3.9 Article

A Comparative Performance Study of an Ejector-Expansion Refrigeration Cycle Using R134a and its Alternatives: Application of Automobile Air Conditioning

Publisher

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S2010132521500358

Keywords

Automobile air conditioning; alternative refrigerants; GWP; performance improvement; EERC

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the performance of ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle with alternative refrigerants for automobile air-conditioning. R152a and R1234yf are identified as the most suitable alternatives to R134a, showing improved COP and exergy efficiency compared to R134a. The volumetric cooling capacity is reduced for both R152a and R1234yf, and the effect of compressor rotational speed on performance is also reported.
In this study, the performance of ejector-expansion refrigeration cycle (EERC) with R134a alternative refrigerants (R152a, R1234yf, R404A, R407C, R507A and R600a) for automobile air-conditioning application is investigated numerically. The ejector is modeled with a constant mixing-pressure assumption taking into consideration the friction effect in the ejector mixing section. The studied refrigerants are compared based on the optimum area ratio, discharge temperature, compressor input power, volumetric cooling capacity, exergy destruction, COP, exergy efficiency and COP improvement. The results show that R152a and R1234yf have the closest performance to R134a and can be considered the most suitable alternative refrigerants for R134a. The COP and exergy efficiency are improved by 2.26% and 2.27%, respectively, using R152a compared to the use of R134a, whereas they are reduced by 2.89% and 2.88% using R1234yf. The volumetric cooling capacity is reduced for both R152a and R1234yf by 6.14% and 6.8%, respectively. In addition, the effect of compressor rotational speed on the performances is reported.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available