international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j r e f r i g

Experimental comparison between R152a and

R134a working in a refrigeration facility
equipped with a hermetic compressor

R. Cabello a, D. Sánchez a,*, R. Llopis a, I. Arauzo a, E. Torrella b

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Jaume I University, Campus de Riu Sec s/n, E-12071 Castellón, Spain
b
Department of Applied Thermodynamics, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Camino de Vera, 14, E-46022 Valencia, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The EU Regulation 517/2014 has recently been approved in a further attempt to curb the
Received 18 February 2015 effects of Global Warming. As a consequence, the refrigeration sector is moving towards re-
Received in revised form 9 June frigerants with a low Global Warming Potential (GWP100) in accordance with the limit fixed
2015 by these regulations (150). In this regard, the old refrigerant R152a attracts renewed inter-
Accepted 27 June 2015 est due to its low GWP (138) and its similarity to R134a.
Available online 29 July 2015 The present work shows the results of using R152a in a vapour compression plant equipped
with a hermetic compressor and an IHX designed for R134a. The refrigerant was replaced
Keywords: by a conventional “drop-in” process in order to carry out an energy comparison. The results
R152a have revealed an improvement in the COP with R152a up to 13% despite a reduction in the
R134a cooling capacity of about 10%. During the test campaign, R134a hermetic compressors have
F-gas been shown to be capable of operating with R152a.
Hermetic compressor © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and International Institute of Refrigeration. All rights reserved.
Internal heat exchanger
GWP

Comparaison expérimentale entre R152a et R134a

fonctionnant dans une installation frigorifique équipée d’un
compresseur hermétique
Mots clés : R152a ; R134a ; F-gaz ; Compresseur hermétique ; Echangeur de chaleur interne ; GWP

* Corresponding author. Dep. of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Jaume I University, Campus de Riu Sec s/n, E-12071 Castellón,
Spain. Tel.: +34 964728142; Fax: +34 964728106.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Sánchez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.06.021
0140-7007/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and International Institute of Refrigeration. All rights reserved.
 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105 93

Nomenclature Greek symbols

Δ increment
e relative error
ε thermal effectiveness
COP coefficient of performance
ηV compression volumetric efficiency
GWP global warming potential [at 100 years]
ηG compression global efficiency
h enthalpy [kJ·kg−1]
λ latent heat of phase change [kJ·kg−1]
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HOC heat of combustion [MJ·kg−1]
Subscripts
IHX internal heat exchanger
 C/comp compressor
m mass flow rate [kg·s−1]
crit critical point
MW molecular weight [kg·kmol−1]
dis discharge
N compressor rotation speed [rpm]
ev evaporator
NBP normal boiling point [°C]
env environment
ODP ozone depletion potential
hp high pressure side
P pressure [MPa]
i inlet/inner
PC compressor power consumption [W]
ihx internal heat exchanger
POE polyolester oil
k condenser
Q heat transfer rate [W]
liq liquid
qv volumetric specific capacity [kJ·m−3]
lp low pressure side
RCL refrigerant concentration limits [g·m−3]
o outlet/outer
SC subcooling [K]
ref refrigerant
SH superheating [K]
s isentropic
T temperature [°C]
sat saturation
TEV thermostatic expansion valve
suc suction
v specific volume [m3·kg−1]
suf compressor surface
VG geometrical volume [m3]
G v vapour
V geometrical flow rate [m3·s−1]
w specific compression work [kJ·kg−1]

These regulations are driving the refrigeration industry to

1. Introduction explore new environmentally friendly fluids, although in some
cases they offer lower levels of security than existing refrig-
Fluorinated gases commonly used as refrigerants present high erants. Furthermore, these new refrigerants should not cause
Global Warming Potential (GWP) values that make a strong con- more indirect emissions of CO2 related to electricity consump-
tribution to global warming in case of leakage. For example, tion than direct equivalent emissions of CO2 due to leakages
HFC-134a presents a GWP100 of 1300; HFC-404A a GWP100 of of refrigerant. Consequently, a deep analysis must be per-
3943; HFC-507A a GWP100 of 3985; HFC-410A a GWP100 of 1924 formed of its working conditions before making a decision and
and HFC-407C a GWP100 of 1704, according to the latest report changing the refrigerant in a refrigeration facility.
from IPCC AR5 (2013). The direct consequence of this problem Among those fluids with a GWP lower than the value set by
is that the refrigeration industry is moving towards low GWP the regulations (150), HFC-152a can be considered a good can-
refrigerants, which may be either natural or artificial. didate, since its GWP100 is 138 (IPCC, 2013). This fluid has been
In Europe, this environmental concern has been trans- used for a long time as an aerosol spray propellant and foam-
lated into new regulations. On the one hand, there are those blowing agent, as well as a component in some refrigerant blends
that limit the use of refrigerants with high GWP100 in a short (R401A, R415A, R430A, R500, etc.). However, its level of flamma-
time threshold, such as Directive 2006/40/EC on mobile air con- bility designated by ASHRAE as A2 (ASHRAE, 2013) could be the
ditioning and Regulation 517/2014 on fluorinated greenhouse reason why it has not been used as a pure refrigerant until now.
gases. On the other hand, some regulations impose environ- The automotive industry was the first to consider R152a as
mental taxes on HFCs increasing its price (as in the case of an alternative to R134a. The theoretical work developed by
Spain, Norway and Denmark), or promoting fiscal incentives Ghodbane (1999) determined a coefficient of performance that
that could encourage the adoption of natural refrigerants (this was 10% higher for R152a than the value for R134a. The work
is the case of Germany and Austria) (Maratou et al., 2013). of Kim et al. (2008) based on experimental data revealed an
Against this background, a new fourth generation of refriger- improvement in COP and cooling capacity of more than 20%
ants is considered by Calm (2012). Their most remarkable new using R152a instead of R134a at the same refrigeration test
features are environmentally friendly (zero ODP and low/ bench equipped with a swash-plate open-type compressor.
very low GWP), non-toxic and non-flammable properties. Bryson et al. (2011) stated that R152a presents improvements
In this situation, a small number of current HFC refriger- of up to 2% in cooling capacity and up to 9% in COP with respect
ants could be used without contradicting the future new to R134a, using an open-type compressor and adjusting the
regulations or without being penalized with upcoming taxes. compressor rotation speed and expansion device. These last
94 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105

