Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160

International Conference on Recent Advancement in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, RAAR

2016, 10-12 November 2016, Bhubaneswar, India

Comparative evaluation of an automobile air - conditioning system

using R134a and its alternative refrigerants
Prof. Jignesh K. Vaghelaa*
a
Assistant Professor, ITM Universe, Vadodara-391510, India

Abstract

This research involves the theoretical aspects of R134a automobile air conditioning system. The main aim of the research is to
evaluate the different alternative refrigerants as a drop in substitute of R134a theoretically. For this purpose, thermodynamic
properties of different alternative refrigerants i.e. R290, R600a, R407C, R410A, R404A, R152a and R1234yf are compared to
R134a. Thermodynamic evaluation of standard rating cycle of vapour compression refrigeration system is carried out.
Engineering equation solver and refprop soft wares have been used for the thermodynamic analysis purpose. From
thermodynamic analysis, it is derived that R1234yf is best suitable alternative refrigerants as a drop in substitute of R134a.
R1234yf has lower coefficient of performance as compared to R134a; however it is best suitable alternative refrigerants as a drop
in substitute because it has very low global warming potential and can be substituted in the existing automobile air conditioning
system with minimum modification.

©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
Keywords: Automobile Air Conditioning System, R134a, alternative refrigerants, low GWP, R1234yf.

1. Introduction:
Since 1995, the standard refrigerant in the automobile industry has changed from R12 to R134a due to
ozone layer protection measures given by the montreal protocol (1989). However, concerns about global warming
have since led to the creation of the global environment change report (1997). In this report, the goal was set to
reduce the emissions of greenhouse gas up to 2008.
R134a refrigerant, which is widely used in current automobile air conditioning systems, is one of the
controlled substances in the kyoto protocol (1997). In United Nations, the current air conditioning system was
banned for refrigerants that have a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of over 150 by 2011. In India, Higher GWP
refrigerants are also going to be banned in near future. The first response to the kyoto protocol by the automobile
manufacturers was thus to improve R134a systems by reducing leakage. However, efforts are being made to find an

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.083
154 Jignesh K. Vaghela / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160

-alternative refrigerants to replace R134a due to its high GWP of 1430 [1]. Hence this study involves finding of
suitable alternative refrigerants of R134a AAC system so that kyoto protocol requirements are fulfilled.

Nomenclature

AAC Automobile Air Conditioning

CFC ChloroFluoroCarbon
COP Coefficient of Performance
GWP Global Warming Potential
h specific enthalpy (kJ /kg)
HCFC HydroChloroFluoroCarbon
HFC HydroFluoroCarbon
HFO HydroFlouroOlefin
m mass flow rate (kg/s)
N Speed (rpm)
NIST National Institute of Standard and Technology
ODP Ozone Depletion Potential
P Pressure (MPa)
PR Pressure Ratio
q Heat transfer (kJ/kg)
RE Refrigerating Effect (kJ/kg)
SCD Specific Compressor Displacement (m3/kJ)
T Temperature (°c)
v Specific volume (m3/kg)
VCR Vapour Compression Refrigeration
w Work (kJ/ kg)
W Work (kW)

Subscripts
1 refrigerant inlet condition to compressor
a air
c compressor
ca compressor actual
ci compressor isentropic
co condenser
D or 2n discharge
E evaporator
r refrigerant
sat saturation

AAC is a competitive and technology-oriented industry; so the open literature on the experimental
performance of AAC systems is very limited. Because of the Montreal Protocol, some investigators determined the
performance of AAC systems using refrigerants alternative to R12, which was the refrigerant widely used in AAC
systems until 1994. Although the automobile industry has been using R134a as a standard replacement for CFC12
since 1994, refrigerant R134a has a very high global warming potential. Therefore, some recent studies have aimed
to lower the global warming caused by the AAC systems by designing systems requiring less amounts of R134a or
using CO2 or hydrocarbons or HFO as an alternative to R134a [2].
J. Steven Brown, Samuel F. Yana-Motta, Piotr A. Domanski [3] had carried out comparative analysis of an
automotive air conditioning systems operating with CO 2 and R134a. The analysis showed R134a having a better
COP than CO2 with the COP disparity being dependent on compressor speed and ambient temperature.
 Jignesh K. Vaghela / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160 155

