International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering (IJAME)

ISSN: 2229-8649 (Print); ISSN: 2180-1606 (Online); Volume 5, pp. 597-611, January-June 2012
©Universiti Malaysia Pahang
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15282/ijame.5.2012.6.0047

DEVELOPMENT OF A CHEST FREEZER – OPTIMUM DESIGN

OF AN EVAPORATOR COIL
K. Kalyani Radha1, S. Naga Sarada2 and K. Rajagopal2
1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, JNTUA College of Engineering, JNTUA
Anantapur - 515002, Andhra Pradesh, India; Phone: +91 9440517729.
E-mail: kalyaniradha@gmail.com
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, JNTUH College of Engineering,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085, Andhra Pradesh, India.

ABSTRACT

In a country such as India, food grains, fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry and fish, are very
susceptible to microbial contamination and spoilage and require stringent preservation
methods. One such method is by the use of a chest freezer for the storage of frozen
food. This investigation considers different loads and design parameters for the
development of a chest freezer using R134a as the working fluid. Experimental designs
of an evaporator coil, condenser coil and capillary tube are investigated through the
development of storage periods in terms of steady state and cyclic performance, by
optimising the quantity of refrigerant charge, with strict adherence to the standards and
requirement for maintaining an internal temperature of -23 °C at 43 °C ambient. Cyclic
load performance tests optimise the performance of individual components selected for
the design of a chest freezer. The system selection has a highly balanced performance
with R134a and showed 118 kJ/kg cooling capacity with 8.42 coefficient of
performance (COP). By the replacement of R134a, temperatures of -23 °C are
maintained inside the freezer cabinet with low power consumption and an increase in
the net refrigerating effect, which in turn increases the COP. The system design has
optimum efficiency with moderate costs by optimising the length and diameter of the
evaporator coil, i.e., 34.15 m and 7.94 mm, respectively.

Keywords: Optimisation, evaporator coil, performance, chest freezer, alternate

refrigerants, overall heat transfer coefficient.

INTRODUCTION

CFC12 is the most commonly used refrigerant in small hermetically sealed systems.
This is because of its high stability, excellent thermodynamic properties, low index of
compression, which makes it suitable for use at extreme pressure ratios and good motor
winding cooling characteristics (Lee and Su, 2002; Akash and Said, 2003). HFC134a
(tetraflouroethane) is considered to be the most preferred substitute for R12. HFC134a
has a 6% higher capacity at 50 °F evaporating temperature and 6% higher at 0 °F
evaporating temperature. Thus, for the same amount of subcooling R134a produces a
greater refrigerating effect. The use of oil in an R134a system requires a very stringent
quality control. It is not soluble in mineral oil and thus, for R134a POE (ester based)
oils are used. This refrigerant contains no chlorine atoms and therefore has negligible
ozone depletion potential (Avinash et al., 2005). Most commercial freezers, such as:
chest freezers, bottle coolers, visi coolers, display cabinets, water coolers and walk in

597
 Development of a chest freezer – Optimum design of an evaporator coil

coolers use R134a and R12 as the refrigerant. Estimated annual production of
commercial refrigerated cabins (chest freezers, display cabinets, bottle coolers and visi
coolers), water coolers and walk in coolers in India is about 40,000, 27,000 and 500
units, respectively. Small and medium enterprises (Ministry of environment and forest,
2005) manufacture about 80% of these units. Theoretical and experimental studies
carried out with an HFC mixture composed of R152a and R125 at different weight
percentages (80:20, 85:15 and 90:10) as an alternative to R12 in a domestic refrigerator,
reported that the discharge temperature of the mixture was slightly higher than that of
R12 (He et al, 2005).

