Int. J. Exergy, Vol. 4, No.

4, 2007 441

Exergy analysis of a Vapour Compression

Refrigeration system with R-22, R-407C and R-410A

Akhilesh Arora*, B.B. Arora,

B.D. Pathak and H.L. Sachdev
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Delhi College of Engineering,
Bawana Road, Delhi -110042, India
E-mail: aroraakhilesh@yahoo.com
E-mail: prof_bbar@yahoo.com
E-mail: pathakbaldev@rediffmail.com
E-mail: hlsachdev@yahoo.co.in
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The parametric investigations of actual Vapour Compression

Refrigeration (VCR) cycle in terms of Coefficient of Performance (COP),
Exergy Destruction (ED) and exergetic efficiency of refrigerants R-22, R-407C
and R-410A have been predicted with the help of a developed computational
model. The present investigation has been carried out for evaporator and
condenser temperatures in the range of −38°C to 7°C and 40°C to 60°C
respectively. The results indicate that COP and exergetic efficiency for R-22
are higher in comparison to R-407C and R-410A. The optimum evaporator
temperature for minimum ED ratio has been evaluated at various condenser
temperatures.

Keywords: vapour compression cycle; exergy analysis; dead-state temperature;

R-22; R-407C; R-410A.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Arora, A., Arora, B.B.,
Pathak, B.D. and Sachdev, H.L. (2007) ‘Exergy analysis of Vapour
Compression Refrigeration system with R-22, R-407C and R-410A’, Int. J.
Exergy, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.441–454.

Biographical notes: Akhilesh Arora is working as a Lecturer at the

Department of Mechanical Engineering in Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi,
India. He obtained his Master of Technology (MTech) in Thermal Engineering
from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, in 1997. His research area
includes alternate refrigerants, alternate refrigeration technologies and exergy
analysis of thermal systems.

B.B. Arora is working as an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering

Department at Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi, India, since 2000.
He obtained his Masters Degree in Thermal Engineering from Delhi
University, Delhi, in 1991. His research area includes refrigeration and
air conditioning, turbo machinery, fluid mechanics and computational fluid
dynamics.

B.D. Pathak is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department at

Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi, India. He obtained his PhD from Indian
Institute of Technology, New Delhi, in 1996. His research area includes turbo
machinery, fluid mechanics and computational fluid dynamics.

Copyright © 2007 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

442 A. Arora et al.

H.L. Sachdev obtained his Masters Degree in Thermal Engineering from

Delhi University, Delhi, India, in 2006. He earned his Graduate Degree in
Mechanical Engineering from Institution of Engineers (India), Kolkata,
in 2003. He is presently working in the Central Road Research Institute Delhi
(India) and has 20 years of field experience in the area of refrigeration and
air-conditioning.

1 Introduction

R-22 is the most common refrigerant since the inception of refrigeration and
air-conditioning industry. Since R-22 has an Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) of 0.055,
thus Montreal Protocol and provision of 1990 Clean Air Act specify the phasing out of
R-22 by the year 2030. Hughes (1993) has reported R-407C and R-410A as alternate
refrigerants to R-22. The R-407C and R-410A have zero ODP; moreover, the vapour
pressure and thermodynamic properties for R-407C are similar to R-22. Murphy et al.
(1995) stated that R-410A is a high-pressure refrigerant blend and requires modification
to compressor displacement and refrigerant line sizes.
Hughes (1993) and Low et al. (1994) reported that there was a substantial capacity
match of R-407C with that of R-22, but COP value of R-407C was found to be 5% less
than that for R-22. The root cause of this performance degradation was presumed
to be the difference in the respective thermodynamic properties of these alternatives.
Nikolaidis and Probert (1998) used the exergy analysis to examine the behaviour of
two-stage compound compression cycle, using refrigerant R-22, and pointed out the need
for optimising the performance of condenser and evaporator. Aprea and Renno (2004)
experimentally studied the performance of a VCR plant using both R-22 and its substitute
R-417A and stated that no alternate refrigerant can unanimously match the performance
of R-22 without system design modification. Stegou-Sagia (2005) carried out the
irreversibility analysis in a single-stage vapour compression cycle with refrigerant
mixtures R-404A, R-410A, R-410B and R-507. Chuan et al. (2006) developed a
dimensionless correlation on the basis of experimental data to predict the mass flow rate
of R-22 and its alternative refrigerant R-407C through an Electronic Expansion Valve
(EEV). Sancan et al. (2006) carried out the computational first and second law analysis
for R-134a, R-407C and R-410A, with the help of artificial neural network methodology,
and concluded that condenser and evaporator temperatures have strong effects on COP
and system irreversibility.
Literature survey shows that the exergy analysis of VCR cycle is based on a very
simplified model, which does not include superheating of suction vapour, subcooling and
pressure losses. Moreover, the effect of dead-state temperature on performance of the
vapour compression cycle has not been investigated thus far.
In the present communication, the above-mentioned aspects have been considered
and a computational model is developed for evaluating COP, ED, exergetic efficiency,
ED ratio and optimum evaporator temperature. The results have been computed for R-22,
R-407C and R-410A.
 Exergy analysis of Vapour Compression Refrigeration system 443

