Accepted Manuscript

Title: Energy analysis of vapor compression refrigeration system using mixture

of R134a and LPG as refrigerant

Author: Jatinder Gill, Jagdev Singh

PII: S0140-7007(17)30298-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2017.08.001
Reference: JIJR 3719

To appear in: International Journal of Refrigeration

Received date: 15-5-2017

Revised date: 28-7-2017
Accepted date: 1-8-2017

Please cite this article as: Jatinder Gill, Jagdev Singh, Energy analysis of vapor compression
refrigeration system using mixture of R134a and LPG as refrigerant, International Journal of
Refrigeration (2017), http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2017.08.001.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will
undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its
final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could
affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Energy Analysis of Vapor Compression Refrigeration System using mixture of R134a and
LPG as refrigerant
Jatinder Gilla Jagdev Singhb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ph.D. Research scholar, IKGPTU, Kapurthala, Punjab, India.
Email:gillzy1985@gmail.com, Ph:+919781122223
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Department, BCET Gurdaspur, Punjab, India

Highlights

 Energy analysis was carried out on VCRS working with R134a/LPG and R134a.
 Energetic Performance parameters obtained with R134a/LPG are found better than R134a.
 Mathematical models for prediction of Energetic performance parameters were developed.
 Statistical performance analysis of Mathematical models was measured.
 Mathematical model predictions showed good agreement with the experimental results.

According to Kyoto protocol R134a must be phased out soon due to its high global warming potential of 1430. In this work, an
experimental investigation is carried out with R134a and LPG refrigerant mixture (composed of R134a and LPG in the ratio of
28:72 by weight) as an alternative to R134a in a vapor compression refrigeration system. Performance tests were performed under
different evaporator and condenser temperatures with controlled ambient conditions. The results showed that the R134a and LPG
refrigerant mixture has a higher coefficient of performance and lower compressor discharge temperature and pull down time as
compared to R134a by about 15.1-17.82%, 2.10- 13.86 % and 1.01-5.90 % respectively. Furthermore, the miscibility of
R134a/LPG with mineral oil as a lubricant was also found good.In conclusion, the mixing refrigerant R134a/LPG proposed in this
study seems to be an appropriate long-term candidate to replace R134a as a new generation refrigerant of VCRS, because of its
well environmentally acceptable properties and its favorable refrigeration performances.

Keywords: R134a, R134a/LPG, VCRS, Refrigeration Capacity, Compressor power, Coefficient of performance, Pull down time.

Cp Specific capacity,kJkg-1K-1 ρ Density, kgm-3

COP Coefficient of performance µ Dynamic viscosity, Pa-s
D Coil Diameter, mm ξ Mass flow rate, kg s-1
d Diameter of capillary tube, mm Subscript
GPW Global Warming Potential s
-1
h Enthalpy, kJ kg act actual
L Capillary tube length, m Comp Compressor
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas Cond Condenser
MR Refrigerant charge, g el Electrical
ODP Ozone depletion potential f fluid
P Pressure, Mpa fan Fan
Q Refrigeration capacity, kW
T Temperature K
Inlet Sub cooling, K
W Compressor power kW

1. Introduction

The vapor compression cycle is the most extensive system for a cold generation. It largely used in domestic, commercial, and
industrial refrigeration (including air conditioning systems). These systems typically present high energy consumption, see
(Buzelin et al., 2005; Harby,2017), and this use may increase in case of system failure. Thus reduction of energy consumption
is a major concern in vapor compression refrigeration systems (Harby et al., 2016). For the reduction of energy consumption
Page 1 of 22
1
in these systems, it is necessary to have efficient systems. Inside developing nation, most of the vapor compression
refrigeration system (VCRS), keep running on halogenated refrigerants because of their excellent thermodynamic as well as
thermophysical properties in addition to the low price. However, the international protocols (Montreal and Kyoto) restrict the
use of the halogenated refrigerants in the vapor compression-based refrigeration systems. As per Montreal Protocol 1987, the
use of Chlorofluorocarbons was completely stopped in most of the nations.However, Hydrochlorofluorocarbons refrigerants
can be used until 2040 in developing nations, and developed nations should phase out by 2030. Thus to meet the global
demand in refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, it is necessary to look for long-term alternatives to satisfy the objectives
of international protocols (Sarbu, 2014). As per the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, the particular emission of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants required to lessened possibly. Many developing
countries still uses R134a (HFC) in refrigeration devices due to low cost and excellent thermodynamic as well as
thermophysical properties. Moreover protecting against the specific loss of R134a by refrigeration devices seriously is not
very easily attainable and leakage of HFC refrigerants make a substantial contribution to the Global Warming (Sanchez et al.
2017). Consequently, to obtain environmentally safe practices, R134a is going to be prohibited quickly. Also, there are a few
additional difficulties connected with R134a for example, high global warming potential (GWP) of 1430 (IPCC, 2007; Rasti
et al.,2013) and its immiscible nature along with conventional mineral oils (Sekhar and Lal, 2005). For this reason,
Polyolester oil (POE) usually preferred for R134a systems. The high hygroscopic character of Polyolester oil requires strict
maintenance practices to prevent the moisture absorption, therefore; the need for long-term alternative refrigerants which
meet the objectives of international protocols is obvious (Mohanraj et al., 2011).
Many researchers have reported that liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) refrigerants are found to be energy efficient and
environment-friendly alternative option in vapor compression refrigeration systems. In the related work, Akash and Said
(2003) reported that liquefied petroleum gas (composed of R290, R600, and R600a, in the ratio of 30:55:15, by mass) showed
the better performance compared to that of R12. Furthermore, Fatouh and Kafafy,(2006), Ahamed et al. (2012), Srinivas et
al., (2014), Taiwo Babarinde et al., (2015) and Adelekan et al.,(2017) also reported that LPG showed the better
performance compared to that of R134a in domestic refrigerators . Although hydrocarbons(HC) including LPG have
flammability issues, they still used in the refrigeration system with charge limit of 150 g because of being not expensive, zero
ozone depletion potential, available in bulk and low global warming potential (Mohamed, 2015).Recently, workability of
hydrocarbons including Liquefied petroleum gas in existing refrigeration system, with or without modification and their high
energy efficiency has the primary justification for their application in the VCRS (Adelekan, D. S et al., 2017). Moreover, a
decrease in flammability of LPG (HC) may be accomplished just by blending along with R134a (HFC) (Yang et al., 2004).
HC and HFC refrigerant mixtures with small environmental impacts are considered as potential alternatives to phase out the
existing halogenated refrigerants (Sarbu, 2014). In addition to this HC/HFC blends have good miscibility with conventional
mineral oil (Avinash et al., 2005). The global warming potential (GWP) associated with HC/HFC blends is also less than one-
third of HFC if it used alone (Tashtoush et al., 2002).The literature in this paper refers that R134a (HFC) refrigerant has high
GWP, immiscibility with conventional mineral oils issues and LPG (HC) has flammability issue, and these problems can
overcome by mixing the R134a and LPG with an appropriate mass fraction. Therefore, the mixture composed of R134a and
LPG in the ratio of 28% of R134 and 72% of LPG considered as an alternative to R134a (Jatinder, Jagdev, 2017). LPG used
in this is a mixture of three hydrocarbons (30 % propane, 55 % n-butane, 15 % iso-butane). Fig. 1 shows the variation of
vapor pressure on saturation temperature for R134a, LPG, and R134a/LPG (28:72) refrigerants. It observed from the Fig 1
that the vapor pressure chrematistics of R134a/LPG (28:72) closely matched with the R134a over a wide range of saturation
temperatures. The properties of R134a/LPG in comparison with R134a tabulated in Table 1. The literature review brings out
the fact that many researchers (Ahamed et al.,2012; Srinivas et al., 2014; Mohamed, 2015; Taiwo et al., 2015) have studied
with LPG as an alternative to R12 and R134a in a vapor compression refrigeration system. However, the possibility of
replacing of R134a in the vapor compression refrigeration system with R134a/LPG (composed of 28% of R134a and 78% of
LPG) by energy analysis needs investigation. However, a study on energy analysis of vapor compression refrigeration system