Xuan and Chen (2005) experimented with a ternary mixture R161/R125/ R143a
(10:45:45 percentage by weight) and reported that the physical properties of the R161
mixture are similar to those of R502 with environmental properties less than those of
R502 and R404A. The coefficient of performance (COP) of the R161 mixture is equal
to that of R404A at low evaporator temperatures and its discharge temperature is
slightly higher than R404A. The COP of the ternary mixture was greater than R404A at
higher evaporator temperatures, while its discharge temperature was lower. Baolian and
Zhang (2006) reported that a binary mixture composed of R744 and R290 at 71:29 mole
fractions, used as an alternative to R13 in a cascade refrigeration system, has a greater
COP and capacity. The performance of a 280l R134a-based domestic refrigerator with
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) composed of R290, R600a and R600 (60:20:20 by mass
fraction) as an alternative (Fatouh and El Kafafy, 2006). Experimental investigation
with R407C with 10% and 20% HC blend composed of 45% of R290 and 55% of
R600a (by weight) as an alternative in window air conditioners without changing the
mineral oil (Jabaraj et al., 2006). It has been reported that a 19% increase in the length
of the condenser tube is required to suit these mixtures compared with R22.
Experimental results reported that R407C with a 20% HC blend was found to be a
promising alternative to R22 in window air conditioners, without changing the mineral
oil. Calm (2006) has investigated 28 different pure refrigerants for chiller applications
and reported that R123 currently remains the best option for a reduction in the
substantial global warming contributions from chiller and air conditioning applications.
R123 has low ODP and very low GWP, very short atmospheric lifetime and the highest
energy efficiency of all the current options. Experiments were conducted with two pure
HC refrigerants (R1270 and R290) and three binary mixtures of R1270, R290 and
R152a as alternatives to R502 in low temperature refrigeration applications, having 9.6–
18.7% higher capacity with 17.1–27.3% higher COP. The compressor discharge
temperatures were similar, whilst those of all the other refrigerants were 23.7–27.9 ºC
lower than that of R502. The charge requirement was reduced by 60%. The above
alternatives offer better performance than R502 and due to their excellent environmental
properties, can be used as long-term substitutes for R502 (Park and Jung, 2007).

R12 is the refrigerant used in refrigerators manufactured before 2000. To fulfil

the objectives of the Montreal protocol, R12 has to be replaced by either hydrocarbon
mixtures or R134a/hydrocarbon mixtures without modification to the existing system
(Mohanraj et al., 2009). A review work done by Poggi et al. (2008) examined the
relationship between the system architecture, the cooling capacity and the refrigerant
charge of the system. It established that the ratio of the cooling capacity versus the
refrigerant charge depends on the size of the components; moreover, the amount of
refrigerant charge is influenced not only by the volumes of the heat exchangers but also

598
 Kalyani Radha et al. /International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 5 (2012) 597-611

by the volumes of the accessories (piping, accumulators, dryers, receivers, filters). For
small refrigeration systems, the accessories could greatly influence the system volume
and at the same time, the system architecture and the refrigerant charge can influence
the performance of the system. In the literature, it is possible to find several
experimental and modelling/simulation works regarding the relationship between the
refrigerant charge and the performance of the system. These works mainly relate to the
heat pump and air conditioning systems but little work is available for chest freezers.
The present work investigates freezers working under low temperatures for the storage
of frozen food, using a reduced refrigerant charge quantity in the evaporator coil, in
order to achieve better system performance.

Chest-type freezers: A chest freezer is nothing but a storage unit for frozen food, such
as: meat, poultry, fish, prawns, some vegetables and some fruits. The chest-type freezer
provides the most economical type of food freezing mechanism, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Line diagram of chest freezer.

The cooling load on refrigerating equipment seldom results from any one source
of heat but is the summation of the heat evolving from several different sources. The
total cooling load can be divided into four separate loads: the wall gain load, the
infiltration load, the product load and the miscellaneous load (Kalyani Radha, 2004).