three references report an increase in discharge temperature and R152a under the same operating conditions: isentropic com-
as well as a reduction in the mass charge using R152a. pression, Tev: −10 °C, Tk: 40 °C, no superheating at the evaporation
Apart from mobile air conditioning, little experimental work outlet and no subcooling at the condenser outlet.
has been carried out in other fields. Bolaji (2010) presented an Taking into account both ideal cycles shown in Fig. 1, some
experimental study where R134a was directly replaced by R152a differences can be highlighted:
in a domestic refrigerator with a hermetic compressor.
In order to provide more experimental information on R152a, - R152a has a higher latent heat of vaporization and con-
this work presents and analyzes experimental data results ob- densation than R134a.
tained through a fully monitored vapour compression plant - Discharge temperature is higher for R152a than R134a.
under a wide range of operating conditions. The plant was first - The degree of desuperheating at the discharge line is larger
charged and tested with R134a and then with R152a without for R152a than R134a.
any changes in lubricant or regulation. Apart from the safety - Working pressures at the same evaporating and condens-
issue, the analysis of the data evidences the better energy per- ing temperatures are slightly lower in R152a than R134a but
formance of the facility working with R152a, with an increment compression ratios are very similar in both refrigerants.
in COP of up to 13%. - Isentropic compression lines are less sloped in R134a than
R152a, which means higher isentropic specific compres-
sion work (wS) in R152a than R134a.

2. Comparison of R134a and R152a fluid

To highlight the influence of the refrigerant on the isen-
properties
tropic specific compression work, Fig. 2 shows the evolution
of wS in both refrigerants with an evaporating temperature at
Like other artificial substances, HFC refrigerants are obtained a fixed condensation level of 50 °C with and without a total
from natural but chemically modified substances. R134a and superheating of 10 K. Accordingly, it can be observed that the
R152a are produced from ethane but each of them has a different isentropic specific compression work is always higher for R152a
composition as can be seen in Table 1.The R134a molecule con- than R134a regardless of the evaporating level (up to 59.05%).
tains four fluorine atoms and two hydrogen atoms, while R152a In the same way, the influence of superheating in the spe-
has only two fluorine atoms and four hydrogen atoms. The cific compression work is higher for R152a than R134a. This
greater the number of carbon–fluorine chemical bonds, the fact makes R152a more sensitive to superheating in terms of
higher the GWP level is. In the same way, the greater the number the compression process.
of hydrogen atoms is, the more flammable it is.This is the reason Fig. 3 presents how the specific volume of R152a and R134a
why R152a is more environmentally friendly than R134a but varies with evaporating temperature with and without a total
less safe, as can be noticed in its heat of combustion (HOC) superheating of 10 K. Results in Fig. 3 show that the specific
compared to R134a. However, it is important to note that HOC volume is larger in R152a than R134a, which reduces the mass
level of R152a is notably lower than that of hydrocarbons such flow rate driven by the compressor and consequently its power
as propane (50.4 MJ/kg) or isobutene (49.4 MJ/kg), which have consumption. Moreover, the effect of superheating on spe-
an ASHRAE security level of A3 (ASHRAE, 2013). cific volume is more pronounced using R152a as a refrigerant.
In Table 1 it can be observed that the normal boiling point As a result, if a direct “drop-in” is carried out in a refrigera-
(NBP) of R152a is slightly higher than that of R134a, and the tion facility designed for R134a, a reduction in refrigerant mass
molecular weight (MW) in R152a is about 35.3% lower than that flow rate will be expected and consequently pressure drop will
of R134a. The first implies a higher critical temperature, lower decrease as well.
pressures for equal phase change temperatures and a higher
compression ratio than R134a, whilst the second means that
R152a presents a higher latent heat of vaporization or con-
densation (λ), in application of the Trouton rule (Wisniak, 2001). 3. Experimental plant and tests
Combining its higher latent heat with its higher specific volume
means the volumetric cooling capacity for R152a could be ex- In this section, the experimental refrigeration plant and the
pected to be similar to that of R134a. experimental methodology used are described. Measure-
The main differences mentioned above are depicted in Fig. 1 ment devices installed in the experimental facility are also
for two ideal vapour compression cycles working with R134a presented.