Page 2 of 22
2
 using R134a/LPG (28:72) as a refrigerant is not available in the literature.Thus the present study was carried out to explore
the possibility of using above mentioned R134a/LPG mixture with various mass charges (108, 118, and 128 g) by energetic
performance. The influence of evaporator temperature and condenser temperature on the compressor power consumption, the
refrigeration capacity, the COP, the discharge temperature and the pull-down time of the vapor compression refrigeration
system under continuous running operating mode had studied when the ambient temperature maintained at 33 ± 1 0C.

2. Experimental setup desription and procedure

In the present study, the experimental set-up of the vapor compression refrigeration system with the capillary tube as an expansion
device shown in Fig 2. Furthermore the Pressure-Enthalpy diagram for vapor compression system shown in Fig 3.In the capillary
tube, the high-pressure refrigerant expanded to the low-pressure conditions of the evaporator. The low-pressure refrigerant enters
the evaporator immersed in the ethylene glycol contained in the calorimeter shell where an electric heater gave the heat load.The
heat load varied by using variac through which the electric power supplied to the heater. The refrigerant vapor coming out from
evaporator coil entered an open type compressor run with a three phase motor. The high-pressure vapor emerging from
compressor entered the air cooled condenser through an oil separator. A fan with speed controller provided to regulate the
condenser temperature. A thermistor senses the condenser temperature on the coil block and transmits this to the controller which
trims the fan motor output voltage so that an appropriate fan speed adjustment could make. The oil separator was used to remove
oil from refrigerant. Finally, the superheated vapor condensed to the state of the capillary tube inlet.The condensed refrigerant was
collected in a liquid receiver to ensure the continuous supply of refrigerant to the capillary tube. A drier-cum-filter was used to
remove any moisture or foreign particle in the circulating refrigerant.
A hand operated expansion valve was fitted between the condenser and the evaporator to bypass the excess refrigerant into the
evaporator to avoid the accumulation of refrigerant at the inlet of the capillary tube and to control the evaporator pressure. A
Coriolis mass flow meter was fitted after the drier filter to measure the mass flow rate of high-pressure liquid refrigerant. A sight
glass also mounted on visualizing the state of refrigerant entering the capillary tube. The refrigerant lines well insulated with
asbestos material on the high-pressure side and a low-pressure side. The pressure taps provided at critical locations viz., condenser
line, capillary inlet, suction line and capillary exit. The pressure gauges and T-type thermocouples at desired locations were used
to measure the refrigerant pressure and temperature respectively as shown in Fig 2.Hand shut-off valves were fitted before and
after to an every major component for ease of repairs, if any. The sub-cooling degree set by supplying the chilled water to sub-
cooler and preheater. The digital wattmeter (W) and Energy meter (E) connected to the compressor and electric heater for
measuring the power consumption of compressor and heater load respectively. To remove the offset consequence of change
associated with environment variations, the entire set up kept in a very temperature controlled room. The technical specifications
of the test rig and characteristics instruments are tabulated in Table 2 and 3 respectively. The test rig located inside the test
chamber, and then thoroughly tested before it subjected to the experiments under various conditions. Then, the system was flushed
with nitrogen gas to eliminate impurities, moisture and other foreign materials inside the system, which may affect the accuracy of
the experimental results. The experiments conducted according to ISO 8187 (1998). For comparing the performance of the
R134a/LPG and R134a systems, tests were carried out initially with R134a. Firstly, the system charged with 240 g of R134a by
the manufacturing specifications, and the energy and exergy performance tests conducted to evaluate the COP, the Exergy
efficiency and the total exergy destruction in the refrigeration system with a capillary tube length of 3.1 m.
The system started, and a load of the heater was in tune with the dimmer stat. All parameters carefully monitored, and data
recorded every 5 minutes. The system allowed operating at a steady state for the selected heater load. The steady state established
by ensuring that the condenser pressure, shell temperature of the calorimeter, the power consumption of the compressor and the
heater remains unchanged for at least for half hour. At this state, pressure, and temperature at different locations, heater load, and
energy meter reading as compressor power noted. The heater load reading was the refrigeration capacity at steady-state. The
actual COP of the system calculated as per the procedure followed by Sekhar and Lal (2005). The above practice repeated for
different head loads.After completion of the baseline tests with R134a, the refrigerant recovered, and the system purged with
Page 3 of 22
3
nitrogen gas and evacuated with a vacuum pump for 3 hours, and then polyol ester (POE) oil was replaced by mineral oil. Before
experimenting with R134/LPG, the length of the capillary tube and refrigerant charge optimized for maximum COP. To optimize
the capillary tube length four capillary tubes of 1.12 mm inner diameter with different lengths (3.1,4.1, 5.1 and 6.1 m) used in this
study (Fatouh and Kafafy,2006). During capillary tube length optimization, the test rig charged with 108,118 and 128g of
R134/LPG and the evaporator temperature maintained at -2◦C. As shown in Fig 4, the maximum COP observed with 5.1 m
capillary tube length and 118g of refrigerant charge.
Hence, 5.1 m capillary tube length and 118 g of refrigerant charge taken for the experimentation with R134a/LPG. Then, the tests
conducted with R134a also repeated with R134a/LPG for 118g. Since R134a/LPG (28:72) is zeotropic, thus liquid charging was
made, and the amount of charge has provided with an electronic weighing scale with an accuracy of ± 0.5 g and a charging kit.
For the study the effect of condenser temperature on the energetic performance analysis of refrigeration system using R134a and
R134a/LPG, performance tests again conducted with both refrigerants at different condenser temperatures keeping evaporator
temperature fixed. For the pull-down test, the calorimeter door was opened for 24 hours to achieve the thermal equilibrium of
brine solution with the surroundings. The doors closed once the system reaches the desired temperature, and the test started.
During the pull-down, test temperatures were recorded every 30 seconds until the brine solution temperature reaches 33 oC to
2oC.The tests repeated for at least five times to reduce experimental errors and the average considered. The variation in
experimental values from the mean value is within ±5%. The range of operating conditions of the experimental work tabulated in
Table 4.