Cooling Load Calculation: The cooling load on refrigerating equipment seldom results
from any one source of heat but is the summation of the heat evolving from several
different sources (Andrew et al, 2005). Some of the more common sources of heat that
is supply the load on refrigerating equipment.

599
 Development of a chest freezer – Optimum design of an evaporator coil

The design procedure is considered as:

52% heat loss due to walls = 89.67 W

30% heat loss due to gaskets and air change load = 24.63 W and 35.64W
18% heat loss due to foodstuffs, heat loss due to defrosting radiant heaters, fans,
and thermostat, heat loss due to miscellaneous = 43.53 W

The total load is the sum of all the above loads.

Factor of Safety: Let us consider a factor of safety of 6% on the total load,

Total Load: = 186.77 W
Safety factor 6%: 0.06 × 186.77 = 11.20 W
The total load on the freezer: 186.77 + 11.20 = 197.97 W

Percentage Run Time:

Let percentage run time = 80%
Required cooling capacity = 197.97 / 0.8 = 247.46 W

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODOLOGY

The design of the experimental setup is as per the load calculation, selection and
optimisation of equipment for a 400 L chest freezer (specifications in Appendix). The
methodology starts with selection of a compressor according to the load calculation,
optimum design for other equipment, such as evaporator coil, capillary tube and
condenser coil and optimisation of the refrigerant charge quantity in order to be able to
withstand break-down conditions.

SELECTION OF EQUIPMENT

Selection of a Compressor: The required compressor capacity must be determined

from the cooling load calculations. General practice is to select a compressor that has a
capacity equal to, or somewhat in excess of the required capacity at the design operating
conditions ASHRAE (1965, 1977). To have a cooling capacity of 247.46 W from the
percentage run time, in order to maintain a temperature of -23 ºC in a 400 L chest
freezer, we selected a compressor from the compressor cooling performance curves,
drawn between evaporating temperature and cooling capacity at 54 ºC condensing
temperature. From Figure 2, in order to maintain freezer compartment temperatures of -
23 ºC, we require 255.81 W cooling capacities with a rated input power of 250 W. This
capacity is more than the cooling load required. The compressor model is a Tecumseh,
MLB 2410 series with 2.53 A rated current and 250 W of rated input power.

600
 Kalyani Radha et al. /International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 5 (2012) 597-611

Figure 2. Dimensions of the chest freezer.

OPTIMUM DESIGN OF EVAPORATOR COIL

The capacity of an evaporator is the rate at which heat will pass through the evaporator
tubes from the refrigerated space or product to the vaporising liquid inside ASHRAE
(1977, 1978 and 2001). An evaporator must always have sufficient capacity to produce
the required load when operating at the design conditions. The evaporating unit capacity
depends on air velocity and minimum dehydration of the product. This is mainly due to
natural convection, which is a function of the temperature differential between the
evaporator and the space; the greater the difference, the higher the air circulation. The
shape, size and location of the evaporator and the placement of the stored product,
greatly influences the circulation of air by natural convection within the refrigerated
space (Ravindra, 2001). The surface area, the value of U and the capacity of the
evaporator depend upon the mean effective temperature difference between the cooling
coil and the refrigerated space.

Determination of U factor (Dossat, 2006)

Let tf be the mean film temperature,

Maximum evaporator temperature  minimum evaporator tempeature

tf  (1)
2

tf = - 25 °C
The properties of R134a at -25 °C temperature are:

Viscosity of fluid, µf = 3.7 × 10-4 kg/ms

Viscosity of gas, µg = 3.9 × 10-4 kg/ms

601
 Development of a chest freezer – Optimum design of an evaporator coil

Density of fluid, ρf = 1373.5 kg/m3

Density of gas, ρg = 46.7 kg/m3
Latent heat, hfg = 127.45 kJ/kg
Thermal conductivity of fluid, Kf = 0.1031 W/m°K
Thermal conductivity of gas, Kg = 0. 0093 W/m°K
Velocity, V = 3 m/s
Specific heat, Cp = 1.28 kJ/kg°K
Outer diameter of pipe, D = 7.94 × 10-3 m
Inner diameter, Di = 6.52 × 10-3 mm
Correction factor, Cf = 0.065