Table 1 – Main thermodynamic, safety and environmental properties of R134a and R152a (ASHRAE, 2001; Lemmon et al.,
2013).
Fluid Chemical Pcrit Tcrit MW NBP vsat,v λ qv (NBP) Safety RCL HOC GWP [1]
formula (MPa) (°C) (kg·kmol−1) (°C) (NBP) (NBP) (kJ·m−3) group (g·m−3) (MJ·kg−1) WGI-AR5a
(m3·kg−1) (kJ·kg−1)
R152a C2H4F2 4.52 113.26 66.051 −24.02 0.296 329.91 1113.66 A2 32 17,4 138
R134a C2H2F4 4.06 101.06 102.032 −26.07 0.190 216.97 1140.81 A1 210 4.2 1300
a
Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105 95

Fig. 1 – R134a and R152a ideal vapour compression cycle (Tev: −10 °C, Tk: 40 °C).

3.1. Experimental facility (1992) the materials used with R134a are fully compatible with
those employed with R152a.
The refrigeration facility used to carry out the experimental Fig. 4 presents a diagram showing the refrigeration facil-
analysis corresponds to a single-stage vapour compression plant ity driven by a single-stage reciprocating hermetic compressor
designed for R134a, since the working pressures of R152a and with a cubic capacity of 12.11 cm3 running at 2900 rpm (number
R134a are very similar (Fig. 1), and according to Uemura et al. 1). The hermetic compressor is designed to work with R134a

Fig. 2 – Isentropic compression work with and without superheating (SH: 10 K) (Tk: 50 °C).
96 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105

Fig. 3 – Specific volume with and without superheating (SH: 10 K).

using 350 ml of POE ISO22 as lubricating oil. Additionally, the 3.2. Measurement elements
test ring has two brazed plate heat exchangers working as a
condenser and evaporator with heat exchange areas of 0.576 All measurement devices used in the refrigeration plant are
m2 and 0.216 m2, respectively (numbers 2 and 3); an internal summarized in Table 2.
heat exchanger (IHX) with a corrugated tube-in-tube ar- The states of the refrigerant and the secondary fluids (water
ranged in counter-current layout (number 4); an electronic and water + propylene–glycol mixture) were obtained using
expansion valve working as a thermostatic (TEV) (number 5); the RefProp v.9.1 database (Lemmon et al., 2013) and ASHRAE
and finally, a coalescing oil separator installed in the dis- Handbook (2001) through pressure and temperature
charge line and connected to the compressor service port measurements.
through a ball valve (number 6).
To avoid heat transfer with the environment all heat ex- 3.3. Methodology and experimental data tests
changers and pipe lines were insulated with an elastomeric foam
with a thermal conductivity of 0.037 W·m−1·K−1. The IHX was in- To evaluate the energy performance of the refrigeration facility,
stalled with two by-passes in order to be able to connect or 36 steady-state tests were conducted for each refrigerant under
disconnect it from the refrigerating plant according to the test. a wide range of operating conditions, as is detailed in Table 3.
To maintain operating conditions during tests, two second- The evaporating temperature range was selected in accor-
ary fluid loops are used. The first is connected to the condenser dance with the range stated by the manufacturer of the R134a
and uses water as the secondary fluid. The second is connected compressor, covering air conditioning and refrigeration
to the evaporator and uses a water/propylene–glycol mixture, applications.
70/30% by mass, to prevent it from freezing at low evaporat- Operating conditions shown in Table 3 were performed
ing temperatures. working with and without an IHX with subcooling at the con-

Table 2 – Accuracies and calibration range of the transducers.

Sensors Measured variable Measurement device Calibration range Calibrated accuracy
16 Temperature T-type thermocouple −40.0 to 145.0 °C ±0.5 K
3 Pressure Pressure gauge 0.0 to 4.0 MPa ±0.012 MPa
3 Pressure Pressure gauge 0.0 to 0.9 MPa ±0.002 MPa
1 Refrigerant mass flow rate Coriolis mass flow meter 0.0 to 40.0 kg h−1 ±0.1% of reading
2 Secondary fluid volume rates Magnetic flow meter 0 to 4 m3·h−1 ±0.25% of reading
1 Power consumption Digital wattmeter 0 to 1250 W ±0.1% of reading
 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105 97

Fig. 4 – Refrigeration facility diagram.

denser outlet rated between 1.5 and 6 K, and superheating at conditions with these averaged pressures. Superheating at the
the evaporator outlet rated between 11 and 13 K. Each trial had evaporator (SHev) and subcooling at the condenser (SCk) are
a minimum steady-state period of 20 minutes with a sampling obtained through Expressions (1) and (2). Similarly, IHX thermal
rate of 10 s.To consider steady-state conditions a maximum vari- effectiveness (εihx), cooling capacity ( Q ev ) and the heat re-
ability of 0.2 K has been considered in temperature; 0.005 MPa jected by the condenser ( Q k ) are obtained by using Expressions
in pressure; 0.4 kg·h−1 in the refrigerant mass flow rate, and finally, (3), (4) and (5) respectively.
a maximum deviation of 0.02 m3·h−1 in the secondary flow rate.
After each test, oil separator (number 6) is slowly connected to SHev = Tev ,o − Tev ,sat
(1)
the compressor crankcase for an oil return.
Table 4 summarizes all the tests that were performed with SCk = Tk ,sat − Tk ,o
(2)
the range of variations of the different parameters. Variables
marked with an asterisk represent the average value ob- Tihx,o lp − Tihx,i lp
ε ihx ≈ 100 ⋅ (3)
tained during the entire test. Evaporating and condensing Tihx,i hp − Tihx,i lp
pressures shown in Table 4 are obtained as an average value
between the inlet and outlet pressures for each element. Evapo- Q ev = m
 ref ⋅ ( hev ,o − hev ,i ) (4)
rating and condensing temperatures are calculated in saturated

