Table of Contents

Vol. 1, No. 2 HVAC&R Research April 1995

Comprehensive Thermodynamic Approach

to Modeling Refrigerant-Lubricating
Oil Mixtures
John R. Thome, D.Phil.
Member ASHRAE

A comprehensive thermodynamic approach for modeling mixtures of refrigerants and lubricating oils is
presented. The new approach includes generalized methods for predicting the following thermodynamic
properties of refrigerant-oil mixtures: bubble point temperatures, local oil concentrations, liquid specific
heats and enthalpy changes during evaporation. Using this comprehensive method, heat release (enthalpy)
curves are easily generated and also the effect of oil on the LMTD (log mean temperature difference) of
evaporators can be modeled. Importantly, the definition of the boiling heat-transfer coefficient based on
the bubble point temperature is included in the method. This new approach provides the basis for advances
to be made in two-phase refrigeration heat-transfer research and design.

INTRODUCTION
Buildup of lubricating oil in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump systems is perhaps the oldest
unresolved problem vexing industry. It represents a serious roadblock to accurately modeling these systems
under actual operating conditions, i.e. with anywhere from negligible oil up to as much as 5% (by mass) oil
in the refrigerant charge. Oil also creates considerable uncertainty in the integrity of test results by
adversely affecting energy balances, local saturation temperatures implied from pressure measurements,
two-phase pressure drops, and also heat-transfer coefficients and equipment performance data derived from
these tests. To respond to this problem, a new comprehensive method for modeling refrigerant-oil mixtures
has been developed, namely the “Thermodynamic approach,” which can be used as an alternative to the
traditional “Oil contamination approach” in dealing with these mixtures. The new approach not only allows
one to analyze a particular oil's effect on system design and operation but it also provides an improved ther-
modynamic method for giving more accuracy when reducing raw experimental test data to heat-transfer
coefficients or other design parameters. Hence, this new thermodynamic approach is recommended for use
in all new refrigerant-oil heat-transfer studies, and can also be used to reevaluate old test data for improved
results.
Oil adversely affects the optimal performance of various system components: evaporator, condenser,
compressor, expansion device and control valve. The largest effect of oil is on evaporator performance,
where it can significantly alter boiling heat-transfer coefficients and reduce the LMTD, lowering the effec-
tive refrigeration capacity of the system. Local oil concentrations can become as high as 70 to 80% (by
mass) oil in the unevaporated liquid leaving an evaporator, but normally will not exceed 50% (by mass) oil
except in a very small portion of the evaporator.

Old “Oil Contamination Approach”

Historically, oil has been treated as a contaminant in an otherwise pure refrigerant, similar to moisture
and other trace impurities. Thus, pure refrigerant saturation temperatures and properties have been assumed
for determining heat-transfer coefficients and other performance data from raw test data and also in design
correlations. In essence, the oil concentration has been transformed into an independent contamination
parameter. In practice, this means that during flow boiling experiments and evaporator bench tests with oil
present, the saturation temperature of the pure refrigerant is utilized to determine the heat-transfer coeffi-

John Thome is a visiting professor at the Laboratory for Industrial Energetics (LENI), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne,
Switzerland.

110
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1995 111

cient and LMTD, where Tsat is determined from the vapor pressure curve of the pure refrigerant at the local
pressure.
This simple approach is not thermodynamically correct; it ignores the effects of oil on boiling point tem-
peratures, specific heats, enthalpies, etc. that, in turn, alter the calculations for energy balances, local boil-
ing temperature differences and vapor qualities, log-mean temperature differences, etc. in the data
reduction process that is used (1) to determine heat-transfer coefficients and two-phase pressure drops and
(2) for the thermal design of evaporators and condensers. In addition, the oil contamination approach pre-
cludes introducing the type of oil and its physical properties in the calculations.

