
heat from the air passing over the evaporator, and the cycle is repeated.

2.2.2 Components
Commercial window air conditioners have a few more components for control and
smooth operation. The basic components include, a compressor, a condenser coil, an
evaporator coil, an expansion device, and an optional liquid line-suction line heat
 Condenser

Expansion
Device

Compressor

T
Evaporator
21

Figure 2.2: Vapour com pression refrigeration cycle.

 22

exchanger. Apart from these basic components, fan, fan motor, blower, and controls are
also provided.

Compressor
The window unit compressor is of hermetic type. This kind of a compressor unit has its
motor, and all moving parts operating within a sealed gas tight and completely welded
housing. The hermetic compressors used in air conditioners are usually the reciprocating
and rotary type. Superheated refrigerant vapour from the evaporator enters the
compressor through its suction line. The refrigerant cools the motor, gets further
superheated and is then drawn into the compressor cylinder through its suction port. After
compression, the gas is released through the discharge line and is pumped to the air
cooled condenser coil.

Window air conditioner compressors range in capacity from approximately 1.2 to 14 kW.
Design data are available from compressor manufacturers for rating conditions.
Compressor manufacturers offer complete performance curves at various evaporating and
condensing temperatures to aid the selection for a given design specification.

Evaporator and condenser coils

The evaporator is the device in the low pressure side of refrigeration system. Its function
is to facilitate the absorption of heat from the surrounding air by a refrigerant and to
move this heat out of the refrigerated area. The direct expansion (DX) type evaporators
are used in the air conditioner unit. A continuous tube forms the DX evaporator. The flow
of a refrigerant through the evaporator coil is divided into one or more circuits i.e. the
flow is channelled through separate rows of tubes rather than through a long tube.

The evaporator is located at the front end of the window air conditioner. It is made of
copper tubing and has aluminium fins bonded at right angles to the tubing to increase the
heat transfer area. The capacity of DX coil depends on the quantity of air blown through
coil, the temperature of air and the temperature of the boiling refrigerant.
 23

In a window air conditioner unit, the superheated refrigerant vapour from the compressor
is cooled and condensed in an air cooled condenser coil. The air cooled condenser coil
and the condenser fan are at the rear of the window unit cabinet and have ready access to
the outside air. The condenser coil is a continuous coil of copper tubing to which
aluminium fins, as in the case of evaporator, are bonded to increase the heat transfer
surface area.

For a given window air conditioner, the air cooled condenser surface area must be larger
than that of the evaporator surface area. This is because, in addition to the heat, which
enters through the evaporator, heat resulting from the compression is also added to the
refrigerant Both evaporator and condenser coils are generally of either the tube and plate
fin variety or the tube and spin fin variety. The performance data of such coils are
generally available from suppliers and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)
usually develop data for their own coils. The parameters used for the design of these coils
are dry bulb and moisture content of the entering air, air side friction loss, internal
refrigerant pressure drop, coil surface temperature, air volume and air velocity.

Expansion device
An expansion device is a link between the condenser and evaporator. As the high
pressure subcooled refrigerant liquid from the condenser passes through the expansion
device, its pressure and temperature are reduced and low pressure and low temperature
refrigerant mostly in liquid stage at the exit is obtained. The pressure drop across the
expansion device is determined by the desired operating pressures of the system. Once
this is fixed, the size of the expansion device has to be so adjusted that it will allow the
required refrigerant mass flow at the required pressure drop. Capillary tube is the simplest
and most economical form of expansion device. It does not include any moving parts
hence no maintenance is required. Capillary tube is supposed to be a single point
operation device in the sense that the best control is achieved only at a given set of
operating parameters. It is commonly used in window air conditioner.
 24

Fan, fan motor, and blower

The functions of the fan, the fan motor and the blower are to provide the required amount
of airflow on the condenser and the evaporator as per the design. The selection of these
components is very important because any change in airflow over the condenser or
evaporator has a large effect on the performance of these coils. These components must
be selected such that they can maintain the required airflow for the entire range of
operating conditions.

The evaporator fans used in the unit are usually of the centrifugal or propeller type and
are surrounded by acoustical insulating material that reduces operating noise. The
evaporator fan pulls in fresh outside air through louvers and a ventilation damper. Fresh
air enters through return louvers in the cabinet. The mixture of fresh air and the air inside
the room is drawn through the discharge grills in front of the cabinet.

The propeller type condenser fan is located immediately in front of the condenser coil.
This fan cools the condenser coil and also exhausts air from the conditioned space when
the exhaust air damper is opened. The condenser fan also exhausts the moisture
condensed on the surface of the cooling coil during dehumidification of the air.
Generally, a selector switch is provided to control the speed of the blower fan.

The combination of the fan motor and the air impeller is such an important part of the
overall design that the designer should work closely with the specifications of
manufacturers. Usually the performance curves are available for motors, blower wheels
and fans from the manufacturers.