S. Devotta et. al [4] has searched alternatives to HCFC-22 for air conditioners. NIST CYCLE_D has been
used for the comparative thermodynamic analysis. Among the refrigerants studied (HFC134a, HC290, R407C,
R410A, and three blends of HFC32, HFC134a and HFC125), HFC134a offers the highest COP, but its capacity is
the lowest and requires much larger compressors.
Mahmoud Ghodbane [5] had done an investigation of R152a and hydrocarbon refrigerants in mobile air
conditioning. He concluded that R152a and cyclopropane (RC270) exhibit superiority as refrigerants when
compared to R134a. Pamela Reasor et al. [6] carried out a refrigerant R1234yf performance comparison
investigation. Comparisons are made between R1234yf, R134a, and R410A, and simulations are conducted to
determine the feasibility of using R1234yf as a replacement for R134a or R410A.
B. Takabi et al. [7] had carried out an effects of Al 2O3-Cu/water hybrid nanofluid on heat transfer and flow
characteristics in turbulent regime. The results indicate that employing hybrid nanofuid improves the heat transfer
rate with respect to pure water and nanofuid, yet it reveals an adverse effect on friction factor and appears severely
outweighed by pressure drop penalty. B. Takabi et al. [8] had also done an augmentation of the heat transfer
performance of a sinusoidal corrugated enclosure by employing hybrid nanofluid. To predict the average number of
nanofluid and hybrid nanofluid, two correlations have been developed. These equations are based on the modeling
results and calculated by employing the classical least square method.
Kakaç et al. [9] had done an analysis of convective heat transfer enhancement by nanofluids: single-phase
and two-phase treatments. Despite the advantages of the mixture model, such as implementation of physical
properties and less computational power requirements, some studies showed that the results of the single-phase and
two-phase models are very similar. Only the main difference consists in the effect of the drift velocities of the
phases relative to each other.

1.1. Objectives:
x The main aim of the project is to evaluate the different alternative refrigerants as a drop in substitute of
R134a.
x To evaluate thermodynamic properties of R134a and its alternative refrigerants.
x To carry out thermodynamic evaluation of standard Rating cycle of VCR system.

2. Thermodynamic Property Analysis:

Table 1. Thermodynamic properties comparison of different refrigerants [4] [5] [6]

Refrigerants Chemical composition Molecular Normal Critical Critical Safety ODP GWP
weight boiling Temp[°C] Pressure class
[kg/kmol] Point[°C] [MPa]
Propane (R290) CH3-CH2-CH3 44.096 -42.09 134.6 4.23 A3 0 11

Isobutane CH3-CH-CH3 CH3 58.12 -11.67 134.6 3.65 A3 0 3

(R600a)

R407C R32+R125+R134(23/25/ 86.2 -43.6 86.1 4.62 A1/A1 0 1530

52)

R410A R32+R125(50/50) 72.56 -50.5 72.5 4.96 A1/A1 0 1730

R404A R125+R134+R143(44/4/ 97.60 -46.5 72.04 3.72 A1/A1 0 3300

52)

R134a CH2FCF3 102 -26 101.1 4.059 A1 0 1430

R152a CH3-CH-F2 66.05 -25.0 113.5 45.8 A2 0 140

R1234yf CF3CF=CH2 114 -29 95 3.382 A2L 0 4

156 Jignesh K. Vaghela / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160

The thermodynamic properties of different refrigerants as well as safety and flammability data are
described in Table 1. The saturation pressure of the different refrigerants for wide range of temperatures (between
−30 and 70 °C) is compared in fig. 1. This is done by using Refprop and Engineering Equation Solver (EES) soft-
wares. Fig. 1 depicts the variation of saturation pressure of R134a, R290, R600a, R407C, R410A, R404A, R152a
and R1234yf against temperature. It is observed that R152a and R1234yf have approximately the same saturation
vapour pressure as R134a. Hence system can operate with minimum modification in the existing system in case of
R152a and R1234yf.
5
R134a R407C R152a
4.5 R410A R1234yf
R290
SATURATION PRESSURE [Mpa]

R600a R404A
4

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
-30 -10 10 30 50 70

TEMPERATURE [ C]

Fig. 1. Saturation pressure Vs Temperature

3. Thermodynamic Cycle Analysis Procedure:

Fig. 2. Schematic Diagram of VCR [10] Fig. 3. Pressure-Enthalpy Chart of VCR [10]

