Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation for High-Ambient...

ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle

for the US Department of Energy

Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation for High-Ambient-Temperature Environments

Side Event at the 38th OEWG

Vienna, Austria

18 July 2016

ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle

for the US Department of Energy

Presented by

Dr. Omar Abdelaziz, ORNL

Group Leader, Building Equipment Research,Energy and Transportation Science Division

and

Dr. Suely Machado Carvalho, IPEN (BRAZIL); Senior Researcher

Co-chair, International Expert Panel on Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation for HAT

3 Alternatives for Air-Conditioning Industry in High Ambient Temperature Countries

Program Objective

• Evaluate the performance of alternative lower-GWP refrigerants for mini-split air conditioning under high ambient temperatures.

• Evaluate the performance of alternative lower-GWP refrigerants for packaged rooftop air conditioning under high ambient temperatures.

• Help evaluate the viability of using alternative lower-GWP refrigerants in said markets to avoid the costly transition from HCFC to HFC and then from HFC to lower-GWP refrigerants


Panel of International Experts

• Dr. Radhey Agarwal (India)

• Fotouh Al-Ragom (Kuwait),

• Dr. Karim Amrane (USA)

• Dr. Enio Bandarra (Brazil)

• Dr. J. Bhambure (India)

• Mr. Ayman El-Talouny (UNEP)

• Daniel Giguère (Canada)

• Dr. Tingxun Li (China)

• Dr. Samuel Yana Motta (Peru)

• Mr. Maher Moussa (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

• Mr. Ole Nielsen (UNIDO)

• Mr. Tetsuji Okada (Japan)

• Dr. Alaa Olama (Egypt)

• Dr. Alessandro Giuliano Peru (Italy)

Dr. Suely M. Carvalho (IPEN, Brazil) and

Dr. Patrick Phelan (Department of Energy, USA)

Panel Members

Co-Chairs


Panel Tasks

• Provide independent technical input for the ORNL study

• Recommend alternative refrigerants to be evaluated

• Review and comment on appropriate evaluation procedures

• Assess results

• Review the interim working paper and the final report


Timeline for Phase I: Mini-Split AC evaluation

Mid April: Meeting in Bangkok

Mid June: Review Interim Report

Early July: Publish Interim Report

Early September: Review Final Report

Mid October: Final Report Published

Meeting of the Parties

Early March: First Conference Call

Mid April: Meeting in Bangkok

Mid June: Review Interim Report

Early July: Publish Interim Report

Early August: Meeting in Yokohama

Early March: First Conference Call


Final Report Available

• ORNL/TM-2015/536

• http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub59157.pdf

http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub59157.pdf


R-22 Alternative Refrigerants

Refrigerant Manufacturer

ASHRAE

Safety

Class

GWP

AR4 AR5

R-22a - A1 1,810 1,760

N-20bb Honeywell A1 988 904

DR-3b Chemours A2L 148 146

ARM-20bb Arkema A2L 251 251

L-20a (R-444B)b Honeywell A2L 295 295

DR-93b Chemours A1 1,258 1,153

DR-7(R-454A)b Chemours A2L 239 238

R-290a - A3 3 3a Sources: IPCC AR4, 2007; IPCC AR5, 2013b GWP values for refrigerant blends not included in IPCC reports are

calculated as a weighted average using manufacturer-supplied compositions.


R-410A Alternative Refrigerants

a Sources: IPCC AR4, 2007; IPCC AR5, 2013b GWP values for refrigerant blends not included in IPCC reports are

calculated as a weighted average using manufacturer-supplied compositions.

Refrigerant Manufacturer

ASHRAE

Safety

Class

GWP

AR4 AR5

R-410Aa - A1 2088 1924

L41-2 (R-447A)b Honeywell A2L 583 572

L41-Z (R-447B)b Honeywell A2L 740 715

DR-55b Chemours A2L 698 676

ARM-71ab Arkema A2L 460 461

HPR-2Ab Mexichem A2L 600 593

R-32a Daikin A2L 675 677


Test Conditions

Test

condition

Outdoor Indoor

Dry-bulb

temp.

Dry-bulb

temp.

Wet-bulb

temp.