2.2.3 Controls and Overload Protectors

Master control
It starts and stops fans as well as the compressor. The occupant uses this control to
choose the desired operation (cooling, exhaust and ventilation) and to select the fan
speed.
 25

Thermostat control
It adjusts the temperature to cooler or warmer conditions as required. The thermostat­
sensing element in window air conditioners is usually located in the return air stream near
the filter.

Controls for the motor, including a starting relay and overload switch, are mounted in or
near the terminal box. To complete the compressor motor controls, there is a manual
master control switch located towards the cabinet front. The compressor motor may be a
permanent split capacitor type or split phase type, which uses a starting capacitor as well
as a running capacitor.

The motor thermal overload protector prevents burning of the motor windings. If the
current increases beyond the safe point, the temperature of the heater coil in the overload
protector increases. This causes the thermally sensitive bimetal contact to spring away
and to open the circuit, thus stopping the motor.

2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.3.1 AREP Program

After die phase out program was established for HCFCs in 1992, particularly for
HCFC-22, the American refrigeration and air conditioning industry came together with
an evaluation program of HCFC-22 alternatives. As part of ARI, the program Alternative
Refrigerants Evaluation Program (AREP) was established. Over 40 companies and
research institutes around the world joined the AREP and tested 19 alternatives to replace
HCFC-22 for air conditioning. These are listed in Table 2.1. As a result of four years of
research, R-407C and R-410A emerged as the most promising candidates to replace
HCFC-22.

Godwin (1994a) reported the compressor calorimeter test results and the system
performance tests under “drop-in” conditions conducted under the AREP. Ratio of
capacities and efficiencies were determined for the alternative working fluids and the
 26

baseline HCFC-22. The rating conditions considered were typical US rating conditions,
i.e., an evaporating temperature of 7.2°C and the condensing temperature of 54.4°C. The
blend HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (30%/10%/60% by mass) showed a quite similar
performance to HCFC-22. The efficiency and the capacity of the blend HFC-32/HFC-125
(30%/70% by mass) were slightly lower than that of HCFC-22. For both the blends, the
efficiency ratios were slightly below unity, and the capacities were lower by 2% to 8%
than HCFC-22. Both capacity and efficiency ratios had lower figures at lower
evaporating temperatures. The purpose of the drop-in tests was to quickly estimate the
performance of a particular system with alternative refrigerant and to focus attention on
how performance was affected by the refrigerant. It was found that HFC-32/HFC-125
(60%/40% by mass) gave the lowest efficiency for window units. Drop-in test using
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (30%/10%/60% by mass) for a window unit showed a drop
in cooling capacity by 5% to 10%.

Table 2.1: HCFC-22 alternatives tested in the AREP program

Refrigerant or Percent Composition ASHRAE Standard

Refrigerant Blend By mass 34 Number
HFC-134a 100 R-134a
HC-290 (Propane) 100 R-290
R-717 (Ammonia) 100 R-717
HFC-32/HFC-125 50/50 R-410A
HFC-32/HFC-125 60/40
HFC-32/HFC-134a 20/80
HFC-32/HFC-134a 25/75
HFC-32/HFC-134a 30/70
HFC-32/HFC-134a 40/60
HFC-125/143A 45/55
HFC-23/HFC-32/HFC-134a 1.5/20/78.5
HFC-23/HFC-32/HFC-134a 1.5/27/71.5
HFC-23/HFC-32/HFC-134a 2/29.4/68.6
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a 10/70/20 R-407B
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a 23/25/52 R-407C
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a 24/16/60
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a 25/20/55
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a 30/10/60
HFC-32/HFC-125/HC-290/HFC-134a 20/55/5/20
 27

As a sequel to the previous report, Godwin (1994b) presented the soft-optimised system
tests results for binary mixtures of HFC-32/HFC-125 and ternary mixtures of
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a by varying their composition. These results were compared
for both heating and cooling modes. The mixture HFC-32/HFC-125 (60%/40% by mass)
had lower cooling capacities in the range 3% to 7% and efficiencies varied by 90% to
105%. This mixture offered comparable capacities in heating mode, in the range 97% to
104% and efficiencies in the range 97% to 101% as compared to HCFC-22. The mixture
HFC-32/HFC-125 (50%/50% by mass) gave higher cooling efficiencies by 1% to 6% and
cooling capacities in the range 98% to 105% than those of base line HCFC-22. The
cooling capacities of the mixture HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (30%/10%/60% by mass)
were with in the range 95% to 105% and efficiencies were in the range 90% to 102%.
The cooling capacities for the mixture HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (23%/25%/32% by
mass) varied between 90% and 101% and efficiencies varied between 90% and 97% as
compared to HCFC-22. The heating capacities and efficiencies were in the range 98% to
102% and 93% to 102% respectively as compared to baseline HCFC-22.