Let the Prandtl Number be, Pr = µf Cp / Kf = 4.5 x 10-3 (2)

We have, Reynolds Number, Re = [ρg v D]/ µg (3)

Re = 88423.7 > 2300, i.e., it is a turbulent flow.
Let h1fg be the modified latent heat, which can be calculated as:

Let the subcooling temperature difference be ∆Ti = 10 °C

h1fg = hfg + 3 /8 Cf ∆Ti = 127.69 kJ/kg (4)

The equation for internal flow in the tubes is given by:

hf = 0.555 [g ρf (ρf – ρg) Kf3 h1fg /µf ∆Ti Di ] 1/4 (5)

= 310.8 W/m°K

As the flow is turbulent, we have the equation for convection heat transfer coefficient
as:

hi = 1.24 ( ∆ T/ D) 1/3 = 13.07 W/m°K (6)

The overall heat transfer coefficient is given by the equation:

U= 1 / [1/ hf + xp / Kp + xa / Ka + 1/ hi] (7)

where, U = coefficient of heat transmission in the evaporating region, W/ m2 oK

xc = thickness of outer wall, cold rolled carbon steel, 0.4 mm
Kc = thermal conductivity of outer wall, 45.326 W/ m oK
xa = thickness of inner wall, aluminium, 0.45 mm
Ka = thermal conductivity of inner wall, 221.95 W/ m oK
Xpuf = thickness of insulation, 0.06 m
Kpuf = thermal conductivity of insulation material, 0.020 W/m oK per metre thickness
hi = inside wall surface coefficient, 13.7 W/m2 oK

Therefore, U1 =11.16 W/m2 °K

The mean effective temperature difference is calculated by:

∆ T = TM –TE (8)

602
 Kalyani Radha et al. /International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 5 (2012) 597-611

where, TM = mean temperature inside freezer, ºC

TE = Evaporator temperature, -30 °C from ASHRAE

It is assumed that the evaporator temperature is maintained at 7 ºC below the

temperature maintained inside the freezer cabinet.

From the equation, TM = TF x CF (9)

where
TF = the temperature of frozen food storage compartment, -23 ºC
CF = the air quantity ratio of frozen storage compartment in percentage from ASHRAE

From the above equation, TM = TF × CF = -23 × 0.4 = -9.2 °C

We have ∆T = TM – TE = -9.2 – (-30) = 20.8 °C

Heat absorbed in evaporator is given by: Q = UA ∆T (10)

A = ∏ dl (11)

For the design procedure of the evaporator coil, the total load to be removed from the
freezer compartment = 197.97 W
∆T = 20.8 °K, U = 11.16 W/m2 °K

Substituting these values in the equation, Q = U A ∆T (12)

A = 0.852 Sq. m

Let the diameter of the coil, d = 7.94 mm, then L = 34.15 m ~ 34 m length.

OPTIMUM DESIGN OF A CAPILLARY TUBE

In order to select the proper size valve, the following data are necessary: the evaporator
temperature, the system capacity and the available pressure difference across the valve
ASHRAE (1977 and 1978). In general, the first two factors determine the required
liquid flow rate through the valve, whereas the third determines the size of orifice
required to deliver the desired flow rate; the flow rate through the orifice being
proportional to the pressure differential across the valve (Dossat, 2006; Stoecker, 2009).
When the available pressure difference across the expansion valve has been determined,
a value should be selected from the manufacturers rating table that has a capacity equal
to, or slightly in excess of the system capacity at the system design operating conditions.
This can be only achieved by testing.