Relative

humidity

°C °C °C %

AHRI B 27.8 26.7 19.4 50.9

AHRI A 35.0 26.7 19.4 50.9

T3* 46 26.7 19 50.9

T3 46 29 19 39.0

Hot 52 29 19 39.0

Extreme 55 29 19 39.0


Test Conditions

Test

condition

Outdoor Indoor

Dry-bulb

temp.

Dry-bulb

temp.

Wet-bulb

temp.

Relative

humidity

°C °C °C %

AHRI B 82 80 67 50.9

AHRI A 95 80 67 50.9

T3* 114.8 80 66.2 50.9

T3 114.8 84.2 66.2 39.0

Hot 125.6 84.2 66.2 39.0

Extreme 131 84.2 66.2 39.0

Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation for Mini-Split AC Systems at High Ambient Temperature Environment


Equipment

• Carrier mini-split AC systems

– Designed for high ambient performance up to 55°C

– Rated Capacity at ISO T1 (~AHRI A) = 5.28 kW (18 kBtu)

– R-410A unit: COP of 3.37 (EER ~ 11.5)

– R-22 unit: COP of 2.78 (EER ~ 9.5)


Instrumentation: Mini-Split AC R-22 system

• Custom-built air enthalpy tunnel complying with AHRI Standard 210/240 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37: air flow measurement uncertainty ±0.4%

• Coriolis mass flow meter: CMF25 with ±0.5% error

• Pressure sensors: ±0.08% BSL

• T-type thermocouples: ±0.28°C (0.5°F)

• Dew point sensors: ±0.2°C (0.36°F)

• Barometric pressure sensors: ±0.6 hPa/mb

• Power meters: ±0.2% reading

Instrumentation calibrated either by ORNL metrology or by a third-party calibration laboratory before the experimental campaign began.


R-22 Experiment Setup


R-22 Experiment Setup


R-22 Experiment Uncertainty

• Air-side uncertainty:

– Capacity = ±2.3%

– COP = ±2.4%

• Refrigerant-side uncertainty:

– Capacity = ±0.7%

– COP = <±0.8%

• Energy balance between air-side and refrigerant-side measurements:

– AHRI A: −2.3% to 2.89%

– AHRI B: −1.99% to 2.37%

𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 =𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 − 𝑄𝑟𝑒𝑓

𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟× 100%


Instrumentation: Mini-Split AC R-410A system

• Code tester complying with AHRI Standard 210/240 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37

• Coriolis mass flow meter: CMF25 with ±0.5% error

• Pressure sensors: ±0.08% BSL

• RTD: ±0.15°C (0.27°F) @ 0°C

• Wet-bulb sensors: ±0.15°C (0.27°F) @ 0°C

• Barometric pressure sensors: ±0.6 hPa/mb

• Power meters: ±0.2% reading

Instrumentation calibrated either by ORNL metrology or by a third-party calibration laboratory before the experimental campaign began.


R-410A Experimental Setup


R-410A Experimental Setup


R-410A Experiment Uncertainty

• Air-side uncertainty:

– Capacity: ±1.6%

– COP: ±1.5%

• Refrigerant-side uncertainty:

– Capacity: ±0.65%

– COP: ±0.81%

• Energy balance between air-side and refrigerant-side measurements:

– AHRI A: −3.6% to 0.05%

– AHRI B: −3.97% to 0.05%


Soft Optimization of Alternative Refrigerants

• Optimization sequence:

– Optimize charge

– Find best capillary tube

– Increase/decrease charge

– Find best capillary tube

• Check performance at T3 to ensure superheat and subcooling to maintain capacity at extreme conditions

R-22 Mini-Split AC Unit Results

Baseline: R-22 with mineral oil


R-22 Unit

Refrigerant

ASHRAE

safety

class

Capillary

Tube

Length,

mm (Inch)

Charge mass

kg (oz)

R-22 (baseline) A1 508 (20) 1.417 (50)

N-20b A1 152 (6) 2.087 (73.6)

DR-3 A2L 178 (7) 2.007 (70.8)

ARM-20b A2L 178 (7) 1.588 (56)

L-20a (R-444B) A2L 356 (14) 1.568 (55.3)

DR-93 A1 152 (6) 1.828 (64.5)