2.3.2 Theoretical Studies

Domanski and Didion (1993) reported the performance evaluation of HCFC-22
alternative refrigerants as presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: HCFC-22 alternative fluids (Domanski and Didion, 1993)

Refrigerant % by Tnbp TcUde Mol. Mass

Mass (”C) fC) (kg/kmol)
HFC-32/HFC-125 60/40 -53.1 0 67.27
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a/HC-290 20/55/20/5 -45.2 8.5 86.8
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-l 34a 10/70/20 -42.4 5.4 102.94
o

HC-290 100 0 44.10

1

HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a 30/10/60 -36 7.6 80.13

HFC-32/227ea 35/65 -35.3 20.6 94.78
HFC-32/HFC-134a 30/70 -34.4 7.3 79.19
HFC-32/HFC-134a 25/75 -33.1 7.0 82.26
HFC-134a 100 -26.2 0 102.03
 28

Simulation was done for performance of alternatives in drop-in systems, modified

systems, and modified systems with suction line parallel heat exchanger. All selected
refrigerants showed lower COPs as compared to HCFC-22. System simulation without
pressure drop in heat exchangers showed similar COPs for HCFC-22 and HFC-134a.
Except for the HFC-32/227ea mixture, the COPs of the other examined refrigerants with
the suction line parallel heat exchanger were within + 5% of HCFC-22. The authors
suggested that utilization of the suction line parallel heat exchanger might be warranted
for some of the alternative refrigerants.

Fischer and Sand (1993) evaluated some potential refrigerant mixtures having lower
temperature glide to replace HCFC-22 in air conditioning application. The evaluation
parameters were COP, volumetric cooling capacity, evaporator and condenser
temperature glides, and estimated flammability of the mixture. The refrigerants selected
for the mixtures were HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HC-290, and E-125 as their constituents.
Encouraging results were obtained for nine ternary blends containing E-125 and eleven
ternary blends without E-125.

Chen et al. (1994) assessed the feasibility of hydrocarbon refrigerants as a replacement

for HCFC-22 in residential air conditioners and heat pumps. The refrigerants selected
were propane and the mixtures of propane/i-pentane, propane/n-butane, and
propane/i-butane. The results were compared with those for HCFC-22, R-410A and
R-407C. A mixture of propane and butane gives the highest COP. The volumetric
capacity of mixture propane/butane is in between that of propane/i-butane and
propane/i-pentane. The mixture has higher COP than HFC refrigerants R-407C and
R-410A. However, volumetric capacity of mixture is low, therefore, the compressor
displacement required will be higher.

Masanobu et al. (1994) reported cycle performance analysis for three binary refrigerant
mixtures, namely HFC-32/HFC-134a (30%/70% by mass), HFC-32/HFC-134a
(25%/75% by mass), and HFC-32/HFC-125 (50%/50% by mass) i.e. R-410A. The
condensing and evaporating temperatures for blends were defined as the mean of the inlet
 29

and outlet temperatures of refrigerant at the condenser and the evaporator respectively. A
superheat of 8°C at the evaporator exit and a sub-cooling of 5°C at the condenser outlet
were considered. The specific volume value of R-410A is smaller than those of other
blends, so the mass flow rate is greater than others by more than 50%. Due to higher
mass flow rate of R-410A, the cooling capacity is also higher than that of HFC-32/
HFC-134a mixtures by more than 50%. The mixture HFC-32/HFC-134a (30%/70% by
mass) offered greater capacity than that of HFC-32/HFC-134a (25%/75% by wt), except
at one test condition. The cooling capacity of R-410A reported is more than 45% than
that of HCFC-22. The cooling capacities for other two mixtures of HFC-32 and
HFC-134a are lower by 3% to 10% than that of HCFC-22. The compressor power
required for R-410A is higher nearly by 55% as compared to HCFC-22, while that of
HFC-32/HFC-134a mixtures is lower by 2% to 8% as compared to HCFC-22. The
compressor power required for HFC-32/HFC-134a (30%/70% by mass) mixture is
slightly greater than that for the HFC-32/HFC-134a (25%/75% by mass) mixture. Due to
a high compression power being required with R-410A, the energy efficiency is lower
than that of HFC-32/HFC-134a mixtures by 1% to 5%. The energy efficiency of HFC-
32/HFC-134a (25%/75% by mass) mixture is better than that of HFC-32/HFC-134a
(30%/70% by mass) mixture, on the other hand, the energy efficiency of HCFC-22 is
mostly superior to that obtained by any mixtures.

Barreav et al. (1995) examined the refrigerants for the substitution of HCFC-22 and
identified the substitutes including HFC-134a, R-407C and a zeotropic blend of
HFC-23/HFC-32/134a (4.5%/21.5%/74% by mass). Some specific adaptations were
explored to take advantage of the glide of each mixture. HFC-134a was considered to be
a very attractive option, being a single component, but HFC-134a requires a higher
compressor displacement.

Bivens and Yokozeki (1996) theoretically assessed R-410A for a condensing temperature
of 50°C with no subcooling, a mean evaporating temperature of 5°C, wih 5°C superheat.
The discharge temperature and pressure ratio for R-410A are 0.1% and 1.2% lower than
those of HCFC-22 respectively. However, relative to HCFC-22, the evaporator pressure
 30

and volumetric capacity are higher by 59.5% and 48.0% respectively. The COP for
R-410A is 10.4% lower than that of HCFC-22. For 10°C subcooling and other conditions
as above, the COP difference is reduced to 6.3%. The author proposed R-410A as the
leading candidate to replace HCFC-22 in air conditioning and heat pump applications
although R-410A has lower theoretical energy efficiencies than HCFC-22.