2.1. Experimental validation

The mass flow of R134a/LPG refrigerant through adiabatic helical capillary tube depends on the diameter of the capillary (d),
capillary tube length (L), coil diameter (D), roughness, the inlet subcooling (ΔT sub), inlet pressure (P), density (ρf), viscosity (µf)
and heat capacity (CP). The mass flow rate of R134a/LPG refrigerant can be represented as a function of these parameters
(Jatinder and Jagdev,2017).

ξ = f (P, L ,d , D, ΔT sub , ρf , µf ,CP ) (1)

By performing the dimensional analysis the dimensionless parameters in π-terms have been developed using Buckingham Pi (π)
theorem, these π-terms are mentioned in Table 5. The mass flow rate can also be expressed in dimensionless form as
π5 = (π1, π2, π3, π4) (2)
Equation 2 can be further expressed in a nonlinear power law form as (Jatinder and Jagdev,2017).
π5 = 0.07029 (π10.0675. π20.5072 .π3-0.0165. π4-0.2879) (3)
Where π1 (refers to the cumulative effect of the refrigerant properties and the subcooling), π 2(relates to the effect of inlet
pressure), π3 (relates to the coiled effect of capillary tube), π 4 (relates to the effect of capillary tube geometry) and π5( refers
Reynolds number of refrigerant flow).For a description of π1, π2, π3, π4 and π5 terms see Table 5.
Expanding the dimensionless π5 terms in Eq. (3), the mass flow rate is obtained as shown in Eq. (4)
)
(4)
The experimental vapor-compression refrigeration system test rig consists four main components specifically the compressor,
condenser, capillary tube, and evaporator. These four elements are assumed to be employed in steady-state modes all the time
because the vapor compression refrigeration system operated in steady-state conditions through the experiments. For simplify
thermodynamic examination upon refrigeration system, the changes in both kinetic and potential energy of the R134a/LPG
refrigerant neglected given that they are incredibly small weighed against the work and heat transfer interactions. With this
simplification, the steady flow energy equation may be used to determine the refrigeration capacity of the evaporator on
refrigerant side as i.e.
– (kW) (5)
The refrigeration capacity can evaluate for the refrigerant at the heaters sides as
Page 4 of 22
4
Q = Qh (kW) (6)
-1
In Eq. (5), the refrigeration capacity for the refrigerant side utilizes and refrigerant enthalpies at the outlet (h1) (in kJKg ) and the
inlet of the evaporator (h4) (in kJKg-1), while that for the heaters side relies on the results of heater load measurements (Q h) (in
kW).

Assuming that the compression process is adiabatic, the compressor power absorbed by the refrigerant can determine from
– (kW) (7)
Moreover under steady state the electrical power consumed by the compressor ( Wel) is given as:
(8)
The coefficient of performance (COP) of the VCRS is given by Eq. (16)

COP = (9)

In Eq (8) and are compressor power consumption and the fan power consumption respectively and in a
commercial building, energy usage, fan energy consumption is usually only 9% of the total, and it is much less in residential
systems (Modera et al. ,1999).Thus the fan power requirement in the COP calculation is not included. Thus COP gave as:

COP = (10)

From Eqs. (6) & (9), then actual COP can be expressed as

(11)

Thus from equations (4), (5), (7) (8) (11), the Wcomp, Q, and COP can further be expressed as:
– (12)

– (13)

– )}

(14)

The equations (12-13) served as a mathematical models for WComp, Q and COP estimation in this study.
The accuracy of measurements has been checked, by comparing the actual COP and COP obtained by a mathematical model. Fig
5 demonstrates that the most of the COP predictions lie within the ±5% error band with respect to the actual COP.The statistical
performance analysis of COP predictions has also carried out regarding the absolute fraction of variance (R2), root mean square
error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) to predict the accuracy of experimental measurements.The result
reported that statistical analysis of COP predictions brings out the absolute fraction of variance (R2) of 0.956, a root mean square
error (RMSE) of 0.01679 and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 0.606 % with the experimental data this ensure the
accuracy of measurements. Detailed definitions of R2, RMSE, and MAPE can found in Jatinder and Jagdev (2017).