Q k = m
 ref ⋅ ( h k ,i − h k ,o ) (5)
Table 3 – Operating conditions.
The refrigeration facility was first tested with R134a with
Refrigerant IHX Tev (°C) Tk (°C)
and without an IHX. Afterwards, the same procedure was used
R134a and R152a With and without IHX 10 25 for R152a, in both cases a manual oil return to the crankcase
35 being carried out after running for 2 hours.
45
0 25
35 3.4. Validation
45
−10 25 Figs. 5 and 6 compare the heat rejected by the secondary
35 fluid and refrigerant at the condenser (Fig. 5) and the evapo-
45
rator (Fig. 6). The maximum deviation registered by the
 98
Table 4 – Test summary.
Evaporator Condenser Compressor IHX
Refrigerant Tev* (°C) Pev* (MPa) SHev* (K) Q ev (W) Tk* (°C) Pk* (MPa) SCk* (K) Q k (W) Pc (W) Tdis (°C) Tsuc (°C) Tsuf (°C)  ref (kg·s )
m −1
εihx (%) COP (−) Tenv (°C)
Without IHX
R134a 9.78 0.41 3.41 1484.30 25.52 0.68 5.09 1818.12 433.76 65.08 15.24 35.46 29.88 – 3.41 24.69
10.29 0.42 12.46 1431.17 35.69 0.90 6.02 1721.34 467.69 75.40 22.31 39.25 29.38 – 3.07 26.92
9.88 0.41 12.55 1273.89 44.76 1.15 5.44 1569.77 496.42 82.46 22.17 41.87 28.31 – 2.60 24.43
0.09 0.29 12.87 1033.99 25.35 0.67 4.51 1255.34 358.86 69.17 14.26 36.56 20.59 – 2.88 23.27

international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105

0.57 0.30 12.87 956.94 34.99 0.88 4.53 1179.31 390.35 75.99 14.84 39.11 20.40 – 2.47 24.36
0.12 0.29 12.58 838.93 45.34 1.17 4.83 1049.49 419.41 83.18 14.09 40.20 19.36 – 2.04 24.16
−10.23 0.20 11.39 621.99 24.66 0.66 3.81 797.95 297.88 72.60 8.31 40.93 13.09 – 2.08 26.66
−9.67 0.20 11.95 580.81 34.71 0.88 3.13 743.70 318.73 77.52 8.19 41.08 13.08 – 1.85 26.47
−9.93 0.20 11.94 505.25 44.50 1.15 3.85 659.31 337.43 85.84 9.46 46.39 12.25 – 1.54 28.24
With IHX
R134a 10.21 0.42 3.62 1496.68 25.56 0.68 4.99 1822.92 434.51 66.57 17.61 36.17 29.82 48.05 3.44 24.60
10.39 0.42 12.41 1422.79 35.62 0.90 5.90 1711.25 464.51 77.58 24.87 40.96 28.90 41.34 3.06 27.78
9.91 0.41 12.50 1286.67 45.09 1.16 5.74 1556.42 493.16 86.29 27.88 44.42 27.63 37.61 2.61 25.60
0.26 0.30 12.86 1027.34 25.28 0.67 4.84 1256.44 358.19 72.85 18.04 40.08 20.24 53.55 2.87 25.60
0.18 0.30 12.94 948.44 34.80 0.88 3.98 1146.38 384.29 79.36 21.12 41.53 19.64 42.14 2.47 25.72
−0.02 0.29 12.75 851.60 45.02 1.16 4.58 1035.30 414.19 89.55 24.72 45.84 18.59 41.72 2.06 27.16
−10.34 0.20 11.48 627.84 24.38 0.65 3.42 786.27 292.92 76.35 16.32 43.52 12.78 53.46 2.14 26.40
−9.76 0.20 12.00 592.40 35.05 0.89 2.94 725.12 318.35 82.29 19.51 44.29 12.61 47.78 1.86 25.78
−9.52 0.20 11.70 545.65 45.01 1.16 3.61 655.61 340.08 89.45 22.62 47.54 12.15 46.00 1.60 26.76
Without IHX
R152a 10.23 0.38 6.08 1417.65 25.68 0.61 1.46 1653.96 365.98 67.72 17.79 38.24 18.33 – 3.88 25.32
10.75 0.38 9.64 1341.41 35.30 0.80 2.26 1588.25 404.33 78.44 21.16 44.33 18.06 – 3.34 30.06
10.28 0.38 9.59 1192.00 45.16 1.04 1.98 1425.49 441.02 85.83 20.64 46.27 17.14 – 2.75 27.13
0.24 0.27 9.98 948.45 25.11 0.60 1.86 1128.97 316.36 72.56 13.54 40.85 12.36 – 3.00 25.95
0.15 0.27 9.86 863.60 35.33 0.80 2.00 1040.95 349.46 81.47 13.79 44.69 11.93 – 2.50 27.17
0.14 0.27 10.01 775.27 44.79 1.03 1.60 934.19 376.65 88.12 13.73 47.09 11.37 – 2.11 28.04
−9.82 0.18 11.66 606.09 25.24 0.60 2.68 736.50 278.55 76.93 10.66 45.18 8.06 – 2.17 26.93
−9.45 0.19 11.35 566.51 35.00 0.79 2.84 685.37 296.09 82.32 10.26 46.06 7.92 – 1.94 26.92
−10.09 0.18 12.27 489.75 44.68 1.03 2.83 589.94 316.36 90.58 11.89 51.83 7.21 – 1.58 28.42
With IHX
R152a 9.92 0.37 7.08 1403.71 24.91 0.60 3.18 1649.96 364.84 70.59 20.43 40.73 17.82 68.69 3.85 26.65
10.22 0.38 9.68 1312.98 35.10 0.80 1.77 1536.03 398.05 80.79 25.61 46.10 17.37 41.87 3.30 28.10
10.36 0.38 9.84 1224.54 44.90 1.03 2.20 1420.51 438.20 89.43 28.53 47.44 16.83 39.76 2.79 26.49
0.21 0.27 9.90 946.01 25.69 0.61 2.47 1116.90 316.48 75.99 18.95 43.25 12.12 52.11 2.99 26.49
0.07 0.27 9.77 875.15 35.12 0.80 2.37 1023.04 344.49 83.84 21.71 45.75 11.61 45.84 2.54 26.36
−0.32 0.26 9.86 789.97 44.83 1.03 1.79 904.45 372.53 92.27 24.89 48.03 10.89 44.57 2.12 25.30
−9.73 0.18 11.58 614.47 24.90 0.60 2.17 729.94 271.56 79.11 18.77 46.71 7.96 58.31 2.26 26.54
−9.25 0.20 11.39 585.69 35.12 0.80 2.94 676.55 297.91 84.69 20.38 46.92 7.79 50.32 1.97 25.03
−9.58 0.20 10.36 519.77 45.15 1.04 1.12 586.40 321.31 93.19 24.40 52.97 7.24 48.80 1.62 27.17
 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105 99