Dongsoo et al. (1996) simulated the performance of residential air conditioners with
HCFC-22 and various HFCs (HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-143a, HFC-152a),
and natural fluids (HC-290, cyclopentane and propylene). The effect of suction line heat
exchangers on the performance of above refrigerants as HCFC-22 alternatives was
examined. The results presented indicate that the COP without suction line heat
exchanger varies greatly among the pure refrigerants. For HFC-125 and HFC-134a, the
COP is lower by 15% as compared to HCFC-22. With suction line heat exchanger, the
COP for all the fluids is almost the same. For HFC-125, the COP increases by 17% with
the inclusion of suction line heat exchanger. It was concluded that for new air
conditioners charged with mixtures, the use of suction line heat exchanger should be
considered as a possible means of increasing energy efficiency.

Keller et al. (1996) presented a theoretical study on assessment of HC-290 in North

American residential air conditioner. The analysis was done for the performance and
environmental effects using the Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) concept..
Three unitary systems with HC-290 were considered using safety measures, flame
suppressant, and a secondary heat transfer loop to isolate HC-290 from residences. The
estimated seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of three systems was compared with
HCFC-22 and R-410A systems. It is 2% higher for a system with safety measures, 8%
lower for a system with mixture of HC-290/HFC-227ea (30%/70% by mass), 16% lower
for a system with secondary heat exchanger and 7% higher for a system with R-410A as
compared to HCFC-22 system. If TEWI reduction per unit of investment is considered,
then a high efficiency R-410A system has the best TEWI reduction.
 31

Srinivasa Murthy (1996) assessed theoretically some of the commercially available HFC
blends for a semi-ideal cycle conditions. The COP of R-407C is nearly same as that of
HCFC-22 whilst, HX4 and R-410A have 2% to 6% lower values. The estimated SCD of
R-407C is close to that of HCFC-22. It is 4% to 8% lower for HX4, nearly 34% lower for
R-410A than that of HCFC-22. The author also presented a discussion on the relative
refrigerating effect, relative compression ratio, compression discharge temperature and
variation of specific volume at inlet of compressor.

Chin and Spatz (1999) listed some of the merits and demerits of R-410A in air
conditioning systems. The authors used the compressor performance and a heat pump
model to compare the performances of HCFC-22 and R-410A. They showed that the
superior performance of R-410A compressor and optimized heat exchangers were able to
compensate the lower efficiency of R-410A as compared to HCFC-22 at condensing
temperatures below 40°C. However, R-410A system showed lower performance than
HCFC-22 at condensing temperatures more than 40°C.

Li et al. (2000) used a simulation model ACC02 to predict the performance of a carbon
dioxide-based Environmental Control Unit (ECU) to replace the currently used HCFC-22
units. The results of ACC02 were compared with simulation results obtained with
“PUREZ” (a simulation model) for a baseline HCFC-22. Carbon dioxide based air
conditioner components were of the same size as the HCFC-22 based ECU. For the same
amount of evaporator capacity with HCFC-22, at an evaporator inlet temperature of
32.2°C, the CO2 based ECU will have a COP in the range 93% to 112% for the given
range of gas cooler/condenser air inlet temperatures (35°C to 51.7°C).

Motta and Domanski (2000) examined the performance of HCFC-22 and its alternatives
in an air-cooled air conditioner using the semi-theoretical vapour-compression model
CYCLE-11 developed by NIST. They concluded that R-410A has more performance
degradation than HCFC-22, R-407C, HC-290 and HFC-134a at increasing outdoor
conditions. Their simulation study showed that the fluids with low critical temperature
have a larger degradation of cooling capacity, while power consumption rate is similar
 32

for all fluids. The study also found that the use of a suction line heat exchanger improves
the COP for all refrigerants.

Spatz (2000) presented performance evaluation of the most common HCFC-22

alternatives, namely, R-410A and R-407C. The heat transfer coefficient and pressure
drop characteristics of the refrigerants were the assessment parameters. At the same mass
flux, R-410A has 15% higher condensing heat transfer coefficient and for the equivalent
pressure drop; it has 35% higher mass flux than HCFC-22. The average heat transfer
coefficient for R-407C is about 35% lower in the evaporation and about 28% lower in the
condensation than HCFC-22. For R-407C, the pressure drops are lower by 5% and 14%
for evaporation and condensation respectively.

Devotta et al. (2001) theoretically assessed some pure refrigerants and blends as
alternatives to HCFC-22 for room air conditioner. The refrigerants considered were
HFC-134a, HC-290, R-407C, R-410A, HFC-32/HFC-134a (30%/70% by mass),
HFC-32/HFC-125 (60%/40% by mass), HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (30%/10%/60% by
mass) and HCFC-22 as the base line. The pressure ratios for HFC-134a are the highest
while for HC-290 the lowest. The discharge temperatures for HCFC-22 are the highest
while for HC-290 the lowest. The discharge temperature for R-410A is lower than for
HCFC-22, and operating pressures are higher. The study showed that HFC-134a requires
the largest size compressor. The power consumption is higher for R-410A. However, due
to its higher volumetric capacity, the cooling capacity is higher by 50% than that of
HCFC-22. The COP of HFC-134a is the highest among all refrigerants.

