Main Article Content

Abstract

This paper deals with a comparative analysis of the influence of refrigerant on the performance of a simple vapor compression refrigeration system. The study is based on the refrigerants R12 and R134a. A computational model based on energy and exergy analysis is presented for investigation of the effects of evaporating temperature and degree of sub-cooling on the coefficient of performance and exergitic efficiency of the refrigerator. A considerable part of the energy produced worldwide is consumed by refrigerators. So it is crucial to minimize the energy utilization of these devices. The exergy analysis has been widely used in the analysis of all engineering systems including refrigerators. It is a powerful tool for the design, optimization and performance evaluation of energy systems. It is well known fact that the CFC and HCFC refrigerants have been forbidden due to chlorine content and there high ozone
depleting potential (ODP) and global warming potential (GWP). Hence HFC refrigerants are used now-a-days. Many research papers have been published on the subject of replacing CFC and HCFC refrigerants with other types of refrigerants. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two refrigerants working in a one stage vapor compression refrigeration system with sub-cooling and superheating. These refrigerants are: Dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12) and Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a).

Keywords

Vapor compression refrigeration system Exergy COP Exergetic efficiency Degree of sub-cooling.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chandrasekharan, M. (2015). Exergy Analysis of Vapor Compression Refrigeration System Using R12 and R134a as Refrigerants. International Journal of Students’ Research in Technology & Management, 2(4), 134–139. Retrieved from https://mgesjournals.com/ijsrtm/article/view/125

References

  1. Akash, B.A.; and Said, S.A. (2003). Assessment of LPG as a possible alternative to R12 in domestic refrigerators. Energy Conversion and Management, 44(3), 381-388.
  2. Sattar, M.A.; Saidur, R.; and Masjuki, H.H. (2007). Performance investigation of domestic refrigerator using pure hydrocarbons and blends of hydrocarbons as refrigerants. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, ISSN 1307-6884, 23, 223-228.
  3. Bolaji, B.O. (2005). CFC refrigerants and stratospheric ozone: past, present and future. In: Environmental sustainability and conservation in Nigeria, Okoko, E. and Adekunle, V.A.J. (Eds.); Book of Readings of Environment Conservation and Research Team, 37, 231-239.
  4. Moran, M.J. (1992). Availability analysis: a guide to efficient energy use. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  5. Aprhornratana, S.; and Eames, I.W. (1995). Thermodynamic analysis of absorption refrigeration cycles using the second law of thermodynamics. International Journal of Refrigeration, 18(4), 244-252.
  6. Bejan, A. (1998). Advanced engineering thermodynamics. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
  7. Dincer, I.; and Cengel, Y.A. (2001). Energy, entropy and exergy concepts and their roles in thermal engineering. Entropy, 3, 116-149.
  8. Said, S.A.M.; and Ismail, B. (1994). Exergetic assessment of the coolants HCFC123, HFC134a, CFC11, and CFC12. Energy, 19(11), 1181-1186.
  9. Aprea, C.; and Greco, A. (2002). An exergetic analysis of R22 substitution. Applied Thermal Engineering, 22(13), 1455-1469.
  10. Khalid, M.A. (2006). Comparison of performance analysis of R22 and its alternate. 11th HVACR Conference, Krachi, 56-67.
  11. Kilicaslan, C.; Songnetichaovalit, T.; and Lokathada, N. (2004). Experimental comparison of R22 with R417A performance in a vapour compression refrigeration system. Energy Conversion Management, 45, 1835-1847.