Comprehensive Thermodynamic Approach

Superior to the oil contamination approach is one that treats a refrigerant-oil mixture as a zeotropic mix-
ture with a temperature glide. This “Thermodynamic Approach” is the subject of this article. The thermo-
dynamic approach overcomes the negative aspects of the oil contamination approach mentioned above but
requires methods for determining boiling point temperatures and enthalpy changes of refrigerant-oil mix-
tures during their change of phase (evaporation and condensation). The additional complexity is not great
because the vapor pressure of oils is approximately one-millionth that of refrigerants and hence its concen-
tration in the vapor phase is negligible. Thus the vapor can be assumed to be pure refrigerant.
The negligible quantity of oil entering the vapor phase is verified by the standardized method prescribed
for determining oil concentrations in refrigerant samples in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.4. This standard
method for measuring oil concentrations by slowly evaporating away the refrigerant from a liquid refriger-
ant-oil mixture sample, including use of a vacuum pump and heating the sample to 150°C (302°F), gives
the same concentration as that determined from the masses of the components before mixing, and hence it
follows that only a trace amount of oil is lost to the vapor phase.
Previous work on thermodynamics of refrigerant-oil mixtures reported widely in the literature has cen-
tered on individual aspects of the problem (for instance, measurements of solubility curves, viscosity of the
mixtures, and vapor pressure curves for a refrigerant mixed with a specific grade and type of oil). The
present work aims to present a general approach for modeling refrigerant-oil mixtures, in response to the
large number of new refrigerants and refrigerant blends now becoming available, and the very wide selec-
tion of mineral and synthetic oils and viscosity grades now commonly used in industry.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF PHASE EQUILIBRIA

Before proceeding, a working knowledge of phase equilibria is required for understanding the thermo-
dynamics of refrigerant-oil mixtures; some elementary background is provided here. For more details on
phase equilibria and boiling of mixtures, see Chapter 12 in Collier and Thome (1994), and for a compre-
hensive chemical engineering treatment of phase equilibria refer to Smith, Block, and Hickman (1973) or
Smith and Van Ness (1987).

Phase Equilibrium Diagram

Phase equilibria of binary mixtures are represented on phase diagrams. Figure 1(a) depicts a phase dia-
gram for a binary mixture system at constant pressure. Temperature is plotted along the vertical axis; vapor
and liquid concentrations are plotted along the horizontal axis. The dew point line represents the dew point
temperatures of the mixtures Tdew, which is defined as the temperature at which a superheated vapor mix-
ture will first begin to condense upon cooling. The bubble point line represents the bubble point tempera-
tures of the mixtures Tbub, which is defined as the temperature at which a subcooled mixture will first begin
to evaporate upon heating. The equilibrium vapor concentration Y is that which corresponds to the liquid
concentration X at the same temperature.
In Figure 1(a) the saturation temperature of one pure component is on the left vertical axis while that of
the second component is on the right axis. Evaporation processes ideally move along the bubble point line
while condensing processes move along the dew point line. For the present situation, a refrigerant-oil mix-
ture can be considered as a zeotropic binary mixture where one component is the refrigerant (e.g. R-134a, R-
123, ammonia) and the second component is the oil, over the range that these fluids are miscible.
On a phase diagram, the concentrations can be in units of mass fraction (sometimes called weight frac-
tion), mole fraction, or volume fraction. The mass fraction of a component is defined as its mass in pounds
112 HVAC&R RESEARCH

(a) Binary mixture (b) Approximate diagram for R-134a/oil

at 343 kPa (49.7 psia)
Figure 1. Phase equilibrium diagram at constant pressure

or kilograms divided by the total mass of the mixture in pounds or kilograms, respectively, in a particular
phase (liquid or vapor).
Figure 1(b) depicts an approximate phase diagram for R-134a mixed with an ester-type lubricating oil at
343 kPa (49.7 psia). In this case, the horizontal axis shows the oil concentration in % (by mass) oil. At the
left axis of the diagram the saturation temperature of pure R-134a is 4.4°C (40°F) while at the right axis the
dew and bubble point temperatures rise rapidly towards the saturation temperature of the pure oil (not
shown), which is in the neighborhood of 350°C (662°F). The bubble point curve is quite flat at low oil con-
centrations and starts to rise rapidly at values above 70% (by mass) oil. The dew point curve, which repre-
sents the oil concentration in the vapor phase, is not well-known for refrigerant-oil mixtures and was drawn
assuming negligible amounts of oil enter the vapor phase at liquid oil concentrations below 70% (by mass).
Above this value its concentration is represented by proration towards the pure oil value.