The Darcy Friction Equation gives the pressure drop:

∆P = f Lc V2/ 2 g Dc (13)
where: ∆P = drop in pressure in capillary
Lc = length of the capillary
Dc = diameter of the capillary

603
 Development of a chest freezer – Optimum design of an evaporator coil

From the P-h chart, ∆P1 = 0.668 bar and ∆P2 = 12.38 bar, f = 0.004, g = 9.81
2
m/sec . From ASHRAE, the recommended velocity of flow for the discharge and
suction pressure, v = 3.67 m/sec, therefore ∆P = 11.71 bar. From ASHREA standards,
for a pressure drop of 11.71 bar, the dimensions should be D = 0.79 mm, L = 3.963 m.

OPTIMUM DESIGN OF A CONDENSER COIL

While designing the actual refrigeration cycle (Ravindra, 2001), the condenser load is
expressed by following Eq. (14). However, the required capacity is 197.97 W, which is
more than the refrigeration load, so in designing the condenser coil we have to consider
this load to be the refrigeration load, as this increases the load on capacity of the
condenser coil.

Q condenser = Q refrigeration capacity + Compressor Input Power (14)

= 197.97 + 250 = 447.97 W

We have the equation, heat rejected in condenser, Q condenser = F U A ΔT (15)

where F = correction factor depending on the R and P values.

Therefore, 447.97 W of heat should be removed from the condenser coil. As it is

difficult to remove the total amount of heat through natural convection, we employ a
condenser fan placed in front of an auxiliary condenser and the rest of the condenser
coil is attached to the outer shell of the cabinet.

Log mean temperature difference, ΔT = 29.49ºK

From Eq. 15, the surface area of the condenser coil can be calculated.
Let the outer diameter of the coil, d = 6.52 mm
A = ∏ d L = 0.7843 m2
L = 38.29 m

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Optimisation of Refrigerant Charge Quantity

The system is first charged with 400 g of charge as per the compressor specifications
and then the system is tested for stabilisation of temperatures (Kalyani Radha, 2004;
ASHRAE 2005). Every 4 h, 10 g of charge is purged from the system and each time it is
tested for stabilised conditions. Figure 3 shows that a 320 g of charge is sufficient to
maintain the required stabilised temperatures inside the freezer cabinet at 1.89 A and a
rated input power of 190 W.

604
 Kalyani Radha et al. /International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 5 (2012) 597-611

Figure 3. Evaporator temperature vs. refrigerant charge quantity.

No Load Pull Down Test

The system is run for about 4 h without the thermostat in the refrigeration cycle. After
achieving a steady state, the performance is analysed between temperature and time
(Figure 4). It is achieving a steady state requires 1.772 A at a rated input power of
198W.

Figure 4. No load pull down - evaporator temperature vs. time.

605
 Development of a chest freezer – Optimum design of an evaporator coil

No-load Cycling Test

The system is run keeping the thermostat in cycling mode in the refrigeration system.
As the temperature reaches -23.5 °C the compressor stops, which is called the cut-off
time and as the temperature inside the cabinet reaches -20 °C the compressor starts,
which is called the cut-in time; taking the power and maintaining the temperature inside
the cabinet at stabilised conditions. The system is run for 5 h and its performance is
analysed (Figure 5).

Cut-off time = 1 h and 16 min = 76 min

Cut-in time (run time) = 4 h and 16 min = 256 min
Total time = cut-off time + cut-in time = 76 + 256 = 332 min
Run percentage time = (run time/ Total time) × 100 = 77%

Figure 5. No load cycling – evaporator temperature vs. time.

Load Pull Down Test

The system operates for 24 h at full load conditions. From Figure 6, we can say that the
system achieves steady state conditions after 16 to 18 h. The suction pressure is 0.66 bar
and the discharge pressure is 12.38 bar, which takes almost 1.83 A of rated current and
215 W of rated power. This would be the maximum power required to pull down the
total load from the cabinet.