AAC system works on Vapour Compression Refrigeration (VCR) cycle. The representation of cycle on
schematic and the p-h diagram are shown in fig. 2 and 3, respectively; when the vapour at the end of compression is
assumed to -be superheated. Assuming that 1 kg of refrigerant flows in the system, we can analyse the system as
follows with help of steady flow energy equation. Thermodynamic analysis is as follows [10]:

(a) Isentropic Compressor work, W ci:

Wci = h2s - h1 , kJ/kg (1)
Actual Compressor work, Wca:
Wca = h2n - h1 , kJ/kg (2)
(b) Heat rejected at the condenser, qco:
 Jignesh K. Vaghela / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160 157

qco = h3 – h4 , kJ/kg (3)

Condenser pressure,
Pco = Psat (Tco) (4)
(c) Expansion device:
h5 = h6 , kJ/kg (5)
(d) Refrigerating effect, RE:
RE = h7 – h6 , kJ/kg (6)
Evaporator pressure,
PE = Psat (TE) (7)
(e) COP:
COP = RE/Wca
COP = (h7-h6)/(h2n-h1) (8)
(f) Compressor Power, Wc:
Wc = mr (h2n- h1) , kW (9)
(g) Mass of refrigerant to be circulated, mr per sec:
mr =Q/qe , kJ/s (10)
(h) Specific Compressor Displacement, m3/kJ:
SCD = v1/q0 (11)

x Assumptions :
Pressure drops in suction and discharge lines are neglected.
Cooling capacity of evaporator is assumed to be 4 kW.
Analysis is based on steady-state condition.
The size of tiny air bubbles and solid particles in refrigerant are assumed so small that they do not have a
significant effect on the thermo-mechanical properties of the basic refrigerant.

4. Results and Discussion:

Table 2. Calculated thermodynamic data of R134a and its alternatives for Evaporating temperature=7.2°c, Condenser temperature= 55°c,
compressor inlet temperature=35°c
Refrigerant Discharge Pressure COP Refrigerating Compressor
Temp. T2n (°C) Ratio Effect RE (kJ/kg) Work W (kW)
R290 103.4 3.245 2.499 266.8 1.601
R600a 92.96 3.787 2.64 251.4 1.515
R407C 119.8 3.844 2.36 152.6 1.695
R410A 122.8 3.44 2.256 152.9 1.773
R404A 100.7 3.411 2.185 104.2 1.831
R134a 105.7 3.954 2.562 141.8 1.561
R152a 119.7 3.923 2.668 233.8 1.499
R1234yf 88.7 3.658 2.4 61.64 1.667

By using data of standard rating cycle and by making simulation program in EES soft-ware, the
thermodynamic analysis of R134a and its alternative refrigerants is performed. This is done by varying its
evaporator temperature for the given cooling capacity. Condenser temperature is 55°c and Evaporator temperature
varies from 0°c to 12°c. For different evaporator temperature, the different parameters are measured. There is
noticeable change in performance of different refrigerants for the same condition due to their characteristics. Table 2
presents the calculated theoretical (thermodynamic) data of R134a and its alternative refrigerants.
Fig. 4 shows the pressure ratio of R134a and its alternative refrigerants for various evaporating
temperatures for TC=55°c. As shown in fig. 4, with decrease in evaporating temperature, pressure ratio increases. If
the pressure ratio is higher, then the compressor efficiency is lower.
158 Jignesh K. Vaghela / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160

6 220
R134a R407C R152a
200

DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE T2n [°C]

R290 R410A R1234yf
R134a R407C R152a
R600a R404A 180 R290 R410A R1234yf
5 R600a R404A
PRESSURE RATIO PR

160

140

120
4
100

80

60
3

40

20

2 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
EVAPORATING TEMPERATURE TE [°c] EVAPORATING TEMPERATURE TE [°c]
Fig. 4. PR Vs TE for Tc=55°c Fig. 5. TD Vs TE for Tc=55°c

The pressure ratio is highest for R134a and lowest for R290 for the entire range of T E in this study. This is
because of higher molecular weight and normal boiling pressure of R134a compared to R290. R152a and R1234yf
have lower pressure ratio compared to R134a and hence volumetric efficiencies of R152a and R1234yf are higher.
Fig. 5 shows the discharge temperature of R134a and its alternative refrigerants for various evaporating
temperatures for TC=55°c. As shown in fig. 5, with decrease in evaporating temperature, discharge temperature
increases. For better lubricant and refrigerant stability, lower discharge temperature is beneficial. At lower discharge
temperature, compressor is expected to be running at slow speed. Compressor life is higher in case of slow speed.
R152a has slightly higher discharge temperature while R1234yf has lowest discharge temperature compared to
R134a. Compressor life in case of R1234yf is higher.