2.2. Uncertainty analysis

The uncertainty analysis for the calculated parameter of the refrigeration system, namely Q, Wcomp, and COP was performed using
the method given by Moffat (1988). According to this approach, the function R assumed to calculated from a set of totally N
measurements (independent variables) represented by

Page 5 of 22
5
 )
Then the uncertainty of the result R can be determined by combining uncertainties of individual terms using a root-sum-square
method, i.e.

(15)

By using the accuracies for various measured variables presented in Table 3, the uncertainties of the calculated parameter
determined with the evaluation of Eqs. (4)-(14) in Eq. (15). The total uncertainty in Q, Wcomp, and COP estimated as 2.72%,
2.91%, and 3.49% respectively

3. Results and Discussions

By adopting the test procedure described above the energy analysis of vapor compression refrigeration systems using R134a and
R134a/LPG was experimentally evaluated with parameters such as the compressor power consumption, the refrigeration capacity,
the compressor discharge temperature, the COP and the pull-down time at operating conditions as mentioned in Table 4. The
relevant performance characteristics of both refrigerants in vapor compression refrigeration systems were tabulated in Table 6 to
obtain data for R134a replacement with R134a / LPG (28:72).
Fig 6.shows comparison of the compressor power consumption of R134a (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) and R134a/LPG
(118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) refrigeration systems at various evaporator and condenser temperatures. It is evident that for
keeping condenser temperature constant as evaporator temperature increase, there is an increase in the compressor suction
temperature as a result of which the enthalpy difference across the compressor (compression work) decreases and at the same time
the mass flow refrigerant in the compressor increases. The cumulative effect of decreases in the compression work and increases
in the mass flow rate increases the compressor power consumption. This fact proved in Fig 6 in which the compressor power
requirement of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length) and R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length) systems
enhanced by 14.10% and 17.89% respectively with increases in the evaporator temperature from -15 to -2 ˚C for fixed condenser
of 35 ˚C. Furthermore, it is evident that by keeping evaporator temperature constant as condenser temperature increase there is an
increase in the compression ratio as a result of which the enthalpy difference across the compressor (compression work) increases
and at the same time mass flow rate of refrigerant in the compressor decreases insignificantly. The cumulative effect of increases
in the compression work and significant reductions in the mass flow rate increases the compressor power consumption. This fact
proved in Fig 6 in which the compressor power requirement of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length) and R134a/LPG
(118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length) systems enhanced by 2.74 % and 3.12 % respectively with increases in the condenser
temperature from 35-40 ˚C for fixed evaporator temperature of -2˚C. A similar trend has been reported by Mohanraj (2013).Table
7 summarized that the compressor power consumption of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) system found lower
than R134a/LPG (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 3.83-8.08 % over the entire range of evaporator and
condenser temperature in this study due to lesser work of compression.
Fig 7 shows a comparison of the refrigeration capacity of R134a (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) and R134a/LPG (118g,
5.1m of capillary tube length) refrigeration systems at various evaporator and condenser temperatures. It is evident that for
keeping condenser temperature constant as evaporator temperature increase, there is a growth in enthalpy difference across the
evaporator (refrigeration effect) due to the shape of saturation vapor pressure curve on Pressure-Enthalpy diagram of VCRS.
Furthermore, the mass flow rate of refrigerant in the evaporator increases with the increase in evaporator temperature. The
cumulative effect of growth in the refrigeration effect and increases in the mass flow rate of the refrigerant increases the
refrigeration capacity. This fact proved in Fig 7 in which the refrigeration capacity of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length)
and R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length) systems enhanced by 19.19 % and 24.4% respectively, with increases in
the evaporator temperature from -15˚C to -2 ˚C for the fixed condenser of 35 ˚C. Furthermore, it is evident that by keeping
evaporator temperature constant as condenser temperature increase there is a growth in enthalpy of the refrigerant at the inlet of

Page 6 of 22
6
the evaporator as a result of which the enthalpy difference across the evaporator (refrigeration effect) decreases.Also at the same
time, mass flow rate of refrigerant in the compressor decreases insignificantly. The cumulative effect of reductions in the
refrigeration effect and small reduction in the mass flow rate of refrigerant reduces the refrigeration capacity.

This fact proved in Fig 7 in which the refrigeration capacity of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length) and R134a/LPG
(118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length) systems decreased by 2.84 % and 2.73 % respectively with increases in the condenser
temperature from 35˚C to 40 ˚C for fixed evaporator temperature of -2˚C. A similar trend has been reported by Mohanraj (2013).
Table 7 summarized that the refrigeration capacity of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) system found higher than
R134a/LPG (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 7.04-11.41% over the entire range of evaporator and
condenser temperature in this study due to higher latent heat.

Figure 4 showed the change of COP of a vapor compression refrigeration system using R134a/LPG as a refrigerant with capillary
tube length and refrigerant charge when evaporator and condenser temperatures are kept constant at the values shown in the
figure. Observing Figure 4, it can be extracted that in the undercharged condition (108-118 g) the coefficient of performance
(COP) of the R134a/LPG (3.1-6.1 m of capillary tube length) system decreases with decreasing amount of refrigerant from the
result of reducing the mass flow rate of refrigerant and refrigeration capacity (Boeng J, Melo) . It also observed from the Fig 4
that in overcharged condition (118-128g) the coefficient of performance of R134a/LPG (3.1-6.1 m of capillary tube length)
system again gradually decreases with increasing refrigerant charge due to continuously increasing the power consumption and
the reduction of the refrigeration capacity resulting from overcharging (Boeng and Melo, 2014). For fixed evaporator and
condenser temperatures of -2˚C and 35˚C respectively, the maximum value of COP observed for R134a/LPG (118, 5.1m of
capillary tube length) system and it is 15.2 % greater than that of R134a. Hence 5.1 m and 118 g observed as optimized capillary
tube length and refrigerant charge respectively in this study.
Fig 8 compared the COP of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length) and R134/LPG (118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length)
systems for different evaporator and condenser temperatures. It is evident that for keeping condenser temperature constant as
evaporator temperature increase, there is grown in refrigeration capacity and decreases in the compression work as a result of
which COP increases. This fact proved in Fig 8 in which the COP of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length) and
R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length) systems increased by 3.26% and 5.15% respectively with increases in the
evaporator temperature from -15˚C to -2 ˚C for fixed condenser temperature of 35˚C. Furthermore, it is evident that for keeping
evaporator temperature constant as condenser temperature increase there is a decrease in refrigeration capacity and increases in the
compression work as a result of which COP falls. This fact proved by Fig 8 in which the COP of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary
tube length) and R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length) systems decreased by 5.36% and 5.61% respectively with
increases in the condenser temperature from 35˚C to 40˚C for fixed evaporator temperature of -2˚C. A similar trend has been
reported by Mohanraj (2013).Table 7 summarized that the coefficient of performance of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary
tube length) system found higher than R134a/LPG (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 15.1-17.82% over the
entire range of evaporator and condenser temperature in this study due to higher refrigeration capacity and lesser work of
compression respectively.
Fig 9 shows that the pull-down time of about 95 min was required to reach the desired temperature (2˚C) for R134a (240g, 3.1 m
of capillary tube length) and the pull down time required for R134a/LPG (108-128g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) were about 93,
86 and 82 min, for 108, 118 and 128 g respectively. Thus the pull-down time required for R134a/LPG(108-128g, 5.1m of
capillary tube length) lower than R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length) by about 2.10%, 9.47 % and 13.86 % for
108,118and 128 g respectively, due to its high latent heat of vaporization.