2 Energy analysis

The VCR cycle, including superheating, subcooling and pressure losses in evaporator and
condenser, is shown in Figure 1. Energy analysis of each component is as follows:
Evaporator: Evaporator abstracts the heat (Qe) from the space maintained at temperature
Tr and it is given by equation (1):

Q e = m r (h1 − h4 ) (1)

m r : mass flow rate of refrigerant (kg/s)

h1: enthalpy at outlet to evaporator (kJ/kg)
h4: enthalpy at inlet to evaporator (kJ/kg).
Compressor: The isentropic work (Wcs ) input to the compressor is given by equation (2):

Wcs = m r (h2s − h 1 ) (2)

and the actual compressor work (Wc ) is specified as equation (3):

W
Wc = cs (3)
ηs
where ηs is isentropic efficiency of the compressor.

Condenser: The heat rejected by the condenser (Q cond ) to the atmosphere is given as

Q cond = m r (h2 − h 3 ). (4)

Throttle valve: In throttle valve, the enthalpy remains constant.

Figure 1 Vapour Compression Refrigeration cycle

444 A. Arora et al.

According to the first law, the measure of performance of the refrigeration cycle is the
COP and is equal to the net refrigeration effect produced per unit of work required.
It is expressed as equation (5):
Q e
COP = . (5)
W c

3 Exergy analysis

The second law of thermodynamics derives the concept of exergy, which always
decreases due to thermodynamic irreversibility. Dincer (2003) defined the exergy as the
measure of usefulness, quality or potential of a stream to cause change and an effective
measure of the potential of a substance to impact the environment.
Exergy balance as given by Lee and Sherif (2001) for steady-state process of
a control volume (each component) can be expressed as equation (6):
.
ED = ∑ (me
 ) −
x in ∑ (me
 ) x

   T   T0    (6)

+  ∑  Q  1 − 0   − ∑  Q 1 −  ± ∑W .
   T  in  T  out 
⋅
ED represents the rate of ED occurring in the process. The first two terms on the
right-hand side represent exergy of streams entering and leaving the control volume.
The third and fourth terms are the exergy associated with heat transfer Q from the source
maintained at constant temperature T and is equal to work obtained by Carnot engine
operating between T and T0 and is, therefore, equal to maximum reversible work that can
be obtained from heat energy Q . The last term is the mechanical work transfer to or from
the control volume.

3.1 Exergy Destruction (ED) in the system components

ED in each component of the cycle is calculated as per the equations (7)–(10) specified
below.
Evaporator
.  T   T 
ED e = E X 4 + Q e  1 − 0  − E X r = m r (h4 − h0 s4 ) + Q e  1 − 0  − m r (h1 − T0 s1 ). (7)
 Tr   Tr 
Compressor
.
EDc = E X1 + Wc − E X 2 = m r (h1 − T0 s1 ) + Wc − m r (h2 − T0 s2 ) = m r (T0 (s2 − s1 )). (8)

Condenser
.
EDcond = E X 2 − E X 3 = m r (h2 − T0 s2 ) − m r (h3 − T0 s3 ). (9)
 Exergy analysis of Vapour Compression Refrigeration system 445

Throttle valve
.
EDt =E X 3 − E X 4 =m r (h3 − T0 s3 ) − m r (h4 − T0 s4 ) = m r (T0 (s4 − s3 )). (10)

3.2 Total Exergy Destruction (ED)

The total ED in the system is the sum of ED in different components of the system and is
given by equation (11):
. . . . .
ED total = EDe + EDc + EDcond + EDt . (11)

Second law performance of the system can be measured in terms of exergetic efficiency,
as defined by Bejan et al. (1996). In order to define exergetic efficiency, it is necessary to
identify both product and fuel for the thermodynamic system being analysed. The product
represents the desired effect produced by the system; the fuel represents the resources
expended to generate the product. Both fuel and product are expressed in terms of exergy.
If we consider a system at steady state, where, in terms
. of .exergy, the rates at which
. the
fuel
. is supplied and the product is generated are EF and EP , respectively, and ED and
EL represent rate of ED and exergy loss, then exergy rate balance for the system reads.
. . . .
EF = EP + ED + EL. (12)

3.3 Exergetic efficiency

The exergetic efficiency is the ratio between product and fuel and is given as:
. . .
Exergy in product EP ED + EL
ηe = = . =1− .
. (13)
x
Exergy of fuel EF EF
For the VCR system, product is the exergy of the heat abstracted in to the evaporator
from the space to be cooled, i.e.,

  1 − T0 
.
EP = Q e (14)
 Tr 

and exergy of fuel is actual compressor work input, Wc .