3
3.4 R134a R407C R152a
R290 R410A R1234yf
COMPRESSOR WORK W [kW]

R134a R407C R152a 3.2 R600a R404A

R290 R410A R1234yf
R600a R404A 3
2.5
2.8

2.6
COP

2 2.4

2.2

2
1.5
1.8

1.6

1.4
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
EVAPORATING TEMPERATURE TE [°c] EVAPORATING TEMPERATURE TE [°c]
Fig. 6. W Vs TE for Tc=55°c Fig. 7. COP Vs TE for Tc=55°c

Fig. 6 shows the compressor work of R134a and its alternative refrigerants for various evaporating
temperatures for TC=55°c. As shown in fig. 6, with decrease in evaporating temperature, compressor work increases.
Lower compressor work is desirable for better overall system efficiency. The compressor work is highest for R404A
 Jignesh K. Vaghela / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160 159

and the lowest for R152a for the entire range of T E in this study. Compared to R134a, R1234yf has higher while
R152a has lower compressor work respectively. Fig. 7 shows the COP of R134a and its alternative refrigerants for
various evaporating temperatures for T C=55°c. As shown in fig. 7, with decrease in evaporating temperature, COP
decreases. Higher COP is always desirable parameter for refrigerants. The COP is highest for R152a and the lowest
for R404A for the entire range of TE in this study. Compared to R134a, R152a has higher while R1234yf has lower
COP respectively.

4.1. Thermodynamic cycle analysis Results relative to R134a:

The summary of the derived thermodynamic data for all mentioned alternative refrigerants is presented in Table
3. The data have been derived by taking R134a as a basic refrigerant.

Table. 3. Summary of Thermodynamic cycle analysis Evaporating temperature=7.2°c, Condenser temperature= 55°c, compressor inlet
temperature=35°c

REFRIGERANT %COP RELATIVE TO R134a

COP Refrigerating Pressure Compressor Discharge temp.

effect, RE (kJ/kg) ratio Work, W (kW) T2n (°c)

R290 -2.459 88.152 -17.931 2.562 -2.176

R600a 3.044 77.292 -4.224 -2.947 -12.053
R407C -7.884 7.616 -2.782 8.584 13.340
R410A -11.944 7.828 -12.999 13.581 16.178
R404A -14.715 -26.516 -13.733 17.297 -4.730
R134a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R152a 4.137 64.880 -0.784 -3.972 13.245
R1234yf -6.323 -56.530 -7.486 6.791 -16.083

x R290 and R600a (Hydrocarbons):

R290 has about 2.4% lower COP but has 17.9% lower pressure ratio compared to R134a. Hence compressor
efficiency is higher. Discharge temperature is about 2.1% lower. Main advantage of R290 is having low GWP i.e.
11.Main disadvantage is that it falls in A3 safety class. Flammability of R290 is very high but it can be used if safety
aspects are addressed and diminished.
R600a has about 3% higher COP and has 4.2% lower pressure ratio compared to R134a. Hence compressor
efficiency is higher. Discharge temperature is about 12% lower. Main advantage of R600a is having low GWP i.e. 3
only. Main disadvantages are that it falls in A3 safety class and requires higher SCD hence larger capacity of
compressor is required. It is also highly flammable but can be used if safety aspects of using R600a are addressed
and diminished.

x R407C, R410A and R404A (Zeotropic mixtures):

R407C, R410A and R404A have about 7.8%, 11.9% and 14.7% lower COP compared to R134a respectively.
They have about 2.7%, 12.9% and 13.7% lower pressure ratio compared to R134a respectively. Hence compressor
efficiency is higher. Discharge temperature is about 13.3% and 16.1% higher in case of R407C and R410A while it
is 4% lower in case of R404A. Main advantage of zeotropic mixtures are that they falls in A1 safety class. It is non-
flammable refrigerants. Main disadvantages are that they are high discharge pressure refrigerants and hence
pipelines connecting main components of AAC must be very reliable that can sustain high pressure. They have high
GWP also.

x R152a (Hydro Fluorocarbon):

R152a (1, 1-difluoroethane) can be possible substitute of R134a if safety measures are provided. Refrigerating
effect is 64.8% higher while compressor work is 3.9% lower compared to R134a. Discharge temperature is 13.2% is
160 Jignesh K. Vaghela / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 153 – 160