Granryd (2001) reviewed the hydrocarbon refrigerants for different applications. The
author compared HC-290 and HCFC-22 and found that HC-290 gave lower capacity by
3% to 15% than HCFC-22. Higher miscibility of HC-290 in mineral oil leads to an
increase in the refrigerant charge and a reduction in viscosity of the oil. The author is in
favour of using less soluble oils i.e. Polyalkyleneglycol. These oils will reduce the charge
of HC-290 in applications like air conditioning and safety against flammability can be
improved to some extent.
 33

2.33 Experimental Studies

Treadwell (1991) tested the HC-290 in a single packaged unitary air conditioner designed
for HCFC-22. The original compressor was replaced with the larger displacement
compressor by 18% of equal efficiency. The system with HC-290 gave the higher
capacity by 3.84% to 3.97% and the higher EER by 0.8% to 2% as compared to
HCFC-22 system. The discharge pressure and temperature of HC-290 were significantly
lower than HCFC-22.

Lunger et al. (1994) presented the field-testing results of two split heat pump/ air
conditioners retrofitted with ternary mixture of HFC-32, HFC-125 and HFC-134a
(23%/25%/52% by mass) i.e. R-407C. In order to see the varying conditions inside the
house, the units were kept under observation for over a year. For similar days and period,
the refrigerants were compared for ambient temperatures without considering relative
humidity. The duration for the measurement of performance data was a day for both the
refrigerants. The cooling and heating performance of the ternary mixture were similar to
those of HCFC-22. The capacities of mixture and HCFC-22 were also similar.

Mumpower and Shiflett (1994) evaluated the performance of a ternary mixture of

HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (23%/25%/52% by mass) i.e. R-407C as an alternative to
HCFC-22 for air conditioning and heating applications using a compressor calorimeter
tests. The authors found that defining the superheat from either the mean of inlet and
outlet temperatures of the heat exchangers for blends or dew point temperature has no
measurable effect on capacity or energy efficiency. The authors suggested that the
sub-cooling should be defined from the mean condensing temperature, such that the
sub-cooled liquid refrigerant temperatures for HCFC-22 and the mixtures were the same.
The assessment parameters were relative capacity, energy efficiency and compressor
discharge temperature. The compressor capacity varied in the range 94% to 106% and
energy efficiency varied in the range 97% to 102% as compared to HCF-22. The
discharge temperature was lower by 7.2 °C to 11.7°C as compared to HCFC-22. The tests
of a system with R-407C and HCFC-22 showed a similar performance.
 34

Spate and Zheng (1994) reported the test results of an 8.55 kW (2.5 TR) capacity air
conditioner with an azeotropic mixture HFC-32/HFC-125 (R-410A), a zeotropic mixture
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134 (R-407C), HFC-134a, and base line HCFC-22. The capacity
of HFC-134a and R-410A was normalized to HCFC-22 by changing the compressors
with higher or lower displacements. R-410A performed better than the HCFC-22 in a
typical 8.55 kW (2.5 TR) capacity air conditioner. With minor changes in heat
exchangers, 5% to 6% rise in Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) was achieved. R-407C gave
4% to 9% fall in EER as compared to HCFC-22. The performance of HFC-134a was
significantly on lower side with a fall in EER of 20% than HCFC-22. The authors
concluded that the use of HFC-134a would face more obstacles to replace HCFC-22 in
unitary air conditioners and heat pumps.

Corr et al. (1996) presented reliability study of 15 retrofitted air conditioning units
designed for HCFC-22 with R-407C. The oil used with R-407C was polyol ester. For the
reliability of retrofitted units, the endurance tests were conducted by running the systems
for 2000 hours and were cycled on/off by varying the ambient temperatures and input
voltages. The reliability assessment was done by measuring the system and compressor
performance before and after the test. This was achieved through the inspection of
disassembled compressor, oil sample analysis, and inspection of system components. The
combination of R-407C/POE showed a reduction in capacity and efficiency for almost all
the systems. The retrofitted compressors were adequately lubricated. There was an
accumulated black residue. The authors concluded that the retrofitting could be achieved
without affecting long-term performance and reliability, if proper precautions were taken
while retrofitting