Fig. 5 – Heat transfer rate validation at the condenser.

Fig. 6 – Heat transfer rate validation at the evaporator.

measurements at the condenser is 6.1%, with a deviation lower 4.1. Refrigerant mass flow rate
than 6% for 91.7% of the data measured. The maximum de-
viation obtained in the evaporator is 10.88%, with a deviation The refrigerant mass flow rate is a parameter that depends on
lower than 7.5% for 67.8% of the data registered. several variables in accordance with Equation 1.

ηV ⋅ V G ηV ⋅ VG ⋅ N
 ref =
m = (6)
4. Results and discussion v C ,i v C,i ⋅ 60

This section is devoted to presenting and analyzing the results The geometrical volume (VG) is a variable that only depends
obtained from the experimental refrigeration plant described on the geometrical dimensions of the compressor: stroke, bore
above. and number of pistons. According to the data from the
100 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105

Fig. 7 – Compressor volumetric efficiency (ηV) vs. pressure ratio.

compressor manufacturer the volumetric capacity is 12.11 cm3. of R134a thereby reducing the mass flow rate driven by the com-
The rotation speed (N) is a parameter that depends on the elec- pressor in accordance with Equation 6.
trical frequency and the mechanical operating conditions of the The measured refrigerant mass flow rate is shown in Fig. 8,
compressor. Despite the possible variation of this parameter and where a decrease of up to 41.5% is registered by using R152a
the solutions presented by Demay et al. (2011) about using in- with an average value of 39.8%. This reduction is more pro-
ternal and externally methods to measure the rotation speed nounced when an IHX is installed since it introduces additional
of the hermetic compressor, we decided to use its nominal value superheating that increases the specific volume. Studies by
as the work presented by Pisano et al. (2015). According with Ghodbane (1999) and Kim et al. (2008) confirmed the reduc-
the manufacturer datasheet, the rotation speed is rated in tion in mass flow rate using R152a in automotive open-type
2900 rpm for an electrical frequency of 50 Hz. compressors with variable rotation speed. The reduction values
The volumetric efficiency (ηV) is a variable that can be ob- registered by these authors were about 40–46% theoretically
tained from experimental data using Equation 6, since the mass and 5–22% experimentally, respectively.
flow rate can be measured directly from the Coriolis mass flow Despite the enthalpy variation, a mass flow rate reduction
meter installed in the setup (see Fig. 4) and the geometrical with R152a will have a negative impact in cooling capacity ac-
flow rate ( V G ) has been considered unvarying. Assuming the cording with Expression 4. The influence over the power
specific volume measured at the compressor inlet (vC,i) (Da Riva consumption of the compressor will be positive as be dis-
and Del Col, 2011), the experimental values obtained for volu- cussed below.
metric efficiency are presented in Fig. 7.
From Fig. 7, it can be observed that the compressor volu- 4.2. Compressor power consumption
metric efficiency is slightly higher working with R152a than
with R134a, especially at low compression ratios. However, this Values for compressor power consumption are directly mea-
difference is difficult to quantify because of the assumptions sured with the aid of a digital wattmeter as is shown in Table 2.
about rotation speed and specific volume considered previ- Fig. 9 presents the experimental data obtained by using both
ously. The parametric adjustment of the volumetric efficiency refrigerants with and without IHX.
has been analyzed by Lawson and Millet (1986), suggesting a According with Fig. 9, it is evident that at the same working
linear adjustment for volumetric efficiency against pressure conditions R152a yields lower compressor power consump-
ratio. An alternative of this adjustment is presented in tion than R134a, which means that the mass flow rate depletion
Equation 7 where the presence of specific volume at the inlet
compressor increases its accuracy. The coefficients from
Equation 7 are presented in Table 5.
Table 5 – Coefficients and maximum estimation error for
P Equation 2.
ηV = a0 + a1 ⋅ dis + a2 ⋅ v C,i (7)
Psuc a0 a1 a2 eMax

