ICE-E

INFORMATION PACK
Refrigerant cycles
In the e-learning section of the ICE-E web site, the reader can achieve basic knowledge about the refrigeration cycles. The choice of the most suitable cycle, in terms of energy consumption reduction must be supported by several considerations dealing both with thermodynamic and technological aspects. In the present Info Pack, fundamental considerations about thermodynamics are presented, aiming at highlighting the consequences on cycle energetic efficiency.
Regarding technological aspects, the reader may refer to Refrigerants, Operation and choice of compressors, Heat exchangers, Expansion device Info Packs.

Back to basics
The purpose of a refrigeration system is to transfer thermal energy from a lowtemperature source to a high-temperature sink. From an energetic point of view, the goal should be hit utilizing the least amount of work, i.e. to maximize the Coefficient of Performance (COP) for a given cooling capacity and for fixed source and sink temperatures. More thermodynamically oriented reader could, alternatively, restate the goal in terms of entropy: the purpose of a refrigerating system is to transfer entropy from a low-temperature source to a hightemperature sink while generating the least amount of entropy, or stated in another way the goal is to generate the least amount of entropy for a given cooling capacity for fixed source and sink temperatures. It is well known that the ideal cycle for achieving this goal (when both the source and the sink are isothermal) is the Carnot

Fundamental considerations about the thermodynamics of inverse cycles can help in economic and technological choices for refrigeration systems

Figure 1 - Carnot cycle and ideal vapor compression refrigeration cycle

ICE-E INFO PACK

refrigeration cycle, whose work is depicted by the area a-b-c-d in figure 1 and whose cooling capacity is given by the area 1-4-f-g for figure 1 (taken from Cavallini et al, 2010) . It is also well known that increasing TL and/or decreasing T0 increases the cycle efficiency. The Carnot refrigeration cycle, however, cannot be realized via practical hardware. Therefore, the widely used reference cycle in practice is based on the so-called ideal vapor compression refrigeration cycle. The cycle shown in figure 1 contains two irreversibilities: (1) isenthalpic expansion (
exp)

All the design strategies of a vapour compression refrigeration system, are intended for reducing the irreversibilities linked to throttling, compression and heat transfer.

and

(2) superheating of the compressor discharge vapor ( sup) to realize a constant-pressure heat rejection process in the condenser. In practice, real vapor compression refrigeration cycles include other irreversibilities, principally among them are: (3) non-isentropic adiabatic compression, (4) non-isobaric heat rejection and (5) non-isobaric heat addition. Though not shown in the figure, two other common modifications to the cycles are superheating of the refrigerant at the evaporator outlet and subcooling of the refrigerant at the condenser outlet. Finally, external to the cycle itself, there are large irreversibilities associated with the heat transfers to and from the source and sink due to the finite temperature differences between the refrigerant and the external heat transfer media. All the design strategies of a refrigeration system (included two-stage compression/throttling, as depicted in figures 2, 3) are intended for reducing the above mentioned (1) and (2) irreversibilities. Accordingly, a detailed analysis of the ideal vapor compression refrigeration cycle, as depicted in figure 1, gives cue on how to reduce energy consumption for any kind of vapour compression refrigeration cycle. Figure 2. Two stage compression with intercooler, single throttling vapour compression cycle (and related T,s diagram, below).

Evaluating cycle performance

The most common method for evaluating the overall thermodynamic performance of these cycles is based on a First Law of Thermodynamics approach, namely, comparing the Coefficient of Performance

Figure 3. Two stage compression with OFT, double throttling vapour compression cycle (and related T,s diagram, below).

eumzze consenis nibh et laoreriurem verc.

ICE-E INFO PACK

(COP) and the Volumetric Cooling Capacity (VCC). For a given cooling capacity, VCC gives an indication about the compressor size to achieve the specified cooling capacity. The COP is the ratio of the energy (refrigeration effect) extracted from the low temperature source (if h is the specific enthalpy of the refrigerant, qL=h1 h4 is the energy extracted or the so called refrigeration effect, referring to figure 1) and the input work (wcomp=h2-h1). The volumetric cooling capacity VCC is the energy extracted from the low temperature source per unit of refrigerant volume processed by the compressor. One limitation to this approach is that the COP is a function of the operating conditions (the high-side and low-side temperatures). For example, is a COP of 5 better than a COP of 10? The short answer is: it depends. To overcome the mentioned limitation one should compare the COP and the Carnots cycle COPC (and this can be considered a Second law of Thermodynamics approach): = COP/COPC Another way to consider and quantify the irreversibilities is to choose an external reference temperature T0 (e.g., as the temperature of the ambient) which can be used to calculate the exergy losses. For the example of figure 1, the external reference temperature has to be chosen as the temperature of the external cooling medium (e.g., air) for the condenser. Once this is done, the specific exergy losses can be calculated for the four basic processes for the vapor compression refrigeration cycle. They are represented by the hatched areas in figure 1 (ideal reference cycle. It is worth noting that for the ideal vapor compression refrigeration cycle in figure 1 the condenser exergy loss reduces to the superheating loss ( sup), defined by the area eb-2, while compression and evaporation are no-loss processes. The magnitudes of the exergy losses for nonisobaric, non-ideal heat transfer processes and non-isoentropic compression (i.e. irreversibilities (3), (4), (5), mentioned above) described above are determined by component and system designs, and by the refrigerant. For example, the refrigerant circuitry in the heat exchangers, the type of compressor used and its design, and the system configuration all will influence several of the exergy losses.