Hence exergetic efficiency is given by

Q e (1 − (T0 / Tr ))
ηe = . (15)
x
Wc

3.4 Exergy Destruction Ratio (EDR)

Said and Ismail (1994) defined the EDR as the ratio of total ED in system to exergy
in the product and can be stated as follows:
446 A. Arora et al.

.
ED total
EDR = .
. (16)
EP

4 Assumptions

The energy and exergy analysis presented in this communication is based on the
following relevant assumptions:
• pressure losses in the evaporator and condenser: 20 kPa and 10 kPa, respectively
• subcooling of refrigerant leaving condenser: 5°C
• superheating of refrigerant vapour leaving the evaporator: 5°C
• isentropic efficiency of compressor: 75%
• difference between evaporator and space temperature: 15°C
• reference enthalpy (ho) and entropy (so) of the working fluids have been calculated
corresponding to the dead-state temperature (T0) of 25°C.

5 Results and discussion

A computational model is developed for carrying out the energetic and exergetic analysis
of the system using Engineering Equation Solver software (Klein and Alvarado, 2005).
The comparative performance is evaluated for refrigerant flow rate of 1 kg/s for
condenser temperatures varying between 40°C and 60°C, with an increment of 5°C, and
the evaporator temperature is varied between 7°C and −38°C, with a decrement of 5°C.
The results at 50°C condenser temperature and 7°C evaporator temperatures are given in
Table 1.

Table 1 Comparative performance of R-22, R-407C and R-410A at Te = 7°C and Tcond = 50°C

Refrigerant
Parameter (unit) R-22 R-407C R-410A
Mass flow rate of refrigerant (kg/s) 1 1 1
Environment temperature (T0 (°C)) 25 25 25
Condenser temperature (Tcond (°C)) 50 50 50
Temperature of cold room (Tr (°C)) 22 22 22
Compressor inlet temperature (T1 (°C)) 12 12 12
Isentropic efficiency (ηs) 0.75 0.75 0.75
Actual compressor work, ( Wc (kW)) 40.32 43.22 43.02
Refrigerating effect ( Q (kW))
e 155.6 158.3 154.4
 Exergy analysis of Vapour Compression Refrigeration system 447

Table 1 Comparative performance of R-22, R-407C and R-410A at Te = 7°C and Tcond = 50°C
(continued)

Refrigerant
Parameter (unit) R-22 R-407C R-410A
Coefficient of performance (COP) 3.86 3.663 3.59
Exergetic efficiency (ηex ) 0.0392 0.0372 0.0365
.
Total exergy destruction ( ED total (kW)) 38.743 41.615 41.454
.
Exergy destruction in evaporator ( EDe (kW)) 9.205 10.81 8.871
.
Exergy destruction in compressor ( EDc (kW)) 10.08 10.81 10.76
.
Exergy destruction in condenser ( ED cond (kW)) 15.15 12.78 10.76
.
Exergy destruction in throttle valve ( EDt (kW)) 4.31 7.216 6.379
Exergy Destruction Ratio (EDR) 24.491 25.857 26.4074

Figure 2 shows the variation of COP with evaporator temperature. COP for R-22 is 3–6%
higher than that for R-407C and R-410A. At −38°C evaporator temperature and 40°C
condenser temperature, COP of R-407C is 3.5% lower than that for R-410A. With the
increase in evaporator temperature, COP for both R-407C and R-410A increases, and at
7°C evaporator temperature COP of R-407C is 0.62% higher than that for R-410A.
The trends are similar at condenser temperatures 50°C and 60°C.

Figure 2 Effect of varying evaporator temperature on Coefficient of Performance

Figure 3 shows the variation of exergetic efficiency with evaporator temperature.

For matching input parameters, R-22 has 1–3% higher exergetic efficiency as compared
to R-407C and R-410A. In other words, for desired exergy in product, less compression
work is needed when using R-22. The temperature corresponding to the highest exergetic
efficiency is the optimum evaporator temperature. The optimum evaporator temperature
increases with decrease in condenser temperature for the refrigerants considered above.
448 A. Arora et al.