Ritter (1996) reported theoretical as well as experimental assessment of HC-290 and

propane /ethane blend and it was compared with R-407C and R-410A. In the theoretical
study, a cycle with typical UK conditions having evaporating temperature of 10°C,
condensing temperature of 40°C, subcooling of 5°C in the condenser and 5°C evaporator
exit superheat. The pressure ratios for HC-290 and propane/ethane mixture were almost
 35

identical and were lower by 4% to 5% as compared to HCFC-22 across a wide range of

evaporating temperatures. The COP of HC-290 and HCFC-22 were similar whilst
R-407C and R-410A were lower. The COP for R-410A was up to 8% below that of either
HC-290 or HCFC-22. On the other hand, propane/ethane mixture showed slightly higher
COP than HCFC-22. The discharge temperatures for HC-290 and propane/ethane mixture
were lower by 11.4°C and 10.9°C respectively as compared to HCFC-22. This contributes
towards reduced compressor wear. The charge required for hydrocarbons was only 40%
by mass of that needed with an equivalent CFC, HCFC or HFC. In the practical study, an
air conditioning unit with a rated cooling capacity of 2.15 kW was used with a
reciprocating hermetically sealed compressor. The compressor dome and suction line
temperatures were lower for the hydrocarbon refrigerants.

ARI (1997) reported the soft-optimised system test results with several HCFC-22
alternatives. These results were compared with the performance of the unmodified
system, run with the original refrigerant at similar operating conditions. The summary of
performance data was presented for HFC-32/HFC-125 (60%/40% by mass),
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (30%/10%/60% by mass), R-410A, and R-407C. An 8.55
kW (2.5 TR) air conditioner showed a 5% decrease in capacity and 2% loss in efficiency
when tested with R-410A. Several units were tested with R-407C and mixture
HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a (30%/10%/60% by mass). A window room air conditioner
with R-407C showed a 3% decrease in capacity and a 5% loss in efficiency as compared
to HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC- 134a (30%/10%/60 by mass)

Ryuzaburo et al. (1997) presented performance data for split type room air conditioners
and air cooled packaged air conditioners with R-407C and R-410A. The cylinder
displacement for R-407C was kept equivalent to HCFC-22. Since a volumetric capacity
of R-410A is 1.4 times that of HCFC-22, the compressor displacement was decreased to
this ratio. According to the compressor evaluation results, the efficiencies of R-407C and
R-410A were found to be equivalent to those of HCFC-22 within the tolerance of + 1%.
The performance of heat pump room air conditioner with R-410A was better than
R-407C. The performance of packaged air conditioners with R-410A and R-407C were
 36

equivalent. They also considered heat transfer performance of a zeotropic refrigerant,

practicality of zeotropic refrigerants, and technology development required for the use of
R-407C and R-410A.

Aarlien and Frivik (1998) presented the experimental performance data of a residential
heat pump with CO2. The prototype CO2 system consisted a seven-cylinder wobble-plate,
reciprocating, open type compressor, the extruded micro-tube, parallel flow type heat
exchangers (gas cooler and evaporator), the receiver, and the expansion device. For the
experiments in cooling mode the COPs for CO2 unit was lower by 0.5% to 14% as
compared to HCFC-22 system. In heating mode, the COP of the CO2 system was
between 3% and 14% higher than that of HCFC-22 system.

Kruse and Konig (1998) assessed R-407C, R-410A, and HC-290 as alternatives to
HCFC-22. The experimental comparison was based on two ways, i.e. concerning the
internal and external behaviour of the refrigerant cycle. For internal behaviour
comparison, the refrigerant temperatures were kept constant while keeping equal external
fluid temperatures assessed external behaviour. From theoretical analysis, it was found
that HCFC-22, R-407C, R-410A, and HC-290 have negligible deviation in performance
data. R-410A gave slightly lower COP and a significantly higher refrigerating effect per
unit of swept volume (approx. 50%) than that of HCFC-22. On the basis of internal
behaviour of refrigerants, R-410A and HC-290 were found to be energy efficient as
compared to HCFC-22. According to external behaviour, the COP for R-410A was
higher by 2 to 7 % than that of HCFC-22. The COP of R-407C was lower by 10 to 16 %
as compared to HCFC-22. R-407C required more power as compared to HCFC-22.

Purkayastha and Bansal (1998) presented the performance of HC-290 and commercially
available liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in NewZeland. Both hydrocarbon refrigerants
gave better performance than HCFC-22. The specific LPG mixture (HC-290: 98.5%,
HC-170: 1.007%, HC-600a: 0.039% and other constituents in small proportions) gave
better performance than HC-290. The COPs of HC-290 and local LPG mixture were 18%
and 12% respectively more than that of the HCFC-22 at evaporating temperature of 3°C,
 37

and condensing temperature of 35°C. For HC-290 and LPG mixture, the condenser
capacity found to be decreased by 15% and 10% respectively. For both hydrocarbons, the
discharge temperatures were substantially lower than that of HCFC-22 for all operating
conditions.

Colboume (1999) presented the feasibility of using hydrocarbons in air conditioning

systems. The author reported that converting the chillers and split air conditioners to
hydrocarbon refrigerants required additional costs approximately 1.5% and 3.5%
respectively. However, due to secondary circuit, packaged air conditioner requires
additional cost up to 18%. The author argued that for hydrocarbons the operating cost per
COP had benefit of some 14.5% and 5.1% for the chillers and split air conditioners
respectively. For packaged air conditioners, there will be 17.3% reduction in cost per unit
COP.