Page 7 of 22
7
Fig 10 shows a comparison of the compressor discharge temperature of R134a (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) and
R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) refrigeration systems at various evaporator and condenser temperatures. It is
evident that for keeping condenser temperature constant as evaporator temperature increase, there is a decrease in the compression
work due to decreases in the compression ratio as a result of which discharge temperature falls. The above fact proved in Fig in
which the compressor discharge temperature of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of capillary tube length) and R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1 m of
capillary tube length) systems decreased by 8.55˚C and 11.23˚C respectively with increases in the evaporator temperature from
-15˚ to -2 ˚C for fixed condenser temperature of 35˚C. A similar trend has been reported by Mohanraj (2013).
Table 7 summarized that the compressor discharge temperature of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) system found
lower than R134a/LPG (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 1.01-5.90 % over the entire range of evaporator and
condenser temperature in this study due to lesser compression work. Thus with R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length)
system, extended compressor life may expect.Furthermore, for keeping evaporator temperature constant as condenser temperature
increase, there is an increase in the compression work due increase in the compression ratio as result of which discharge
temperature increases. The above fact proved in Fig 10 in which the compressor discharge temperature of R134a (240g, 3.1 m of
capillary tube length) and R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1 m of capillary tube length) systems increased by 16.5˚C and 17.31˚C
respectively with increases in the condenser temperature from 35˚C to 40 ˚C for fixed evaporator temperature of -2˚C.

Figs 11-12, compared the mathematical model predictions for the Wcomp, and Q of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1 of capillary tube length)
refrigeration system with the experimental values, in which the straight line represents the experimental results with the ±5%
error band.Figs 11-12 demonstrates that the most of the mathematical model predictions lie within the ±5% error band with
respect to the experimental data.The statistical performance analysis of mathematical model was also carried out regarding the
absolute fraction of variance (R2), root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).The result
reported that statistical analysis of mathematical model brings out the absolute fraction of variance (R2) of 0.9061, a root mean
square error (RMSE) of 5.11 W along with mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 2.61 % with the experimental data.The
comparison of mathematical model predictions and experimental results of R134a/LPG tabulated in Table 8.
Fig 57, compared the mathematical model predictions for the refrigeration capacity (Q) of R134a/LPG (108-128g,5.1 m capillary
tube length) system with the experimental values.The statistical analysis of mathematical model predictions for Q brings out the
absolute fraction of variance (R2) of 0.912, a root mean square error (RMSE) of 6.65 W and mean absolute percentage error
(MAPE) of 1.93 % with the experimental data.The above-reported results prove that fact the mathematical model predictions of
Wcomp and Q yield good agreement with the experimental values.

3.1. Mixture behavior

Since the R134a/LPG mixture is zeotropic, thus at the beginning of the evaporator coil, the mixture is mostly liquid with a few
bubbles in it and somewhere in the middle of the coil; the mixture will become part liquid and part vapor. Furthermore, at the end
of the coil, the most of the refrigerant mixture will become vapor. This may cause significant temperature variation along the
evaporator coil which may result in the three regions namely colder region, average temperature region and the warm region as
shown in Fig 13(a). As the evaporator coil operates uneven frost formation may occur in the colder region of evaporator coil as
shown in Fig 13(b). Thus it may affect the performance of the evaporator coil. Moreover, for the better performance of the
evaporator, temperature difference across the evaporator coil must be within 3-40C as mentioned by Sekhar et al. (2004).Thus, the
temperature at inlet and outlet of the evaporator was measured during steady state conditions by temperature sensors installed at
inlet and outlet of the evaporator coil. It observed that the temperature difference across the evaporator was found to be about 3 0C,
which confirmed that the zeotropic nature of R134a/LPG did not affect the evaporator performance. To conduct oil miscibility
test, initially the compressor charged with 240 ml of mineral oil as per manufacturer’s recommendation. After 1000 hours of
operation, the compressor removed from the system and oil drained from the compressor.

Page 8 of 22
8
About 40 ml of lubricant loss observed, which may occur during recovery of refrigerant from the system. Hence it is evidenced
that R134a/LPG is miscible and returns the oil to the compressor. The performance of the compressor working with R134a/LPG
was found to be good.