Regarding specific volume (vC,i), from Fig. 3 it is clear that ηV (R134a) 0.81883057 −0.02193881 −0.11200566 2.30%
ηV (R152a) 0.83589098 −0.03040696 0.10290412 3.89%
the specific volume of R152a is up to 73.59% higher than that
 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105 101

Fig. 8 – Mass flow rate vs. pressure ratio.

registered in Fig. 8 compensates the isentropic compression pression work. The combined effect of both reveals the low
work increment shown in Fig. 2. The reduction in power influence of IHX on the electrical power consumption accord-
consumption is assessed in a range between 5.52 and 16.03% ing with the results presented by Domanski (1995) and
which corresponds with simulations obtained by Ghodbane Navarro-Esbrí et al. (2005).
(1999) where depletions varied between 5.72 and 10.8% using Electrical power consumption of a hermetic compressor
an open-type compressor and including mechanical losses ( Pc ) does not only depend on the mass flow rate ( m ref ) but
related with drive belt. also on the isentropic specific compression work ( ws ) and its
The presence of an IHX increases temperature at the suction global efficiency, which are related with the working pres-
port reducing the mass flow rate and enlarging the specific com- sures and the suction temperature (Equation 8).

Fig. 9 – Electrical power consumption vs. pressure ratio.

102 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105

ws h − hsuc explained in Fig. 1, isentropic lines of R152a are less sloped than
 ref ⋅
Pc ≈ m  ref ⋅ dis,s
=m (8)
ηG ηG R134a ones, that means larger increments in discharge tem-
perature with similar superheating at suction line. On the other
The global efficiency (ηG) is a variable that includes the me- hand, the low refrigerant mass flow rate driven by the com-
chanical and electrical efficiencies of the compressor as well pressor using R152a increases superheating in suction line
as the isentropic efficiency related with the compression process because this superheating depends on the vapour specific iso-
in accordance with Da Riva and Del Col (2011) and Sánchez et al. baric heat, the heat transfer coefficient in suction line, the
(2010). Using experimental data summarized in Table 4 and temperature difference between the refrigerant at evaporator
Equation 8, the global efficiency obtained from the tested her- outlet and the environment, and the mass flow rate. Since the
metic compressor with both refrigerants is assessed in a range specific isobaric heat and the environment temperature are
of [0.23–0.43] depending on operating conditions. Comparing quite similar in both cases, and the heat transfer coefficient
the results from both refrigerants, only a slight improvement can be considered the same for both refrigerants, the mass flow
using R152a has been noticed (up to 2%). rate is the main cause to increase the heat transfer between
environment and suction pipe line as can be seen in Table 6.
4.3. Discharge temperature The combined effect of these variables is presented in Fig. 10
where it can be noticed that R152a has always a discharge tem-
In accordance with Da Riva and Del Col (2011), discharge tem- perature higher than R134a even using IHX.
perature is an important parameter to be considered in any The maximum difference registered between R152a and
refrigeration facility since its higher value is detrimental to the R134a was 4.49 K without IHX and 5.49 K working with IHX.
durability of the compressor and the stability of the lubricat- This behaviour has been supported by other authors with very
ing oil. This parameter is affected by several variables such as different values according the compressor used in their in-
the total superheating degree, the compressor-type, the global vestigations: Ghodbane (1999), Kim et al. (2008) and Bolaji et al.
efficiency and the shape of isentropic lines. As it has been (2011). As example, Uemura et al. (1992) adverts a theoretical
and experimental difference of 7.6 K working with an open-
type compressor with evaporating level of 5 °C, condensing
temperature of 45 °C, total superheating of 9 K and subcooling
Table 6 – Superheating at suction line for R134a and at the condenser of 10 K.
R152a without IHX. Despite the difference registered in the discharge tempera-
Tk (°C) Tev (°C) ture, all measured values do not affect the proper operation
10.20 0.22 −9.87 of the compressor.

