understanding applications for alternate refrigerants · 2019-04-08 · r-448a/r-449a refrigerant...
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding Applications for Alternate Refrigerants
Ron BonearEmerson Climate Technologies
Agenda
Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Evaluation Methodology
Alternate Refrigerant Evaluation — Performance
– Focus on Developing Fast/Flexible Refrigerant Release
Sidney Refrigeration Engineering Team Developed Test
Strategy for Simultaneous Approval of R-448A and R-449A
– Equivalent Chemical Composition Between the Two
Refrigerants
Thermophysical Comparison, Miscibility and Compatibility
Analysis Performed on R-448A/R-449A
UL Qualification Strategy
Objective: Reduce UL Qualification Time
– Due to Chemical Equivalency of Refrigerants, UL Agreed to Full Model Line
Approvals of Both R-448A/R-449A by Testing Only R-448A
– Testing Required to Show That R-448A MCC Amp Values Were ≤ +10%
Above R-404A
– In All Instances, R-448A Met This Criteria
The Majority of MCC Values Fall Below That of R-404A
– As a Result, R-448A Has Been Released Using Existing R-404A MCC Values
By Utilizing This Approach, It Was Possible to Significantly Reduce the Total
Number of Compressors Tested:
8 Scroll Compressors
6 Semi-Hermetic Compressors (4 Discus / 2 KEL)
Alternate Refrigerant Evaluation — Reliability
– Evaluation of the Interaction of Refrigerants With Oil
Miscibility/Solubility/Viscosity
– Bearing Analysis Performed Using Mobility Analysis
– Full Operating Envelope and Reliability (CFM) Testing
Performed Using R-448A/R-449A
R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Evaluation Methodology
Agenda
Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Evaluation of Alternate Refrigerant Performance
Evaluation of R-448A/R-449A Relative to Existing Medium-
Pressure Refrigerants
– Evaluate Equivalency of R-448A Relative to R-449A
Evaluate Refrigerant Chemical Compositions
– Evaluate R-448A Relative to R-404A and R-407A
Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Pressure Differential
– Density
– Enthalpy
Refrigerant Performance Testing Comparison
Evaluation of Refrigerant Chemical Composition
R-448A/R-449A Relative Comparison
– Both R-448A and R-449A are medium-pressure, A1 refrigerants
Verify chemical composition ± 5%
Honeywell R-448A Composition DuPont R-449A Composition
R-32 (26%)
R-125 (26%)
R-134a (21%)
1234yf (20%)
1234ze (7%)
Determination Made That the Two Refrigerants Are
Effectively Chemically Equivalent
R-32 (24%)
R-125 (25%)
R-134a (26%)
1234yf (25%)
Evaluation of Refrigerant Pressure Differential
Evaluate R-448A ∆P to R-404A/R-407A
R-448A exhibits a lower pressure differential than R-404A. R-448A
compressor loads will be lower.
R-448a and R-407A have essentially identical pressure differentials.
Evaluation of Refrigerant Density
Evaluate R-448A Density Relative to R-404A/R-407A
Evaluation of Refrigerant Enthalpy
Evaluate R-448A Theoretical Enthalpy Relative to R-404A/R-407A
Scroll MT — Mid/Dew Point CapacityR-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (20/70)
Scroll MT — Mid/Dew Point CapacityR-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (20/120)
Scroll LT — Mid/Dew Point CapacityR-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (-25/70)
Scroll LT — Mid/Dew Point CapacityR-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (-25/105)
Scroll MT — Mid/Dew Point Weighted EERR-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A
Scroll LT – Mid / Dew Point Weighted EERR-404A Versus R-407A / R-448A
R-448A/R-449A Operating Envelopes —Summary and Conclusions
Following Operating Envelope Testing and CFM, R-448A/R-449A Will
Use Same Envelope as R-407A
R-448A/R-449A Demonstrated Thermophysical Equivalence
Discharge Line Temperatures Are Similar to But Slightly Higher Than
R-407A at HCR/MDP Conditions
– Reliability Testing Confirms Higher Temperatures at Envelope Corners
Are Acceptable
» Only Map Affected Is ZBK5 Envelope
All R-448A/R-449A Are the Same Envelopes as R-407A
Only Exception Is ZBK5 Envelope, With Slightly Reduced HCR
Corner Point
Final R-448A/R-449A MT K5 Operating Envelope
Agenda
Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Refrigerant Reliability Evaluation
Refrigerant Reliability Assessment
– Reliability
Bearing Analysis
– Miscibility
– Solubility/Viscosity
– Mobility Analysis
DFMEA
– High RPN Failure Modes Drive CFM Test Strategy
CFM Testing Summary
Refrigerant Reliability Evaluation
Reliability Development Envelope
Miscibility Evaluation
Viscosity Evaluation
Mobility Analysis of R-448A Relative to R-404A
R-448A/R-449A CFM Summary
Evaluated Full Range of Compressors Using Standard Reliability
Engineering Procedure
Performed CFM Testing at Envelope Corner Points
– HCR
– MDP
– High Load
Flooded Start and Defrost Cycles Tested to Verify Miscibility
– Ensure Full Hydrodynamic Bearing Film Thickness Following
Refrigerant Washout
Mobility Used to Validate Minimum Oil Film Thickness to
Surface Finish Ratio (ʎ)
– R-448A/R-449A Meets or Exceeds ʎ for R-404A
All Scroll/Semi-Hermetic Compressors Passed Full Battery of CFM Testing
Agenda
Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