Conclusions

The Energy analysis of vapor compression refrigeration system (VCRS) using the mixture of R134a and LPG with mass fractions
of 28:72 as an alternative to R134a has been experimentally investigated and following conclusions are drawn.
 R134a/LPG demanded to lengthen of capillary tube and reduction in refrigerant charge by about 64.21% and 49.45
% respectively to achieve a maximum coefficient of performance.
 Compressor power consumption of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) system found lower than
R134a (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 3.83-8.08 % over the entire range of evaporator and
condenser temperature in this study due to lesser work of compression.
 Refrigeration capacity of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) system found higher than R134a (240g,
3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 7.04-11.41% over the entire range of evaporator and condenser
temperature in this study due to higher latent heat.
 The coefficient of performance of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) system found higher than R134a
(240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 15.1-17.82% over the entire range of evaporator and
condenser temperature in this study due to higher refrigeration capacity and lesser work of compression respectively.
 Pull-down time required for R134a/LPG (108-128g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) lower than R134a (240g, 3.1 m of
capillary tube length) by about 2.10- 13.86 %, due to its high latent heat of vaporization.
 Compressor discharge temperature of R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) system found lower than
R134a (240g, 3.1m of capillary tube length) system by about 1.01-5.90 % over the entire range of evaporator and
condenser temperature in this study due to lesser compression work. Thus with R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary
tube length) system, extended compressor life may expect.
 Temperature variation between the inlet and outlet conditions of the evaporator coil is found to be within 3 thus
temperature glide of R134a/LPG does not affect the evaporator performance.
 After 1000 hours of operation, about 40 ml of lubricant loss observed, which may occur during recovery of
refrigerant from the system. Hence it is concluded that R134a/LPG is miscible with mineral oil and returns the oil to
the compressor. The performance of the compressor working with R134a/LPG was found to be good.

In conclusion, the R134a/LPG (118g, 5.1m of capillary tube length) refrigeration system perform better than R134a (240g, 3.1m
of capillary tube length) refrigeration under similar experimental conditions used in this study from energy analysis point of view.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the IKG PTU, Kapurthala and BCET Gurdaspur for their excellent support.

Note
The authors declare no competing financial interest

References

Adelekan, D. S., Ohunakin, O. S., Babarinde, T. O., Odunfa, M. K., Leramo, R. O., Oyedepo, S. O., & Badejo, D.
C.,2017.Experimental performance of LPG refrigerant charges with varied concentration of TiO2 nano-lubricants in a
domestic refrigerator. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering.,9,55-61.

Page 9 of 22
9
Ahamed, J. U., Saidur, R., Masjuki, H. H., & Sattar, M. A.,2012.Energy and thermodynamic performance of LPG as an
alternative refrigerant to R-134a in a domestic refrigerator”, Energy Education, Science, and Technology Part A-Energy
Science and Research,29 (1),597-610.

Avinash, P., Jabaraj, D.B., Lal, D.M.,2005.Beyond for air conditioners – an outlook. IRHACE J., 20–23.

B.A. Akash, S.A. Said, 2003.Assessment of LPG as a possible alternative to R-12 in a domestic refrigerator. Energy
Conversation and Management. 44,381-388

Boeng J, Melo C.,2014.Mapping the energy consumption of household refrigerators by varying the refrigerant charge and the
expansion restriction. International Journal of Refrigeration., 41, 37–44.

Buzelin LOS, Amico SC, Vargas JVC, Parise JAR, 2005. Experimental development of an intelligent refrigeration system.
International Journal of Refrigeration. 28, 165–175.
Harby, K, 2017.Hydrocarbons and their mixtures as alternatives to environmental unfriendly halogenated refrigerants: An
updated overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 1247-1264.
Harby, K., Gebaly, D. R., Koura, N. S., & Hassan, M. S., 2016. Performance improvement of vapor compression cooling
systems using evaporative condenser: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 347-360.
IPCC. Climate change 2007. The physical science basis. The working group I contribution to the IPCC fourth assessment
report. Http: //www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-errata. pdf Accessed 4 May ,2013.

ISO, International Standard Organization, International Standard-8187, Household refrigerating appliances

(refrigerators/freezers) characteristics and test methods, International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland, 1991.
Jatinder Gill and Jagdev Singh.,2017.Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system approach to predict the mass flow rate of
R134a/LPG refrigerant for straight and helical coiled adiabatic capillary tubes in the vapor compression refrigeration system.
International Journal of Refrigeration.,78, 166-175.

M. Fatouh, M. El Kafafy,2006.Experimental evaluation of a domestic refrigerator working with LPG.Applied Thermal

Engineering, 26,1593– 1603.

Modera M, Xu T, Fesutel H, Matson N, Huizenga C, Bauman F, 1999. Efficient thermal energy distribution in commercial
buildings. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LBNL. ,41365.

Moffat, R. J., 1988.Describing the uncertainties in experimental results. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science., 1:3–17.
Mohamed El-Morsi, 2015.Energy and Exergy Analysis of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) as a drop in replacement for R134a
in domestic refrigerators, Energy, 86,344-353.

Mohanraj M, Muraleedharan C, Jayaraj S, 2011.A review of recent developments in new refrigerant mixtures for vapor
compression based refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump units. Int J Energy Res., 35 (8), 647–69.

Mohanraj, M.,2013. Energy performance assessment of R430A as a possible alternative refrigerant to R134a in domestic
refrigerators. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(5), 471-476.
P. Srinivas, P. Ravi Chandra, M. Ravi Kumar, N. Yogi Manash Reddy, 2014. Experimental investigation of LPG as
refrigerant in a domestic refrigerator, J. Mech. Eng. Res. Technol. 2 (1), 470-476.

Rasti, M., Aghamiri, S., & Hatamipour, M. S., 2013. Energy efficiency enhancement of a domestic refrigerator using R436A
and R600a as alternative refrigerants to R134a. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 74, 86-94.

Page 10 of 22
10
S.J. Sekhar, D.M. Lal, S. Renganaraynan, 2004. Improved energy efficiency for CFC domestic refrigerators retrofitted with
ozone friendly HFC134a/HC refrigerant mixture, Int. J. Thermal Sci., 43,307–314.

Sanchez, D., Cabello, R., Llopis, R., Arauzo, I., Catalán-Gil, J., & Torrella, E., 2017. Energy performance evaluation of
R1234yf, R1234ze (E), R600a, R290 and R152a as low-GWP R134a alternatives. International Journal of Refrigeration, 74,
267-280.
Sarbu, I., 2014. A review on substitution strategy of non-ecological refrigerants from vapour compression-based refrigeration,
air-conditioning and heat pump systems. International journal of refrigeration, 46, 123-141.
Sekhar S J, Lal DM.,2005.HFC134a/HC600a/HC290 mixture a retrofit for CFC12 systems, Int J Refrig., 28,735–743.
Taiwo Babarinde O. S., Ohunakin D. S., Adelekan S. A., Oyedepo AS., 2015.Experimental Study of LPG And R134a
Refrigerants in Vapor Compression Refrigeration. International Journal of Energy for a Clean Environment., 16 ( 1-4),71-80.