Is a COP of 5 better than a COP of 10? The short answer is: it depends.

Performance potential: ammonia as an example

In the following, we consider a largely used (old) refrigerant in refrigeration applications: ammonia. We consider an evaporation temperature TL = -40C, while the condensation is T0 = 40. With reference to the set temperatures, the Carnot cycle COPC is 2.91. We consider no condenser subcooling or compressor superheat, and a compressor isentropic efficiency of 1. When the single stage compression single throttling is considered, = 0.703. Keeping fixed TL and T0, we want now to consider the possibility of installing a twostage compressor, again ideally with isoentropic behavior (figure 2). Furthermore, an ideal intercooler is installed: i.e. it is possible to lower the temperature of the ammonia, after the low stage compressor discharge (point 5, in figure 2) down to the sink temperature (40 C), that is a limit situation achievable theoretically only in an heat exchanger with infinite heat transfer area and in perfect counter-current configuration. The intermediate pressure (i.e. the intercooling pressure) is set equal to the square root of the product of condenser an evaporator saturation pressures. Single throttling is considered (no condensate subcooling, no vapour superheating). In this case superheating losses (see hatched area indicating sup in figure 1) are reduced, while throttling losses are the same (see hatched area indicating exp). According to previous considerations, we expect an increase in (or in system COP, since Carnot cycle COPC, is fixed at 2.91). It is possible to calculate = 0.730. That is an increase of less than 4 %, in comparison to the single stage compression arrangement. Lets now evaluate the possibility to implement the system configuration in figure 3, again with fixed TL and T0 and with no condensate subcooling, no vapour superheating.

ICE-E INFO PACK

In this case, point 5 temperature can be lower than ambient temperature, since it is not any more linked to the external heat sink temperature, as in the case of the intercooler in figure 2. This should bring about a reduction of ( sup). Furthermore, using two-stage throttling, reduces the relevant hatched area in figure 1 ( exp). Accordingly, increases of about 40 % ( = 0.985). Being lower the refrigerant enthalpy at the evaporator inlet (h 4, in figure 3), also VCC increases. Which is the practical outcome of the proposed thermodynamic consideration? (Note: as mentioned before, in this info pack we are not considering technological aspects like, for example, limitations in compressor discharge temperature because of compatibility with lubricants etc. Please consider the relevant info packs in ICE-E web site). From an economical point of view, installing a two-stage compressor is by far more heavy, from an investment point of view, than using two throttling valves or installing an accumulator (open flash tank). Given this economical consideration, the thermodynamic results clearly indicate that using the system schematic in figure 2 will offer poor chances of recovering the higher investment funds in short time (indeed, it is a relatively rare system schematic, with ammonia). The further limited investment costs because of one more throttling valve and one tank, looks more promising in terms of shortening the pay-back period. As a concluding remark: the rather simplified thermodynamic approach here proposed can be considered a starting point if you are looking for a new refrigeration system.: If you are not a specialist in thermodynamics, please remember of Carnot and ask to your advisor to compare (it is rather simple, for him), the coefficient of performance of the system he is proposing to you (even considering ideal processes of the refrigerant) with the efficiency of the Carnots cycle. You will have the first, objective, clear, indubitable number for starting your following technological and economic evaluation.

Always compare Carnot cycle performance and the performance of the system you are going to evaluate. You will have quickly and easily the first, objective, clear, indubitable number for starting your following technological and economic evaluation.

References Cavallini A., Zilio C., Brown J.S. (2010). Sustainability with prospective refrigerants. In: Proc. of Sustainable Refrigeration and Heat Pump Technology Conference. Stockholm, June, 13-16, ISBN: 978-2-913149-81-6

For more information, please contact: Claudio Zilio (claudio.zilio@unipd.it)