606
 Kalyani Radha et al. /International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 5 (2012) 597-611

Figure 6. Load pull down – evaporator temperature vs. time.

Energy Consumption

At Full Load condition,

Initial reading = 4005.08 kWhr
Final reading = 4009.33 kWhr
Total Power = 4009.33 – 4005.08 = 4.25 kWhr/24hr

Load Pull Up Test

After the system runs continuously for about 24 h the supply is switched off. The
temperature of all the side packets are noted until one packet reaches -9 °C, which is the
temperature when the loaded product inside the freezer just starts crossing its freezing
point and if continued further, the product begins to be damaged. The total pull up time
= 8 h. This is the time required to store the product without any spoiling inside the
freezer at power off conditions (Figure 7).

If all other parameters are kept the same but we change the refrigerant from R12 to
R134a, temperatures of -23 °C can be maintained inside the freezer cabinet, at 43°C
ambient, with low power consumption and an increase in the net refrigerating effect,
which in turn increases the COP by 4.25% . The refrigerant charge quantity is reduced
by 29.4% with an increase in performance during breakdown conditions. The optimised
evaporator coil length and diameter are 34.15 m and 7.94 mm, respectively. The two
refrigerants are compared, as shown in Table 1.

607
 Development of a chest freezer – Optimum design of an evaporator coil

Table 1. Comparison of R12 and R134a.

Properties R12 R134a

1 ODP 0.86 0
2 GWP 3.2 0.27
Mild steel inside, copper
3 Evaporator Coils Copper
coating outside zinc coated
4 Temperature -18 °C -23 °C
Energy
5 6 kWhr 4.25 kWhr
Consumption/day
During power-off /
6 4 to 6 h 8h
Breakdown condition
Net refrigerating
7 105 kJ/kg 118 kJ/kg
effect
Mass flow of
8 0.0017 kg/s 0.0012 kg/s
refrigerant
9 Work done 13 kJ/kg 14 kJ/kg
10 COP 8.076 8.42

Figure 7. Load pull up – evaporator temperature vs. Time.

608
 Kalyani Radha et al. /International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 5 (2012) 597-611

CONCLUSION

In the design of the refrigeration system for a freezer, rigid standards are maintained so
as not to have any compromise with the quality and flexibility of the system. The
system is designed for optimum efficiency with moderate costs; efficient equipment
design will result in energy savings, which reduces the running costs. The performance
of the total system can be enhanced by removing dust particles or contaminants from the
system. Placement of the freezer also plays a major role in reducing the load on the
system. If exposed to the higher temperatures, the greater will be the capacity
requirement and power requirement. Future work would be the development of an even
more energy efficient freezer for working at different ambient conditions and with
alternative refrigerants, which is more economical and more feasible at breakdown
conditions. In addition, a new chest freezer model is to be designed, maintaining the
freezing temperatures below 0 °F, at 80–95% relative humidity for the storage of frozen
food.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Voltas, R and D Unit, Hyderabad for providing the
facilities in order to carry out this work.