Tashtoush, B., Tahat, M., Shudeifat, M.A.,2002. Experimental study of new refrigerant mixtures to replace R12 in domestic
refrigerators. Applied Thermal Engineering.22,495–506.

Page 11 of 22
11
 1.2
R134a
R134a/LPG (28:72)
1 LPG

0.8
Vapor Pressure ( MPa)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Saturation Tempreature ( 0C)

Figure 1: Vapor pressure characteristics vs. saturation temperature.

Page 12 of 22
12
 Figure 2: Systematic diagram of Test Rig.

Figure 3: Pressure-Enthalpy (P-h) diagram of the vapor compression refrigeration system.

Page 13 of 22
13
 1.90
R134a/LPG (28:72), 108 g
R134a/LPG (28:72), 118 g
R134a/LPG (28:72), 128 g
1.85

1.80

1.75
COP

1.70
Capillary Tube Daimeter = 1.12 mm
Coil Daimeter = 90 mm
Ambient Temperature = 33±1oC
1.65
Evaporator Temperature = -2oC
Condensor Temperature =35±0.5oC

1.60
3.1 3.6 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.6 6.1
Cappilary Tube Length (m)
Figure 4: COP variation with capillary tube length and refrigerant charge
1.83
Mathematical Model
1.80
+5%
1.77 R2 = 0.9567
RSME = 0.01679
1.74 MAPE = 0.606 %
Predicted COP

1.71

1.68 -5%
1.65

1.62

1.59

1.56
1.56 1.59 1.62 1.65 1.68 1.71 1.74 1.77 1.80 1.83
Experimental COP
Figure 5: Comparison of
experimental 200 COP and predicted
R134a/LPG , TC=40 Deg
COP from a R134a, TC=40 Deg
mathematical
model. R134A, TC=35 Deg
190
R134a/LPG, TC=35 Deg
Compresser Power (W)

180

170

160

150

140
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 Page 14 of 22
14
Evaporator Temperture ( ˚C)
 Figure 6: Compressor power consumption variation of R134a and R134a/LPG with evaporator temperature.

340

R134a/LPG , TC=40 Deg

R134a, TC=40 Deg
320
R134A, TC=35 Deg
Refrigeration Capacity (W)

R134a/LPG, TC=35 Deg

300

280

260

240

220
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
Evaporator Temperture ( ˚C)

Figure 7: Refrigeration capacity variation of R134a and R134a/LPG with evaporator and condenser temperature.

Page 15 of 22
15
 2.05
R134a/LPG , TC=40 Deg
R134a, TC=40 Deg
R134A, TC=35 Deg
1.90 R134a/LPG, TC=35 Deg

1.75
COP

1.60

1.45

1.30
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2

Evaporator Temperature ( ˚C)

Figure 8: COP variation of R134a and R134a/LPG systems with evaporator temperature.

35
R134a, L = 3.1 m
30 R134a/LPG,108 g, L=5.1 m
R134a/LPG,118 g, L=5.1 m
Calorimeter Temperature (◦C)

R134a/LPG,128 g, L= 5.1 m
25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (Min.)

Figure 9: Pull down time variation of R134a and R34a/LPG (108,118,128 g).

Page 16 of 22
16
 100
R134a/LPG , TC=40 Deg
R134a, TC=40 Deg
R134A, TC=35 Deg
95 R134a/LPG, TC=35 Deg

Discharge Temperature (˚C) 90

85

80

75

70

65
-15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3
Evaporator Temperture ( ˚C)

Figure 10: Compressor discharge temperature variation of R134a and R134a/LPG with evaporator temperature.

187
183 Mathematical Model

179
+5%
175 R2 = 0.92534
171 RSME = 4.375 W
Predicted WComp (W)

167 MAPE = 2.243 %

163
-5%
159
155
151
147
143
139
135
135 139 143 147 151 155 159 163 167 171 175 179 183 187
Experimental WComp (W)

Figure 11: The Mathematical model predictions for the compressor power vs. experimental values

Page 17 of 22
17
 314
307 Mathematical Model

300
293
+5%
R2 = 0.9369
RSME = 7.688 W

Predicted Q (W)
286
MAPE = 2.301 %
279
-5%
272
265
258
251
244
237
230
230 237 244 251 258 265 272 279 286 293 300 307 314
Experimental Q (W)
Figure 12: The Mathematical model predictions for the refrigeration capacity vs. experimental values

(a)

(b)

Figure 13: a) Zeotropic refrigerant condition at a different section of evaporator coil b) Frost formation in the evaporator coil.

Table 1: Properties of the refrigerant

Liquid
Latent Molecular Critical Boiling
phase GWP
Refrigerant References heat Weight temperature ODP point
Density
(kJKg-1) (kgkmol-1) (°C) (°C)
(kgm-3)
R134a/LPG REFPROP ,
301.11 720.02 61.297 121.08 0 -33.15 367
(28:72) (CWR, 2012)
REFPROP ,
R134a 216.17 1376.7 102.03 101.06 0 -26.07 1430
(CWR, 2012)

Page 18 of 22
18
Component R134a system R134a/LPG system
Compressor Hermetically sealed Reciprocating Type Hermetically sealed Reciprocating Type

Oil Polyester Mineral

Oil charge 270 cc 270 cc
Specification 435W, 2.24A, 50Hz, 230V, AC. 435 W, 2.24A, 50Hz, 230V, AC
Condenser Plate fin and tube type Plate fin and tube type
Cooling medium Air cooled Air cooled
Copper tube outer diameter 10 mm 10 mm
Copper tube length 13.2 m 13.2 m
Condenser fan 24 W, 1440 rpm 24 W, 1440 rpm
Evaporator Copper tube Copper tube
Outer diameter 10 mm, 10 mm
Tube length 3.05 m 3.05 m
Capillary tube Copper tube Copper tube
Inner diameter 1.12 mm, 1.12 mm,
Capillary tube length 3.1 m 3.1 – 6.1 m
Refrigerant HFC HFC/HC
Type R134a R134a/LPG (28:72)
Charge 240 g 108 -128 g
Table 2: Technical specifications of the experimental test rig