R-290 A3 203 (8) 0.731 (25.8)

ID: N/A for R-22, 1.65 mm (0.065”) for alternative refrigerants


Impact on COP

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

B A T3* T3 Hot Extreme

CO

P

R-22/mineral oil L-20a (R-444B) DR-3

N-20b ARM-20b R-290/POE

DR-93


Impact on Capacity

0

2

4

6

8


Co

olin

g C

apac

ity,

kW

R-22/mineral oil L-20a (R-444B) DR-3

N-20b ARM-20b R-290/POE

DR-93


Impact on Compressor Discharge Temperature (Tcomp)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10


T com

p–

T com

p, R

-22

, °C

L-20a (R-444B) DR-3 N-20b

ARM-20b R-290/POE DR-93

Performance Relative to Baseline at Different Test Conditions


AHRI A: 35°C Outdoor and 27°C Indoor

L-20a (R-444B)

DR-3

N-20bARM-20b

R-290/POE

DR-9380%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-22 w/


ISO T3: 46°C Outdoor and 29°C Indoor

L-20a (R-444B)

DR-3

N-20bARM-20b

R-290/POE

DR-93

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-22 w/ mineral oil


Hot: 52°C Outdoor and 29°C Indoor

L-20a (R-444B)

DR-3

N-20b

ARM-20b

R-290/POE

DR-93

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-22 w/ mineral oil


Extreme: 55°C Outdoor and 29°C Indoor

L-20a (R-444B)

DR-3

N-20b

ARM-20b

R-290/POE

DR-93

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-22 w/ mineral oil

R-410A Mini-Split AC Unit Results


R-410A Unit

Refrigerant

ASHRAE

safety

class

Capillary

Tube

Length,

mm (Inch)

Charge mass

kg (oz)

R-410A

(baseline)A1 673 (26.5) 0.936 (33)

ARM-71a A2L 610 (24) 0.765 (27)

R-32 A2L 1016 (40) 0.709 (25)

DR-55 A2L 660 (26) 0.811 (28.6)

L-41 (R-447A) A2L 864 (34) 0.780 (27.5)

HPR-2A A2L 965 (38) 0.808 (28.5)

ID: 2 mm (0.079”) for R-410A, 1.65 mm (0.065”) for alternative refrigerants


Impact on COP

0

1

2

3

4

5


CO

P

R-410A R-32 DR-55

L-41 (R-447A) ARM-71a HPR-2A


Impact on Capacity

0

2

4

6


Co

olin

g C

apac

ity,

kW

R-410A R-32 DR-55

L-41 (R-447A) ARM-71a HPR-2A


Impact on Compressor Discharge Temperature

0

5

10

15

20

25


T com

p–

T com

p, R

-41

0A, °

C

R-32 DR-55 L-41 (R-447A) ARM-71a HPR-2A

Performance Relative to Baseline at Different Test Conditions


AHRI A: 35°C Outdoor and 27°C Indoor

R-32DR-55

L-41 (R-447A)

ARM-71aHPR-2A

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 90% 100% 110%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-410A


ISO T3: 46°C Outdoor and 29°C Indoor

R-32

DR-55

L-41 (R-447A)

ARM-71a

HPR-2A

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 90% 100% 110%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-410A


Hot: 52°C Outdoor and 29°C Indoor

R-32

DR-55L-41 (R-447A)

ARM-71a

HPR-2A

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 90% 100% 110%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-410A


Extreme: 55°C Outdoor and 29°C Indoor

R-32

DR-55

L-41 (R-447A)

ARM-71a

HPR-2A

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

80% 90% 100% 110%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity

R-410A


Overall Conclusions (Mini-Split Units)

• The results are for soft optimized systems only; efficiency and capacity of the alternative refrigerants can be expected to improve through design modifications before introducing a new product to market.

• Multiple alternatives for R-22 performed well, and most R-410A alternatives matched or exceeded the performance of R-410A. These may be considered as prime candidate lower GWP refrigerants for high-ambient-temperature environments.


R-22 Conclusions

• The A1 alternative refrigerants lagged in performance and require from 29 to 47% more refrigerant mass compared to R-22 baseline system charge.