REFERENCES

Akash, B.A., Said, S.A., 2003. Assessment of LPG as a possible alternative to R-12 in
domestic refrigerators. Energy Conversion and Management 44(3): 381-388.
Althouse, A.D., Turnquist, C.H. and Bracciano, A.F. 2005. Modern refrigeration and
air-conditioning. Tinley Park: The Goodheart-Willcox. Co., Inc.
American National Standards Institute/ ASHRAE, 2005. Standard 722005: Method of
testing commercial refrigerators and freezers.
ASHRAE, Guide and Data Book, 1965. Fundamentals and equipment.
ASHRAE, Guide and Data Book, 1977. Fundamentals and equipment.
ASHRAE, Guide and Data Book, 1978. Product directory applications.
ASHRAE, Guide and Data Book, 2001. Fundamentals.
Avinash, P., Jabaraj, D.B. and Lal, D.M. 2005. Beyond HCFC22 for air conditioners –
an outlook. IRHACE Journal, 20–23.
Baolian, N. and Zhang, Y. 2006. Experimental study of the refrigeration cycle
performance for the R744/R290 mixtures. International Journal of Refrigeration
30, 37–42.
Calm, J.M. 2006. Comparative efficiencies and implications for greenhouse gas
emissions of chiller refrigerants. International Journal of Refrigeration, 29: 833–
841.
Dossat, R.J., 2006. Principles of refrigeration. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Fatouh, M. and El Kafafy, M. 2006. Experimental evaluation of a domestic refrigerator
working with LPG. Applied Thermal Engineering, 26: 1593–1603.
He, M.G., Li, T.C., Liu, Z.G. and Zhang, Y. 2005. Testing of the mixing refrigerant
HFC152a/HFC125 in domestic refrigerator. Applied Thermal Engineering, 25:
1169–1181.
H-IM-64L. 2007. Installation and operational manual. Heatcraft worldwide
refrigeration.

609
 Development of a chest freezer – Optimum design of an evaporator coil

Jabaraj, D.B., Avinash, P., Mohanlal, D. and Renganarayanan, S. 2006. Experimental

investigation of HFC407C/HC290/HC600a mixture in window air conditioner.
Energy Conservation and Management, 48: 3084–3089.
Kalyani Radha. K, 2004. To develop a novel chest freezer, M.Tech Thesis. Department
of Mechanical Engineering, JNTU College of Engineering, Anatapur, Andhra
Pradesh, India.
KIRLOSKAR COPELAND Technical Manual, 2005. Karad.
Lee, Y.S. and Su, C.C. 2002. Experimental studies of isobutene (R600a) as refrigerant
in domestic refrigeration system. Applied Thermal Engineering ,22: 507-519.
MOEF (Ministry of environment and forest). 2005. Government of India. Ozone
depleting substances (regulation and control) rules, ozone cell India
(www.ozonecell.com).
Mohanraj, M., Jayaraj, S. and Muraleedharan, C. 2009. Environment friendly
alternatives to halogenated refrigerants—A review. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 3:1 08-119.
Park, K.J. and Jung, D.S. 2007. Thermodynamic performance of R502 alternative
refrigerant mixtures for low temperature and transport applications. Energy
Conversion and Management, 48(12): 3084-3089.
Poggi, F., Macchi-Tejeda, H., Leducq, D. and Bontemps, A. 2008. Refrigerant charge in
refrigerating systems and strategies of charge reduction. International Journal of
Refrigeration, 31(3): 353-370.
Ravindra, D. 2001. Air cooled condensers; types, ratings, design, construction,
installation and maintenance. Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Journal. July-
September issue. (http://www.ishrae.in/journals/2001july/article03.html)
Stoecker, W.F. and Jones, J.W. 2003. Refrigeration and air-conditioning. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
TECUMSEH Technical Manual, Ballabgarh.
Xuan, Y. and Chen, G. 2005. Experimental study on HFC161 mixture as an alternative
refrigerant to R502. International Journal of Refrigeration, 28: 436–441.

Nomenclature

A Surface Area, m2
COP Coefficient of Performance
d/D Diameter, mm
l Length, m
mr Mass of Refrigerant, kg
Q Total Heat Transfer, W
to Outside Temperature, °C
ti Inside Designed Temperature, °C
tf Mean Film Temperature, °C
∆T Difference in Temperature, °C
U Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, W/m2°K

610
Kalyani Radha et al. /International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering 5 (2012) 597-611

APPENDIX

CHEST FREEZER SPECIFICATIONS

Capacity 400L
Overall dimensions 1450 × 895 × 620 mm
Outer body Cold rolled carbon steel (0.4 mm thickness)
Inner cabinet Aluminium (0.45 mm thickness)
Insulation polyol, cyclopentane and isocyanate PUF
(60 mm thickness).

611