Energetic and exergetic performance comparison of an experimental automotive air conditioning system using refrigerants R1234yf and R134a

Abstract

In this study, the energetic and exergetic performance merits of an automotive air condition-ing (AAC) system using R134a and R1234yf have been investigated. For this aim, a laboratory AAC system was developed and equipped with devices for mechanical measurements. The refrigeration circuit of the system mainly had an evaporator, condenser, liquid receiver, fixed capacity compressor, and thermostatic expansion valve. The tests were performed by changing the compressor speed and air stream temperatures incoming the condenser and evaporator. Based on energy and exergy analysis, various performance parameters of the AAC system for both refrigerants were determined and presented in comparative graphics. It was found that R1234yf resulted in 0.4–10.9% lower refrigeration capacity, 5.5–11.6% lower COP, and 4.7–16.1°C lower compressor discharge temperature, while yielding 9.3–22.3% higher refrig-erant mass flow rate and 1.1–3.5°C higher conditioned airstream temperature in comparison to R134a. Moreover, the components of the R1234yf system usually destructed more exergy, and the total exergy destruction rate per unit refrigeration capacity of the R1234yf system was 4.1–15.3% greater than that of the R134a one.

Keywords

• R1234yf
• R134a
• Automotive
• Air conditioning
• Refrigeration
• Performance

References

1. [1] European Union. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Offic J EU 2014;150:195−30.
2. [2] Zhang Z, Wang J, Feng X, Chang L, Chen Y, Wang X. The solutions to electric vehicle air conditioning systems: A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2018;91:443−63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.005.
3. [3] Wang CC. System performance of R-1234yf refrigerant in air-conditioning and heat pump system - An overview of current status. Appl Therm Eng 2014;73:1412−20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.08.012.
4. [4] Lee Y, Jung G. A brief performance comparison of R1234yf and R134a in a bench tester for automobile applications. Appl Therm Eng 2012;35:240−42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.09.004.
5. [5] Navarro-Esbri J, Mendoza-Miranda JM., Mota-Babiloni A, Barragan-Cervera A, Belman-Flores JM. Experimental analysis of R1234yf as a drop-in replacement for R134a in a vapour compression system. Int J Refrig 2013;36:870−80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2012.12.014.
6. [6] Navarro E, Martinez-Galvan IO, Nohales J, Gonzalvez-Macia J. Comparative experimental study of an open piston compressor working with R-1234yf, R-134a and R-290. Int J Refrig 2013;36:768−75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2012.11.017.
7. [7] Mota-Babiloni A, Navarro-Esbri J, Barragan-Cervera A, Moles F, Peris B. Drop-in energy performance evaluation of R1234yf and R1234ze(e) in a vapor compression system as R134a replacements. Appl Therm Eng 2014;71:259−65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.06.056.
8. [8] Daviran S, Kasaeian A, Golzari S, Mahian O, Nasirivatan S, Wongwises S. A comparative study on the performance of HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a as an alternative in automotive air conditioning systems. Appl Therm Eng 2017;110:1091−00. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.034.

9. [9] Direk M, Kelesoglu A, Akin A. Drop-in performance analysis and effect of IHX for an automotive air conditioning system with R1234yf as a replacement of R134a. Strojniski vestnik - J Mech Eng 2017;63:314−19. https://doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2016.4247.
10. [10] Wantha C. Analysis of heat transfer characteristics of tube-in-tube internal heat exchangers for HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a refrigeration systems. Appl Therm Eng 2019;157:113747, 1−10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.113747.
11. [11] Aral MC, Hosoz M, Suhermanto M. Empirical correlations for the performance of an automotive air conditioning system using R1234yf and R134a. J Therm Sci Tech 2017;37:127−37.
12. [12] Yataganbaba A, Kilicarslan A, Kurtbas I. Exergy analysis of R1234yf and R1234ze as R134a replacements in a two evaporator vapour compression refrigeration system. Int J Refrig 2015;60:26−37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2015.08.010.
13. [13] Cho H, Park C. Experimental investigation of performance and exergy analysis of automotive air conditioning systems using refrigerant R1234yf at various compressor speeds. Appl Therm Eng 2016;101:30−37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.01.153.
14. [14] Golzari S, Kasaeian A, Daviran S, Mahian O, Wongwises S, Sahin AZ. Second law analysis of an automotive air conditioning system using HFO-1234yf, an environmentally friendly refrigerant. Int J Refrig 2017;73:134−43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2016.09.009.
15. [15] Devecioglu AG, Oruc V. A comparative energetic analysis for some low-GWP refrigerants as R134a replacements in various vapor compression refrigeration systems. J Therm Sci Tech 2018;38:51−61.
16. [16] Chopra K, Sahni V, Mishra RS. Energy, exergy and sustainability analysis of two-stage vapour compression refrigeration system. J Therm Eng 2015;1:440−44. https://doi.org/10.18186/jte.95418.
17. [17] Agarwal S, Arora A, Arora BB. Thermodynamic performance analysis of dedicated mechanically subcooled vapour compression refrigeration system. J Therm Eng 2019;5:222−36.
18. [18] Alkan A. Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Using R1234yf Instead of R134a in an Automobile Air Conditioning System. Ph.D. Thesis, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; 2015 (in Turkish).
19. [19] Cho H, Lee H, Park C. Performance characteristics of an automobile air conditioning system with internal heat exchanger using refrigerant R1234yf. Appl Therm Eng 2013;61:563−69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.08.030.
20. [20] Li Z, Khanmohammedi S, Khanmohammedi S, Al-Rashed AA, Ahmadi P, Afrand M. 3-E analysis and optimisation of an organic rankine flash cycle integrated with a PEM fuel cell and geothermal energy. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2020;45:2168−85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.09.233.
21. [21] Saadat-Targhi M, Khanmohammadi S. Energy and exergy analysis and multi-criteria optimization of an integrated city gate station with organic Rankine flash cycle and thermoelectric generator. Appl Therm Eng 2019;149:312−24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.12.079.
22. [22] Kumar V, Karimi MN, Kamboj SK. Comparative analysis of cascade refrigeration system based on energy and exergy using different refrigerant pairs. J Therm Eng 2020;6:106−16. https://doi.org/10.18186/thermal.671652.
23. [23] Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. Modelling and performance evaluation of ground source (geothermal) heat pump systems. Energ Build 2007;39:66−75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.04.019.
24. [24] Hosoz M, Direk M, Yigit KS, Canakci M, Turkcan A, Alptekin E, Sanli A. Performance evaluation of an R134a automotive heat pump system for various heat sources in comparison with baseline heating system. Appl Therm Eng 2015;78:419−27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.12.072.
25. [25] Moffat RJ. Describing the uncertainties in experimental results. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 1988;1:3−17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0894-1777(88)90043-X.