R134a R152a R134a R152a R134a R152a

4.4. Cooling capacity
25.26 0.60 1.72 1.57 3.55 7.45 9.00
35.17 0.05 0.97 1.66 3.99 6.21 8.55
The cooling capacity is obtained by Equation 4 as a product
44.87 0.05 0.95 1.66 3.76 7.73 9.89
between mass flow rate ( m ref ) and specific cooling capacity

Fig. 10 – Discharge temperature vs. pressure ratio.

 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105 103

Fig. 11 – Cooling capacity vs. pressure ratio.

( Δhev ). The specific cooling capacity depends on the refriger- the decrement in electrical power consumption with respect
ant latent heat which is defined by the pressure level. As R134a (Fig. 6) is higher than the reduction in cooling capacity.
explained in Section 2, the latent heat for R152a is approxi- The combined effect of both is presented in Fig. 12 for evapo-
mately 52.1% higher than R134a at the same pressure level that rating levels of 10 and −10 °C to make easier the understanding.
means a specific cooling capacity higher for R152a. However, Considering the experimental results presented in Fig. 12,
R152a mass flow rate is up to 41.5% lower than R134a, and con- it can be highlighted that the use of R152a instead of R134a
sequently the combined effect could provide an improvement improves the COP of the refrigeration facility whatever the
or a worsening in cooling capacity. Fig. 11 shows the results evaporating level is. Registered increments are bigger working
obtained from experimental tests. with high evaporating temperatures than low evaporating levels
From the results presented in Fig. 11, it can be concluded with a maximum improvement of 13.20%. On the other hand,
that at the same working conditions the cooling capacity using the effect of IHX in COP is reduced especially at high evapo-
R134a is higher than using R152a especially at high evaporat- ration temperatures. Only when the evaporating temperature
ing temperatures. The difference registered is ranged between is −10 °C the maximum increment registered is 7.15% for R134a
1.13 and 9.75% that is in accordance with the results pre- and 4.49% for R152a working at high condenser temperatures
sented by Uemura et al. (1992) and Ghodbane (1999). (45 °C).
The influence of internal heat exchanger in the cooling ca-
pacity provides a slight improvement especially at low 4.6. Sankey diagram of the vapour compression cycle for
evaporating levels. The maximum improvement reached is both refrigerants
7.15% for R134a and 4.49% for R152a at evaporation tempera-
ture of −10 °C. As a summary of all the analysis presented above, Fig. 13 rep-
resents two Sankey diagrams for each refrigerant at the similar
4.5. Coefficient of performance (COP) operating conditions depicted in Table 7.
The heat transfer rate from discharge line ( Q dis ), liquid
COP in a refrigerating plant is defined by the ratio between the line ( Q liq ), and suction line ( Q suc ) are obtained by enthalpy
cooling capacity ( Q ev ) and the power consumed by the plant
( Pc ) as expressed by Equation 5.
Table 7 – Operating conditions by the refrigeration
Q  ⋅ Δhev ηG ⋅ Δhev
m facility.
COP = ev = ref = (9)
PC m ref ⋅ ws ws Refrigerant Operating conditions
ηG
Tev* SHev* Tk* SCk* Tenv*
(°C) (K) (°C) (K) (°C)
Taking into account the results showed in Figs. 8 and 11 for
electrical power consumption and cooling capacity, respec- R134a −9.93 11.94 44.50 3.85 28.24
R152a −10.09 12.27 44.68 2.83 28.42
tively, an increment in COP using R152a would be expected since
104 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105

Fig. 12 – COP vs. pressure ratio.

Fig. 13 – Sankey diagram for R134a and R152a.

difference between the beginning and the end of the line mul- because of its higher discharge temperature. As a consequence,
tiplied by the refrigerant mass flow rate. The heat rejected per the heat rejected by R152a at condenser is lower than R134a.
time unit by the compressor surface to the environment ( Q comp ) In the same way, the rejected heat from the liquid line to en-
is obtained from the global energy balance. vironment is also higher in R152a due to its low mass flow rate.
From Fig. 13 is evidenced that the vapour compression cycle
performed by R152a absorbs approximately 3.07% lower cooling
load in the evaporator than R134a but needs 6.24% less electrical
power at the compressor. A combination of both factors reports 5. Conclusions
better energy efficiency (COP) in R152a than R134a (3.39% higher).
The heat rejected from the discharge line and the compres- In this paper, an experimental investigation was carried out to
sor surface to the environment is higher for R152a than R134a compare the energy performance of two HFC refrigerants: R134a
 international journal of refrigeration 60 (2015) 92–105 105