Beyond optimum evaporator temperature, exergetic efficiency reduces. It is due to the

fact that reduction in the exergy corresponding to refrigerating effect is more than the
drop in compressor work. The optimum evaporator temperature gives the indication of
maximum exergetic efficiency and minimum ED ratio. From practical point of view,
any refrigeration system should be operated at optimum evaporator temperature, but the
evaporator temperature depends upon the particular application, and the difference in
evaporator temperature and optimum temperature gives an indication of increase in the
overall ED/irreversibility over and above the value at optimum temperature.

Figure 3 Effect of varying evaporator temperature on exergetic efficiency

Figure 4 shows the effect of varying evaporator temperature on EDR for different
condenser temperatures. Corresponding to −38°C evaporator temperature and 40°C
condenser temperature, the EDR for R-407C is 9% higher than that for R-22 and 5%
greater than that for R-410A. The EDR for R-410A is 3.76% higher than that for R-22
and 0.63% higher than that for R-407C at evaporator temperature 7°C and condenser
temperature 40°C.
EDR at optimum evaporator temperature is least. Optimum evaporator temperature
and minimum EDR, at different condenser temperatures, for the refrigerants chosen, are
summarised in Table 2. EDR is higher for evaporator temperatures below or above
optimum temperature. The trends are similar at 50°C and 60°C condenser temperatures.
Further due to the decrease in exergy of the product beyond 2°C evaporator temperature,
there is abrupt increase in the EDR.
 Exergy analysis of Vapour Compression Refrigeration system 449

Figure 4 Effect of varying evaporator temperature on Exergy Destruction Ratio

Table 2 Optimum evaporator temperature and minimum EDR for R-22, R-407C
and R-410A at different condenser temperatures

Refrigerant Optimum evaporator temperature (°C)/minimum EDR

R-22 −41.24/4.1240 −39.87/3.2405 −37.61/2.5146
R-407C −36.86/4.9121 −36.18/3.6559 −34.45/2.7316
R-410A −43.321/4.8221 −42.48/3.5184 −40.25/2.6099
Condenser temperature (°C) 60 50 40

Figure 5 specifies the percentage exergy destruction in each component for a condenser
temperature of 50ºC and varying evaporator temperatures. The percentage exergy
destruction in compressor varies between 25% and 35%, with R-407C having the lowest
percentage exergy destruction and R-410A having the highest value. Moreover, there is
decrease in percentage exergy destruction in compressor with increase in evaporator
temperature. Percentage exergy destruction in condenser for R-22 varies between 25%
and 39% and is higher than that for R-407C and R-410A. Exergy destruction in
condenser reduces with reduction in evaporator temperature corresponding to a fixed
condenser temperature for each refrigerant. Percentage exergy destruction in throttle
valve is higher as compared to evaporator. Increase in evaporator temperature results in
reduction of percentage exergy destruction in throttle valve, whereas percentage
exergy destruction increases in case of evaporator under similar conditions. The exergy
destruction in condenser and evaporator is due to the temperature difference during heat
transfer. Reducing the temperature difference for heat transfer will reduce exergy
450 A. Arora et al.

destruction in the above-mentioned components. The throttling exergy loss can be

reduced by subcooling of the working substance before its entry to throttle valve or
through application of liquid vapour heat exchanger.

Figure 5 Effect of varying evaporator temperature on percentage exergy destruction in system

components (Tc = 50°C, Te = 7°C)

Figure 6 represents the effect of dead-state temperature on exergetic efficiency for

R-22, R-407C and R-410A. R-22 has consistently higher exergetic efficiency, which
varies between 3% and 32% with the increase in dead-state temperature. The values of
exergetic efficiency for R-407C and R-410A are 0.5–2% lower than R-22. The reason for
increase of exergetic efficiency with the increase in dead-state temperature is due to the
enhancement in exergy of the product. Greater the difference between evaporator
temperature and dead-state temperature, higher is the product exergy.
Figure 7 represents the effect of environment temperature on EDR. It shows the
decreasing trend of EDR with the increase in dead-state temperature for all the
refrigerants.
Figure 8 represents the validation of present work with the experimental work of
Aprea and Renno (2004). The model of present work has been checked against the
experimental results of the above-quoted work for COP and exergetic efficiency of R-22
corresponding to room temperature 0°C and dead-state temperature 32°C. The COP value
of R-22 for the present work is 3% higher and exergetic efficiency is 6% higher, as
compared to the experimental results of the above-mentioned researchers.
 Exergy analysis of Vapour Compression Refrigeration system 451

Figure 6 Effect of varying dead-state temperature on exergetic efficiency

(Te = −20°C, Tcond = 50°C)

Figure 7 Effect of varying dead-state temperature on Exergy Destruction Ratio

(Te = –20°C, Tcond = 50°C)
452 A. Arora et al.