BUBBLE POINT TEMPERATURES OF REFRIGERANT-OIL MIXTURES

An accurate and reliable method for prediction of bubble point temperatures of refrigerant-oil mixtures
as a function of oil concentration and pressure is a fundamental building block for the development of the
thermodynamic approach with refrigerant-oil mixtures.

Generalized Method
Takaishi and Oguchi (1987) presented an empirical equation for the vapor pressure curve of R-22 mixed
with synthetic alkyl benzene oil over the concentration range from 0 to 70% (by mass) oil (0 to 0.70 mass
fraction oil) and a temperature span from 10 to 60°C (50 to 140°F). Their empirical vapor pressure equa-
tion for predicting the bubble point temperature for a given saturation pressure and oil concentration was
presented as:
A (woil )
T bub = --------------------------------------------
- (1)
ln ( Psat ) – B ( woil )

where Psat is the saturation pressure in MPa and Tbub is the bubble point temperature in K. The oil concen-
tration in the liquid is given by woil , which is in mass fraction. A(woil ) and B(woil ) were given by the follow-
ing expressions:

A ( woil ) = a 0 + a 1 w oil + a 2 w oil3 + a 3 w oil5 + a 4 w oil 7 (2)

VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1995 113

B ( woil ) = b 0 + b 1 w oil + b 2 w oil3 + b 3 w oil5 + b 4 w oil 7 (3)

where the values of the empirical constants are:

a0 = −2394.5 b0 = 8.0736
a1 = 182.52 b1 = −0.72212
a2 = −724.21 b2 = 2.3914
a3 = 3868.0 b3 = −13.779
a4 = −5268.9 b4 = 17.066
The above method has been generalized by Thome (1992a) for refrigerants other than R-22 and also
temperatures outside the original range. This was accomplished by replacing the values of a0 and b0, which
are used to model pure R-22, with different values determined for the different refrigerants, such as R-
134a. The vapor pressure of oil is very small and hence the effect of the type of oil on the empirical con-
stants a1 to a4 and b1 to b4 was found to be small for oil concentrations below 0.50 [50% (by mass) oil] and
relatively minor up to 0.70 [70% (by mass) oil]. Above this the deviations become large. Rather than using
fixed values of a0 and b0 for a particular pure refrigerant, another important improvement is to use an accu-
rate pure refrigerant vapor pressure equation to determine the values of a0 and b0 at the design or test pres-
sure rather than the simple, less accurate, “Antoine type” of expression used in Equation (1).
Evaluating Equation (1) at 0.55 MPa (5.5 bar or 79.8 psia) provides the values for Table 1, which
depicts the effect of oil concentration on the bubble point temperature. In addition, the right column shows
the difference between the bubble point temperatures of the mixtures and the saturation temperature of pure
R-22 at this pressure.
Importantly, this new generalized method has been verified in Thome (1992a) against vapor pressure
data for the following refrigerant-oil combinations (refer to the Appendix for more information):
R-22/synthetic alkyl benzene oil
R-114/synthetic alkyl benzene oil
R-113/four types of oil (3GS, 4GS, 5GS, RCO-2)
R-134a/synthetic ester oil
R-134a/PAG oil
R-134a/polyglycol oil