• Some of the A2L refrigerants showed capacity within 5% and efficiency within approximately 10% of the baseline system at ambient temperature at or above 46°C, albeit with a slightly higher compressor discharge temperature.

• The A3 refrigerant (R-290) exhibited higher efficiency; however, it did not match the cooling capacity (8 to 10% lower). It also resulted in lower compressor discharge temperatures.


R-410 Conclusions

• R-32 showed better capacity and efficiency, but it resulted in higher compressor discharge temperatures.

• DR-55 had consistently higher COPs and matched the capacity at higher-ambient conditions.

• HPR-2A’s efficiency exceeded the baseline at all ambient temperatures higher than 35°C.

• R-447A and ARM-71a had lower capacity, but R-447A had better COP at ambient temperatures higher than 46°C.

Packaged Rooftop Units


RTUs

• R-22 Unit

– SKM PACL-51095Y

– 380/415V, 3 Ph, 50 Hz

– Capacity* = 92.8 kBtu/h (27.2 kW)

– EER = N/A

• R-410A Unit

– PETRA PPH4 115

– 460V, 3 Ph, 60 Hz

– Capacity* = 132 kBtu/h (~ 38.68 kW)

– EER* = 10.66 (COP ~ 3.12)

*Gross capacity at ISO 5151 T1 (Indoor DBT 27°C, WBT 19°C)


R-22 Experiment Setup (RTU)


R-410A Experimental Setup (RTU)



-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

A T3 Hot

T com

p–

T com

p, R

-22

, °C

R-444B ARM-20b R-454A


Performance Relative to R-22 at AHRI A Conditions (R-22 RTU)

ARM-20b

R-444BR-454A

R-22 w/ POE

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

90% 95% 100% 105% 110%

CO

P/C

OP

R-2

2

Capacity/CapacityR-22


Performance Relative to R-22 at Hot Conditions (R-22 RTU)

ARM-20b

R-444B

R-454A

R-22 w/ POE

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

90% 95% 100% 105% 110%

CO

P/C

OP

R-2

2

Capacity/CapacityR-22


R-22 Conclusions (RTU)

• Test run using electronic expansion valve to simulate potential TXV retrofit

– All 3 refrigerants showed almost equal or higher cooling capacity (fixed air flow rate)

• R-444B benefited the most when tested under constant external static pressure conditions: at Hot test conditions the COP was 95% that of the baseline and the capacity was 102% that of the baseline

• Higher the ambient temperature, lower the relative COP

• Lower compressor discharge temperature



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

A T3 Hot Extreme

T com

p–

T com

p, R

-41

0A

, °C

L-41z DR-55 ARM-71a


Performance Relative to R-410A at AHRI A Conditions (RTU)

L-41z DR-55ARM-71a

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

90% 95% 100% 105% 110%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity


Performance Relative to R-410A at Extreme Conditions (RTU)

L-41z

DR-55

ARM-71a

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

90% 95% 100% 105% 110%

CO

P

Cooling Capacity


R-410 Conclusions (RTU)

• All 3 refrigerants showed higher efficiency at all conditions

• DR-55 matched the capacity at all conditions (fixed air flow rate)

• L-41z and ARM-71a had comparable capacity at ‘Hot’ and ‘Extreme’ conditions, but slightly lower capacity at ‘A’ and ‘T3’ conditions

• Compressor discharge temperature was higher by 5 to 10C

Future of Air Conditioning


Need to Look Forward

• A/C technologies and markets have seen:

– Substantial declines in product and lifecycle cooling costs in many A/C markets

– Higher sales volumes

– Higher energy efficiency

– Transition away from ozone-depleting substances (ODS)

• In the next decade, we expect:

– Rapid growth of A/C markets in developing nations with hot, humid climates

– Increased frequency of extreme heat waves due to global warming

– Continued efficiency improvements

– Transition to low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerants

– Advancement of non-vapor-compression A/C technologies


Refrigerant Cost Vs. Life Cycle A/C Cost

India RAC estimate based on Shah et al. (2016) estimates for equipment cost breakdown, markups, and average operating cost for a 7 year lifetime assuming 67.3 Rs to USD conversion.