Measured variable Instrument Range Accuracy

Refrigerant -100 to 600 kPa
Bourdon gauge ±0.8% , ±0.5%
Pressure 0– 2000 kPa
Refrigerant T type,
-50 to1500 C ± 0.3°C
temperature Thermocouple
Coriolis flow
Refrigerant flow rate 0- 20 g s-1 ±0.2%
meter
Heater load Digital Energy Meter 0.001-1000 kWh ± 0.1%
Digital
Compressor power 0-1999 W ±0.2%
Wattmeter
Table 3- Characteristics of instrumentation

Table 4–Range of operating conditions in the experimental tests and capillary tube specifications.

Controlled parameters Range values

Refrigerant R134a R134a/LPG

Evaporator temperature (0C) -15 to -2 -15 to -2
Capillary tube Length (L ,m) 3.1 3.1,4.1,5.1,6.1
Ambient Temperature(0C) 33 ± 1 33 ± 1
Capillary Tube Diameter (d, mm) 1.12 1.12
Condenser Temperature ( ,0C) 35 to 40 35 to 40
Coil diameter (D, mm) 90 90
Refrigerant charged (g) 240 108-128
Optimized capillary tube length(m) 3.1 5.1

Table 5: Description of π-terms and dimensionless parameters (Jatinder and Jagdev, 2017).

π-terms Parameters Description

π1 Inlet Subcooling

Page 19 of 22
19
 π2 Inlet pressure

π3 Coiling effect

π4 Capillary tube geometry effect

π5 Reynolds number

Table 6: Comparison of performance parameters of R134a/LPG and R134a refrigerants.

R134a/LPG R134a
MR TE
Sr.No. WComp Q Td WComp Q Td
(g) (˚C) COP COP
(W) (W) (˚C) (W) (W) (˚C)
TC =35˚C
1 118 -15 147.51 261.82 1.775 80.39 159.50 240.85 1.510 82.14
2 118 -13 150.37 267.65 1.787 78.40 161.20 246.64 1.530 81.12
3 118 -10 154.24 276.85 1.795 76.70 165.50 255.37 1.543 79.10
4 118 -8 158.10 284.58 1.800 75.42 170.50 264.28 1.550 76.30
5 118 -6 162.23 294.44 1.815 74.34 174.20 271.75 1.560 75.10
6 118 -5 168.30 306.30 1.820 72.52 175.00 274.93 1.571 74.16
7 118 -2 173.89 318.74 1.833 69.26 182.00 289.00 1.588 73.60
TC =40˚C
1 118 -15 152.12 254.85 1.675 93.20 165.50 235.85 1.425 95.80
2 118 -13 155.08 261.53 1.686 92.27 168.20 240.64 1.431 94.30
3 118 -10 159.07 269.48 1.694 91.39 171.50 250.37 1.460 93.14
4 118 -8 163.05 277.00 1.699 90.88 175.50 256.28 1.460 92.10
5 118 -6 167.31 286.61 1.713 88.26 179.20 263.75 1.472 91.60
6 118 -5 169.57 292.15 1.723 87.45 184.00 272.93 1.483 90.66
7 118 -2 179.34 310.25 1.730 87.00 187.00 281.00 1.503 89.55

Sr.No MR TE
(g) (˚C)

(%) (%) (%) (%)

TC =35˚C

1 118 -15 7.52 17.55 2.13

8.71

2 118 -13 8.52 6.72 16.80 3.35

3 118 -10 8.41 6.81 16.33 3.03

Page 20 of 22
20
4 118 -8 7.68 7.27 16.13 1.15

5 118 -6 8.35 6.87 16.35 1.01

6 118 -5 11.41 3.83 15.85 2.21

7 118 -2 10.29 4.46 15.43 5.90

TC =40˚C

1 118 -15 8.06 8.08 17.54 2.71

2 118 -13 8.68 7.80 17.82 2.15

3 118 -10 7.63 7.25 16.03 1.88

4 118 -8 8.08 7.09 16.37 1.32

5 118 -6 8.67 6.64 16.37 3.65

6 118 -5 7.04 7.84 16.18 3.54

7 118 -2 10.41 4.10 15.10 2.85

Table 7: Performance Parameter variations of R134a/LPG taking R134a as a baseline.

Performance parameters of R134a/LPG higher than R134a

Performance parameters of R134a/LPG lower than R134a

Table 8: Comparison of mathematical model predictions and experimental results of R134a/LPG refrigerant

Experimental Mathematical Experimental Mathematical Mathematical

Sr. MR TE Experimental
WComp Model Q Model Model
No. (g) (˚C) COP
(W) WComp (W) (W) Q (W) COP
R134a/LPG, TC =35˚C
1 118 -15 147.50 154.76 261.82 270.02 1.775 1.745
2 118 -13 150.37 156.65 267.65 276.09 1.787 1.762
3 118 -10 154.23 157.18 276.85 279.00 1.795 1.775

21
Page 21 of 22
4 118 -8 158.10 158.21 284.58 281.63 1.800 1.780
5 118 -6 162.23 164.55 294.44 296.53 1.815 1.802
6 118 -5 168.30 170.03 306.30 310.89 1.820 1.828
7 118 -2 173.89 173.42 318.74 318.77 1.833 1.838
R134a/LPG, TC =40˚C
1 118 -15 152.12 150.89 254.84 251.95 1.675 1.670
2 118 -13 155.07 152.27 261.52 259.58 1.686 1.705
3 118 -10 159.06 160.22 269.47 274.12 1.694 1.711
4 118 -8 163.05 164.34 277.00 284.62 1.699 1.732
5 118 -6 167.31 166.24 286.60 291.82 1.713 1.755
6 118 -5 169.57 168.52 292.14 297.84 1.723 1.767
7 118 -2 179.33 176.29 310.25 319.22 1.730 1.811

22
Page 22 of 22