-higher but COP is 4.1% higher compared to R134a. Pressure ratio is almost similar to that of R134a. Main
advantages of R152a refrigerant are that it has low GWP and higher COP compared to R134a. Main disadvantage
are that it is flammable refrigerant and discharge temperature is higher than R134a.

x R1234yf (HydroFlouroOlefin):
R1234yf (2, 3, 3, 3-Tetrafluoropropene) is new categorical HFO refrigerant. Discharge temperature is lowest
among the above all refrigerants that is 16% lower compared R134a. R1234yf has lower COP of about 6.3%
compared to R134a. Pressure ratio is 7.4% lower compared to R134a. Main advantages of 1234yf refrigerant are
that it has very low GWP (i.e. 4) compared to R134a (i.e. 1430 GWP) and has lowest discharge temperature. Also it
can be substitute in the existing AAC system without any modification since SCD is close to R134a. Main
disadvantage is that; Since R1234yf is just newly launched; its price is high in commercial market.

5. Conclusions

Thermodynamic properties of different alternative refrigerants i.e. R290, R600a, R407C, R410A, R404A,
R152a and R1234yf are compared to R134a which is used in AAC system. R290 and R600a cannot be substituted in
AAC system due to high flammability issue. From thermodynamic property analysis it is clear that R407C, R410A
and R404A having very high saturation pressure so it cannot be used in current AAC system. R152a can be
substituted of R134a if and only if safety mitigations are provided. From thermodynamic cycle analysis, it is derived
that R1234yf has 6.3% lower COP compared to R134a; however it is best suitable alternative refrigerants as a drop
in substitute of R134a AAC system because it has very low GWP and can be substituted in the existing AAC system
with minimum modification. This study is useful to design engineers of AAC system for future aspect.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr. Ragesh G. Kapadia, Principal, SVMIT, Bharuch, Gujarat, India for their
valuable input during the course of this investigation. The author would also like to thank Mr. Chintan Lad, AP, S.S.
Agrawal College, Navsari; Mr. Harshit Trivedi, AP, ITM Universe, Vadodara; Mr. Ravi Parekh, Lecturer, KJP,
Bharuch and Mr. Dhaval Prajapati, Engineer, IPR, Ahmedabad for their help in this study.

References

[1] S.Y. Yoo, D.W. Lee, 2009. Experimental Study On Performance Of Automotive Air Conditioning System Using R-152a Refrigerant,
International Journal of Automotive Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, p. 313−320.
[2] Alpaslan Alkan, Murat Hosoz, 2010. Comparative performance of an automotive air conditioning system using fixed and variable
capacity compressors , International Journal of Refrigeration 33, p. 487–495.
[3] J. Steven Brown ,Samuel F. Yana-Motta , Piotr A. Domanski, 2002. Comparative analysis of an automotive air conditioning systems
operating with CO2 and R134a, International Journal of Refrigeration 25, p. 19–32.
[4] S. Devotta, A.V. Waghmare, N.N. Sawant, B.M. Domkundwar, 2001. Alternatives to HCFC-22 for air conditioners, Applied Thermal
Engineering 21, p. 703-715.
[5] Ghodbane M., 1999. An Investigation of R152a and Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in Mobile Air Conditioning, SAE International, SAE
technical paper series, 1999-01-0874.
[6] Pamela Reasor,Vikrant Aute ,Reinhard Radermacher, 2010. Refrigerant R1234yf Performance Comparison Investigation, International
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, Purdue e-Pubs.
[7] B. Takabi, H. Shokouhmand, 2015. Effects of Al2O3-Cu/water hybrid nanofluid on heat transfer and flow characteristics in turbulent
regime, International Journal of Modern Physics C; Vol. 26, No. 4, 1550047.
[8] B. Takabi, S. Salehi, 2014. Augmentation of the Heat Transfer Performance of a Sinusoidal Corrugated Enclosure by Employing
Hybrid Nanofluid, Advances in Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 6, 147059.
[9] Kakaç, S., A. Pramuanjaroenkij, 2016. Analysis of Convective Heat Transfer Enhancement by Nanofluids: Single-Phase and Two-
Phase Treatments, Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics, Vol. 89, No. 3, p. 758-793.
[10] http://nptel.iitk.ac.in/courses/Webcoursecontents/IIT%20Kharagpur/Ref%20and%20Air%20Cond/pdf/RAC%20Lecture%2 10.pdf