and R152a, working in the same experimental facility using a Gaithersburg, MD, USA. <http://www.jamesmcalm.com/pubs/
hermetic-type compressor and an IHX. For both refrigerants three Calm%20JM,%202012.%20Refrigerant%20Transitions%20...
different evaporating level conditions were tested: 10, 0 and %20Again.%20ASHRAE-NIST%20Refrigerants%
20Conference.pdf>.
−10 °C, at three different condensation temperatures: 25, 35 and
Da Riva, E., Del Col, D., 2011. Performance of a semi-hermetic
45 °C. All tests were run at steady state conditions keeping the reciprocating compressor with propane and mineral oil. Int. J.
value of the superheating very similar. Based on the experi- Refrigeration 34, 752–763.
mental results, the following conclusions were drawn: Demay, M.B., Flesh, C.A., Rosa, A.P., 2011. Indirect measurement
of hermetic compressor speed through externally-measurable
(a) Aside safety issues R152a has been used successfully as quantities. Int. J. Refrigeration 34, 1268–1275.
Domanski, P.A., 1995. Theoretical Evaluation of the Vapour
a “drop-in” refrigerant in a refrigeration test bench de-
Compression Cycle with a Liquid-Line/Suction-Line Heat
veloped for R134a. No problems were found with the
Exchanger, Economizer, and Ejector. NISTIR, p. 5606.
compressor (hermetic reciprocating one), lubricant (POE European Commission, 2006. Directive 2006/40/EC of the
type) or the expansion device (electronic). European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006
(b) The experimental results show that the mass flow rate relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor
driven by the compressor is up to 41.5% lower in R152a vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC.
than R134a. This is mainly due to the high specific volume <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:
2006:161:0012:0018:en:PDF>.
of R152a.
European Commission, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the
(c) According to the mass flow reduction, R152a presents
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on
lower electrical power consumption than R134a (up to fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC)
16.03%) despite its higher specific compression work. No 842/2006. <eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/
(d) Regarding cooling capacity, R152a has lower cooling ca- ?uri=CELEX:32014R0517&from=EN>.
pacity than R134a despite its higher latent heat. The Ghodbane, M., 1999. An investigation of R152a and hydrocarbon
reduction registered is ranged between 1.13 and 9.75% refrigerants in mobile air conditioning. In: International
Congress and Exposition, 1–4 March. SAE Technical Paper
with hardly improvement working with IHX.
Series, 1999-01-0874. Detroit, Michigan.
(e) COP obtained with R152a is up to 11.70% better than R134a IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, first
working without IHX, and up to 13.20% working with IHX. ed. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
(f) Discharge temperature is always higher in R152a since Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
its isentropic lines are less sharp than R134a. The Cambridge University Press, New York.
maximum differences noticed are 4.49 K operating Kim, M.H., Shin, J.S., Park, W.G., Lee, S.Y., 2008. The test results of
refrigerant R152a in an automotive air-conditioning system.
without IHX and 5.49 K with IHX.
In: SAE 9th Alternative Refrigerant Systems Symposium, 10 –
12 June. <www.sae.org/events/aars/presentations/2008/
manhoekim.pdf>.
Acknowledgements Lawson, S., Millet, H., 1986. Rating technique for reciprocating
refrigeration compressors. In: International Compressor
Engineering Conference. p. Paper 526.
The authors acknowledge Jaume I University of Spain, who fi- <http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/526>.
nanced partially the present study through the research project Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., McLinden, M.O., 2013. Reference fluid
P1·B2013-10. thermodynamic and transport properties (REFPROP), NIST
Standard Reference Database 23, v.9.1. National Institute of
Standards 2013. Gaithersburg MD, USA.
Maratou, A., Skačanová, K., Vanaga, G., 2013. GUIDE+: HFC taxes &
REFERENCES
fiscal incentives for natural refrigerants in Europe, Shecco
Publications 2013.
Navarro-Esbrí, J., Cabello, R., Torrella, E., 2005. Experimental
ASHRAE, 2013. ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. Designation and evaluation of the internal heat exchanger influence on a
Safety Classification of Refrigerants. ISSN:1041-2336. vapour compression energy efficiency working with R22,
ASHRAE, 2001. ASHRAE Handbook CD, 2001 ed. American Society R134a and R407C. Energy 30 (5), 621–636.
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Pisano, A., Martínez-Ballester, S., Corberán, J.M., William Mauro,
Englewood, Colorado (USA). A., 2015. Optimal design of a light commercial freezer through
Bolaji, B.O., 2010. Experimental study of R152a and R32 to replace the analysis of the combined effects of capillary tube
R134a in a domestic refrigerator. Energy 35 (9), 3793–3798. diameter and refrigerant charge on the performance. Int. J.
Bolaji, B.O., Akintunde, M.A., Falade, T.O., 2011. Comparative Refrigeration 52, 1–10.
analysis of performance of three ozone-friends HFC Sánchez, D., Torrella, E., Cabello, R., Llopis, R., 2010. Influence of
refrigerants in a vapour compression refrigerator. J. Sust. the superheat associated to a semihermetic compressor of a
Energ. Environ. 2, 61–64. transcritical CO2 refrigeration plant. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (4),
Bryson, M., Dixon, C., StHill, S., 2011. Testing of HFO-1234yf and 302–309.
R152a as Mobile Air Conditioning Refrigerant Replacements. Uemura, S., Inagaki, S., Kobayashi, N., Teraoka, T., Noguchi, M.,
AIRAH, pp. 30–38. <http://www.airah.org.au/imis15_prod/ 1992. Characteristics of HFC refrigerants. In: International
Content_Files/EcoLibrium/2011/May2011/2011_05_01.pdf> Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference. p. Paper 177.
Ecolibrium May. <http://docs.lib.purdue.edu//iracc/177>.
Calm, J.M., 2012. Refrigerant transitions. . . again. Moving towards Wisniak, J., 2001. Frederick Thomas Trouton: the man, the rule,
sustainability. In: ASHRAE/NIST Conference, 29 – 30 October, and the ratio. Chem. Educ. 6 (1), 55–61.