Firth and Carrington (1999) reported the performance of a proprietary hydrocarbon blend
CARE-50 as a drop-in replacement to HCFC-22 in a domestic HPAC system. They
reported that the system with CARE-50, in cooling mode gave reduced capacity by 3%,
decreased power consumption by 10% and COP higher by 6% than HCFC-22. In the
heating mode, capacity and power consumption were lower by 15% and COP was
comparable with HCFC-22. They suggested that for heating application, refrigerant flow
optimisation is needed.

Meurer et al. (1999) presented comparison of experimental data of HCFC-22 and R-410A
for condensing temperatures up to 60°C. At an operating condition (27°C condensing
temperature and 9°C evaporating temperature), COP for R-410A system was higher by
16% than HCFC-22. However, this advantage decreased with increasing condensing
temperatures. The authors reported that isentropic and volumetric efficiencies of R-410
compressor were higher by 14% and 22% respectively than HCFC-22. They also reported
that reduced rotational speed of the compressor improved the performance of R-410A,
However, equal rotational speeds decreased the performance of R-410A than HCFC-22.
 38

Shi et al. (1999) developed a proprietary ternary mixture of HFCs, named HR03. It has a
zero ODP, low GWP and is non-toxic and non-flammable. It is a zeotropic mixture and
has a glide of 5°C in both condenser and evaporator. The operating pressures are slightly
higher than that of HCFC-22 and compressor discharge temperature is slightly lower. The
theoretical COP estimated for THR03 is about 7% lower than that of HCFC-22 and
capacities on both mass or volume basis were better. The experiment results with a
window air conditioner showed that, the cooling capacity and COP for THR03 are more
by 7% and 3% respectively when compared with HCFC-22.

Triebe et al. (1999) presented the experimental study on R-407C and R-410A on a
constant capacity basis with HCFC-22 as the base line refrigerant. To impose a constant
capacity, the compressor displacement was varied using a variable speed drive. The
variation in evaporating temperature was from -15°C to 0°C in step of 5°C. The
condensing temperature was allowed to float by keeping constant inlet temperature of
heat sink. To match capacity, the compressor speed for R-410A was about 38% lower
and for R-407C, it was 1 to 7% more than HCFC-22. The COP for R-407C was lower by
3.6% at heat source temperature of 15°C and 6.85% at 0°C when compared to HCFC-22.
For R-410A, the COP varied from 6.8% at 0°C to 13.5% at 15°C on higher side than that
of HCFC-22. The overall heat transfer coefficient in the evaporation zone for R-410A
was the highest, followed by HCFC-22 and R-407C. There was a significant drop in
overall heat transfer coefficient in the superheated zone for all three refrigerants. In the
superheated zone, the overall heat transfer coefficient was the highest for HCFC-22
followed by R-410A and R-407C.

Dongsoo et al. (2000) tested 14 mixtures with HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-152a,
HC-290 and propylene, in a breadboard heat pump of capacity of 3.5 kW, under cooling
conditions. The base line performance data was measured for HCFC-22. The tests were
conducted with and without a suction line heat exchanger. The mixtures consisting of
HFC-32, HFC-125 and HFC-134a had 4% to 5% higher COPs and capacities than
HCFC-22. The ternary mixtures of HFC-125, HFC-134a and HFC-152a had lower COPs
and capacities than HCFC-22. The COPs and capacities of the mixtures comprising
 39

HFC-32, HFC-134a and HFC-152a were 7% higher and 5% lower respectively than
HCFC-22. The binary mixtures HFC-32/ HFC-134a and HC-290/ HFC-134a had higher
COPs by 7% and 3-5% respectively. The capacity of the first binary mixture was similar
to HCFC-22 and that of the second mixture was higher by 3% to 5%. The authors
reported that the use of suction line heat exchanger improved the COPs for almost all
mixtures. The compressor dome temperatures measured were lower for all mixtures than
that of HCFC-22. The mixture of HFC-32, HFC-125 and HFC-134a (26%/14%/60% by
mass), gave a better performance than R-407C.

Hammand and Tarawnah (2000) presented the experimental results for a split air
conditioner, of capacity 8.55 kW (2.5 TR), retrofitted with mixtures of HC-290 and
HC-600. The composition of HC-290 was varied from 40% to 100% in step of 10%. The
pure HC-290 gave the highest COP than other mixtures and HCFC-22. The mixture with
60% of HC-290 gave COP similar to HCFC-22 at lower evaporating pressures.

Hwang et al. (2002) presented the performance of HC-290 in a split air conditioner. Two
tests of ‘drop-in’ and ‘soft optimised' with compressor change (11% more compressor
displacement) were carried out as per ASHRAE Standard 116. The drop-in cooling
capacity of HC-290 was lower in the range 8% to 10% than that of HCFC-22. However,
cooling efficiency of HC-290 was higher in the range 4% to 6% than that of HCFC-22.
The cooling capacity and efficiency of HC-290 with 11% more compressor displacement
were lower in the range 2% to 8%. The cyclic performance of HC-290 was better than
HCFC-22.