R-448A/R-449A Summary and Conclusions
From R-448A/R-449A Qualification, the Sidney Refrigeration Engineering
Team Has Utilized a Standardized Test Strategy for New Refrigerants
- Comparative Evaluation of Refrigerant Properties
- Full UL, Performance, Operating Maps and Reliability Testing
Thermophysical Similarity of R-448A and R-449A Has Been Verified
The Thermophysical Properties of R-448A Are Much Closer to
R-407A Than R-404A
- R-404A Is Much Denser Than R-448A; Higher Mass Flows
- R-448A Exhibits Lower ∆P; Lower Bearing Loading Than R-404A
- R-404A Capacity Significantly Greater Than R-448A at LT Conditions,
Roughly Equivalent on MT Applications
R-448A/R-449A Summary and Conclusions
R-448A/R-449A Operating Envelopes Are Equivalent to Current R-407A
- Ref ZB*K5 HCR Condensing Will Be Slightly Reduced to
Accommodate R-448A/R-449A and R407A on One Map
Bearing Analysis Performed by Evaluating Miscibility/Viscosity, Loads,
M Mobility Analysis and CFM
Comprehensive R-448A/R-449A Performance and Reliability
Evaluation Complete
Captured Lessons Learned in Standardized Document
- Utilized for All New Refrigerant Releases
Accuracy and Completeness of Data for Both Performance and
Reliability Are Assured
Agenda
Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Update on R-513A/R-450A and R-452A
Performance and Initial Reliability Evaluations Underway for Low-
Pressure R-513A/R-450A (Europe and U.S.) and for Medium-Pressure
R-452A (U.S., Transport Scroll Only)
– Preliminary Performance Evaluation for Refrigerants Complete
– Initial Reliability Assessments of Both R-452A and R-513A Indicate
Higher Solubility Index May Pose Challenge for Compressor Boundary
Lubrication
Higher Solubility Reduces Oil Viscosity and May Affect Boundary
Lubrication During Liquid Applications
– Currently Evaluating Alternate, Higher Viscosity Oil as
Countermeasure
R-450A/R-513A Refrigerant Performance —Capacity
R-450A/R-513A Refrigerant Performance —EER
R-452A Refrigerant Performance — Capacity
R-452A Refrigerant Performance — EER
Agenda
Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Recap of Alternatives for Refrigeration Applications
R-410A
Like
Capacity
R-404A and
R-407/22
Like
R-134a
Like
GWP Level
400–675
< 1,500
~600
~300
HFO 1234yf
HFO 1234ze
ARM-42
R-410A
R-22
R-407A
R-407C
R-407F, R-452A = XP44
AR M-35
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Pressure
or
R-32/HFC/HFO
Blends
R-32/HFO
Blends
HFC/HFO
BlendsR134a
CO2
R-404A
R-507A
DR2, N12, ARC 1
R290
NH3
A1 – Non-Flammable
A2L – Mildly Flammable
A3 – Flammable
R-123 Like
(V. Low Pr.)
(3922)
R32
R-32/HFO
Blends
R-448A = N40
R-449A = DR33
R-449B = ARM-32
N20
R-450A = N13
R-513A = XP10
R-444B = L20
L40, DR7
ARM-20b
HDR110
DR3
ARM-20a
R-446A, R-447A, ARM-71a
<150
B2L – Toxic, Mildly Flam.Qualitative – Not to
Scale
1
Building
23
2015
42016
Emerson’s A3 / A2L Facilities Development Plan
Emerson’s A3 / A2L Facilities Development Plan
Emerson’s A3 / A2L Facilities Development Plan
Selecting a TXV for
Use With R-448A /
R-449A / R-513A
Brad HopsonEmerson Climate Technologies
Selecting a TXV for
Use With R-448A /
R-449A / R-513A
Brad HopsonEmerson Climate Technologies
TXV Selection Review
1. Refrigeration Type
2. Evaporator Temperature/Pressure
3. Evaporator Capacity
4. Condensing Temperature/Pressure
5. Liquid Temperature
6. Distributor Type (if used)
Note: The valve is sized to the evaporator and not the compressor.
Glide and the p-h Diagram
Zeotropic Blends Exhibit Glide
Calculating Delta P at
Expansion Device:
– Bubble Point (Saturated
Liquid) for Condensing
Pressure
– Dew Point (Saturated
Vapor) for Evaporating
Pressure
TXV Pressure Differential
This Is Also the Delta P at the Expansion Device
Lower Delta P Generally Lowers Valve Capacity
In the Given Applications, the Change in Pressure Differential Is Very Small
Superheat Curves (and Other Secrets)
Evaporator Temp.
Supe
rheat
R-404A Bulb Charges Are NOT Optimized for R-448/449
Superheat Settings MUST Be Adjusted
At Low Temps, the Superheat Tends to Rise
Low-Temp. Valve Capacity Adjustment
Low-Temp. Applications Require Larger Valves
In Practice, Choose a Valve With 50% More Capacity
Summary
Pressure Differential:
– Use Bubble Point for Condensing Pressure
– Use Dew Point for Evaporating Pressure
R-513A — Use R-134A Tables
R-448A/R-449A
– Medium-Temp – Very Similar to R-404A
– Low-Temp – Select Approximately 50% More Capacity
Thank You!
DISCLAIMER
Although all statements and information contained herein are believed to be accurate and reliable, they are presented without guarantee or
warranty of any kind, expressed or implied. Information provided herein does not relieve the user from the responsibility of carrying out its
own tests and experiments, and the user assumes all risks and liability for use of the information and results obtained. Statements or
suggestions concerning the use of materials and processes are made without representation or warranty that any such use is free of patent
infringement and are not recommendations to infringe on any patents. The user should not assume that all toxicity data and safety measures
are indicated herein or that other measures may not be required.
Questions?