Figure 8 Validation of present work with Aprea and Renno (2004) for R-22
(Tr = 0°C, To = 32°C)

6 Conclusions

The results indicate that none of the alternate refrigerants will provide same performance
as obtained in case of R-22. However, R-410A is a better alternate as compared to
R-407C, with high COP and low EDR when using for refrigeration applications.
For air-conditioning applications, R-407C is a better alternative than R-410A. Switching
over to alternate refrigerants will result in fall of exergetic efficiency. The same may be
improved by modifications in the design of the system components. However, the final
selection of alternate refrigerant rests with the lifetime cost analysis of the refrigeration
systems and applications. The effect of dead-state temperature, which keeps on varying,
depending upon the particular geological location of the system, must be included in the
lifetime cost analysis, since it affects the exergetic efficiency.

References
Aprea, C. and Renno, C. (2004) ‘Experimental comparison of R-22 with R-417A performance in a
vapour compression refrigeration plant subjected to a cold store’, Energy Conservation and
Management, Vol. 45, pp.1807–1819.
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G. and Moran, M. (1996) Thermal Design and Optimization,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., USA, pp.143–156.
Chuan, Z., Shanwei, M., Jiangpin, C. and Zhijiu, C. (2006) ‘Experimental analysis of R-22 and
R-407C flow through electronic expansion valve’, Energy Conversion and Management,
Vol. 47, No. 5, pp.529–544.
Dincer, I. (2003) Refrigeration Systems and Applications, Willey, UK, p.26.
 Exergy analysis of Vapour Compression Refrigeration system 453

Hughes, H.M. (1993) ‘Test result of HCFC-22 alternative refrigerants in a unitary air-conditioner’,
International CFC and Halon Alternative Conference Proceedings, Washington DC, USA,
pp.38–46.
Klein, S.A. and Alvarado, F. (2005) Engineering Equation Solver, Version 7.441,
F-Chart Software, Middleton, WI.
Lee, S.F. and Sherif, S.A. (2001) ‘Second law analysis of various double effect Lithium
Bromide/Water absorption chillers’, ASHRAE Transactions AT-01-9-5, pp.664–673.
Low, R.E., Gilbert, B.E. and Dekleva, T.W. (1994) ‘Practical experience with an alternative
to R-22 based on R-32/R-125/R-134a’, International CFC and Halon Alternative Conference
Proceedings, Washington DC, USA, pp.154–160.
Murphy, F.T., Low, R.E. and Gilbert, B.E. (1995) ‘Comparison of R-407C and R-410A with R-22
in a 10.5 kW (3TR) residential central air-conditioning’, International CFC and Halon
Alternative Conference Proceedings, Washington DC, USA, pp.31–40.
Nikolaidis, C. and Probert, D. (1998) ‘Exergy-method analysis of a two-stage vapour-compression
refrigeration-plants performance’, Applied Energy, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp.241–256.
Said, S.A. and Ismail, B. (1994) ‘Exergetic assessment of the coolants HCFC123, HFC134a,
CFC11 and CFC12’, Energy, Vol. 19, No. 11, pp.1181–1186.
Sancan, A., Selbas, R., Kizilkan, O., Soteris, A. and Kalogirou, A. (2006) ‘Thermodynamic
analysis of subcoolimg and superheating effect of alternative refrigerants for
vapour compression refrigeration cycles’, International Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 30,
pp.323–347.
Stegou-Sagia, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of mixture efficiency in refrigerating system’, Energy
Conservation and Management, Vol. 46, No. 17, October, pp.2787–2802.

Nomenclature
COP Coefficient of Performance
.
ED Exergy Destruction rate (kW)
EDR Exergy Destruction Ratio
.
EF Exergy rate of Fuel (kW)
.
EL Exergy loss rate (kW)
.
EP Exergy rate of product (kW)
Q Rate of heat transfer (kW)
T Temperature (°C)
W Work rate (W)
E X Exergy rate of fluid (kW)
H Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
m Mass flow rate (kg/s)
S Entropy (kJ/kg K)
η Efficiency
δp Pressure drop (kPa)
454 A. Arora et al.

Subscript
C Compressor
cond Condenser
E Evaporator
ex Exergetic
R Refrigerant, room
S Isentropic
T Throttle valve
0 Dead state