Payne and Domanski (2002) presented the comparative study for HCFC-22 and R-410A
with outdoor conditions varying from 27.8°C to 54.4°C. R-410A tests were extended to
68.3°C with a customized compressor. The performance of R-410A system degraded
more than the HCFC-22 system with the increase in outdoor temperatures. The capacity
of R-410A system was approximately equal to HCFC-22 system at 35°C rating point. The
cooling efficiency of R-410A system was lower by 4% at this rating point. At 54.4°C
outdoor temperature, the capacity and cooling efficiency for R-410A were lower by 9%
 40

and 15% respectively than that of HCFC-22. At an outdoor temperature of 68.3°C, the
R-410A system, operating in supercritical condition was found to be stable.

Wang et al. (2002) reported experimental investigations on the performances of

HC-1270, and mixture of HC-1270/HC-290 along with HCFC-22 in air conditioners
under the drop-in tests. The results of these tests showed that the hydrocarbons HC-1270
and a mixture HC-1270/HC-290 gave better COP as well as cooling capacity. The COP
of HC-1270 was higher by 35.5% than that of HCFC-22. The mixture also gave higher
COP by 14.88%.

2.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

It appears that it is a difficult task to choose an environment friendly alternative

refrigerant to HCFC-22, with comparable performance. While selecting HCFC-22
alternatives in air conditioning application, the most influencing factors are performance,
reliability, safety, market acceptance and environmental impact. The results of research
programs carried out so far indicate that single component refrigerants such as
HFC-134a, CO2, HC-290 and HFC blends such as R-407C, R-410A have emerged as
HCFC-22 substitutes. HFCs are not soluble in commonly used mineral oils. Therefore,
POE oils are used in the systems with HFCs except in rotary compressors.

2.4.1 HFC-134a
It is not possible to use HFC-134a as a drop-in substitute for HCFC-22 in air conditioning
system. For the capacity equivalent to the HCFC-22 system, it demands the compressor
displacement approximately 1.4 times HCFC-22. The reported efficiency of such a
system has been lower by approximately 5% than HCFC-22 (UNEP, 2002). For new
system designs the changes in design parameters, include larger heat exchangers and
refrigerant tubing, larger compressor displacement and resized motors. The use of
HFC-134a may be viable in the larger systems, greater than 70 kW.
 41

2.4.2 R-407C
Various theoretical and experimental investigations indicate that R-407C is a retrofit
candidate for systems designed for HCFC-22. R-407C has a temperature glide of 5°C to
7°C and vapour pressure about the same as HCFC-22. Performance tests with R-407C
show that the capacities and COPs are within ± 5% of the HCFC-22 systems. R-407C
requires only modest modifications to existing HCFC-22 systems. It may be an attractive
alternative for large capacity (greater than 52 kW) unitary products that would otherwise
require extensive design modification and high capital equipment investments for
conversion to R-410A. R-407C has an ASHRAE safety classification “Al/Al” which
designates it as a refrigerant with low toxicity and no flame speed.

2.4.3 R-410A
System pressures with R-410A are approximately 50% higher than with HCFC-22. Due
to its higher operating pressures and higher volumetric capacity, it demands the system
design changes such as heavier compressor shells, compressor displacement, motor size,
heat exchangers, and refrigerant tubing. R-410A has a relatively low critical temperature
(73.3°C versus 96.1°C for HCFC-22). This leads to the design changes for ambient
temperature above the critical temperature of R-410A. A recent study has shown that the
capacity and COP of an R-410A system degraded linearly with the outdoor ambient, and
was at a faster rate than an equivalent HCFC-22 system. R-410A has an “Al/Al”
ASHRAE safety classification.

2.4.4 HC-290
The results of drop-in performance studies for HC-290 mostly in split air conditioners
suggest that the HC-290 systems has 8% to 9% higher COP and 3% to 15% lower
capacity than the HCFC-22 baseline systems (without applying safety measures).
HC-290 offers reduced charge levels, lower compressor discharge temperature, good
miscibility with mineral oils, and better heat transfer than HFCs.

The factors that oppose the use of HC-290 in air conditioning systems are flammability,
installation practices and poor field service skills and practices. The use of HC-290 in

14295
A
 42

unitary systems having refrigerant charge more than 1 kg has been the focus of
significant risk analysis and safety standards development activities. Most of the studies
on risk assessment conclude that the risk of fire or explosion is reasonably low and is
proportional to the quantity of refrigerant in the system (Colboume and Ritter, 2002). The
design of system with HC-290 should include safety measures for safe operation and
maintenance.

2.4.5 C02
It has many desirable characteristics such as readily available, low toxicity, low direct
GWP and low cost. Carbon dioxide has low operating efficiencies and high operating
pressures than HCFC-22 for air conditioning application. The critical temperature of C02
is 31.06°C. For operations above the critical temperature, there is a need to control the
high pressure side of the system. Non-optimised prototype air conditioning systems
showed COP in the range 2 to 3 (Aarlien and Frivik, 1998, Li et al., 2000).