U.S. CAC estimate uses latest CAC TSD estimates of manufacture product cost (Table 5-14), markups (Table 6.8.1), and national average annual and discounted lifetime operating cost

(Table 8.4.1) for a 3-ton split-system CAC including blower for a >20 year lifetime.


Emerging R&D Solutions

• Advanced Vapor-Compression Systems – A/C technologies that significantly lower refrigerant GWP and energy consumption while maintaining cost-competitiveness; for example:

– Low-GWP refrigerants (e.g., natural refrigerants and synthetic olefins)

– Climate-specific designs

• Emerging Non-Vapor-Compression (NVC) Systems – A/C technologies that do not rely on refrigerant-based vapor-compression and can provide energy savings (with high-volume cost similar to today’s); for example:

– Solid-state & caloric (thermoelectric, magnetocaloric)

– Electro-mechanical (evaporative, thermoelastic)

– Thermally driven (absorption)


Elements of sustainable, low-emissions A/C systems

Developing a Cohesive Solution Set for Indirect and Direct

A/C emissions


Pathway to the Future

• Promptly adopt an

ambitious global HFC

phase-down

amendment to the

Montreal Protocol

• Engage & support the

industry through

collaborative efforts

International

Collaboration

• Implement domestic

HFC phase-down

regulations

• Develop robust

refrigerant

management

schemes

• Implement and

strengthen minimum

efficiency standards

• Provide example

policies, strategies,

and support

Domestic Policy /

Regulation

• Support R&D for low-

GWP and NVC

technologies

• Support sustainable

building design,

renewable integration,

and waste heat

recycling

• Collaborate with

developing nations to

support adoption of

new technologies

Emerging

Technology R&D


The Future of Air Conditioning for Buildings

• Published July 2016 by EERE BTO.

• www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/future-air-conditioning-buildings-report

• Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. with support from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and review by DOE, EPA and White House OEQ

http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/future-air-conditioning-buildings-report


Acknowledgment

• Extraordinary team at ORNL: Dr. Som Shrestha, Dr. Bo Shen, Dr. Ahmed Elatar, Mr. Randy Linkous

• Extraordinary team at Navigant Consulting: Mr. William Goetzler, Mr. Matthew Guernsey, Theo Kassuga

• Dr. Patrick Phelan (USA) and Dr. Suely Carvalho (Brazil) for their support and chairmanship of the panel of international experts.

• The U.S. Department of Energy BTO, and specifically Mr. Antonio Bouza for his support.

• Panel of International Experts

• ORNL BERG/BTRIC


Questions?

• Omar Abdelaziz, [email protected]

Abdelaziz et al., 2015, “Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation for

High-Ambient-Temperature Environments: R-22 and R-410A

Alternatives for Mini-Split Air Conditioners”, ORNL/TM-2015/536,

available online at:


mailto:[email protected]



References

• IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; section 2.10.2: Direct Global Warming Potentials. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

• IPCC, 2013. Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf


Low-GWP Product AvailabilityProducts using low-GWP, 4th generation refrigerants are already available in some applications.

• Offer comparable or improved efficiency relative to today’s typical equipment

• Currently available in four key product categories, including ductless split systems, by far the largest market segment globally (>60% of the market)

• Flammability and cost are key limiting factorsEquipment Status

Approved for use in U.S.

U.S. SNAP Application Submitted

Example 2012 Global Annual Sales (US$B)Best GWP Detail

Res

iden

tial

Room and portable <10 R-290; R -32 $3.4

Ducted split & single-package <700 Multiple candidates $3.3

Ductless split system <10 R-32; R-290 $48.5

Co

mm

erci

al

Packaged terminal <700 R-32 $0.2

Packaged rooftop unit <700 Multiple candidates $4.6

Ductless (VRF/VRV) <700 R-32 $10.7

Scroll / recip. chiller <700 DR-55 (R-452B)

$8.3 (all chillers)

Screw chiller <10 R-513A; R-1234ze(E)

Centrifugal chiller <10 R-1233zd(E), R-1234ze(E)

Source for market size: Approximate 2012 global sales data (includes equipment using all refrigerants) from BSRIA; U.S approval status from EPA website

Commercially available in some global markets; Product under development; Tested in Lab

Date post:	16-Oct-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	voliem
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation for High-Ambient...

Documents