Table 1. Bubble Point Temperatures of R-22/Oil Mixtures at

550 kPa (80 psia) Predicted by Equation (1)
Oil Mass Fraction woil Tbub (°C) Tbub − TR-22 (°C)
0.0 3.00 0.0
0.01 3.01 0.02
0.02 3.03 0.04
0.03 3.04 0.05
0.04 3.06 0.07
0.05 3.09 0.10
0.06 3.11 0.12
0.07 3.13 0.14
0.08 3.15 0.16
0.09 3.17 0.18
0.10 3.19 0.20
0.20 3.44 0.45
0.30 3.79 0.80
0.40 4.31 1.32
0.50 5.25 2.26
0.60 7.22 4.23
0.70 11.53 8.54
0.80 19.95* 16.96*
114 HVAC&R RESEARCH

Table 1. Bubble Point Temperatures of R-22/Oil Mixtures at

550 kPa (80 psia) Predicted by Equation (1)
Oil Mass Fraction woil Tbub (°C) Tbub − TR-22 (°C)
* Extrapolated value.

Of course, by statistically fitting new constants to Equations (2) and (3) for each specific set of solubility
test data, more accuracy can be achieved; however, such a specific approach cannot be used as a general
application method for any refrigerant and oil combination.
Another important point is that regardless of the inlet oil concentration before the expansion device (nor-
mally in range from 0 to 5% (by mass) oil), 90% or more of the evaporator will always have local concen-
trations less than 50% (by mass) oil [this is evident from evaluation of Equation (5) presented in the next
section for the complete range of local vapor qualities]. Consequently, the method given by Equations (1),
(2), and (3) is proposed for general use in research and industry.

HEAT RELEASE (ENTHALPY) CURVES FOR EVAPORATION

OF REFRIGERANT-OIL MIXTURES
During evaporation of a refrigerant-oil mixture inside a direct expansion evaporator, the local bubble
point temperature increases as the concentration of the oil in the liquid phase becomes richer along the tube
during the evaporation of refrigerant into the vapor phase. Similar observations may be made up through
the tube bundle of a flooded-type evaporator, on passage through a compact plate-type evaporator or in a
falling film evaporator. In order to determine the local liquid composition at some point in the evaporator,
a heat release (enthalpy) curve must first be prepared. This curve allows one to determine how much heat is
required to evaporate a mixture from some starting condition up to the desired local condition.

Local Vapor Quality

The local vapor quality x is that defined by the total mass of vapor (all refrigerant in the present case)
divided by the total mass of fluid (refrigerant plus oil). This is the correct thermodynamic definition of
vapor quality. It is not appropriate to define the vapor quality as the mass of refrigerant vapor divided by
the total mass of refrigerant when reporting test data (which is normally denoted in previous literature as
x R ) because this only perpetuates the confusion created by the oil contamination approach.

Heat Release (Enthalpy) Curve

The literature refers to the change in enthalpy of a mixture during evaporation or condensation by vari-
ous names—condensation curve, heat release curve, evaporation curve, cooling curve, and enthalpy curve.
The term “evaporation curve” is easily confused with “boiling curve” used in pool boiling research; thus
this name should be avoided. The most commonly used name is heat release curve, even though for boil-
ing, heat is actually added to the mixture, not released. For this reason, this terminology will be used here.
The local change in enthalpy dH of a mixture during evaporation is comprised of three contributions:
1. Latent heat to the fraction of liquid vaporized (dx );
2. Sensible heat to the fraction of fluid in the liquid phase (1− x ) heated to a higher bubble point tempera-
ture;
3. Sensible heat to the fraction of fluid in the vapor phase (x ) heated to a higher bubble point temperature.
In mathematical terms this is:

dH = h LV dx + (1 – x )dT bub (cp )L + dT bub (cp )V (4)

where
x = local vapor quality
hLV = latent heat of vaporization of the refrigerant
(cp )L = specific heat of the liquid refrigerant-oil mixture
(cp )V = specific heat of the pure refrigerant vapor
The values of (cp )L and (cp )V are a function of the local oil concentration and bubble point temperature
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1995 115

while hLV is a function of only the bubble point temperature. Equation (4) reduces to the latent heat for a
pure refrigerant.
A heat release curve is not actually determined as a curve, but instead as a series of points at a set inter-
val of temperature or vapor quality indicating the amount of heat absorbed by the fluid per unit mass. In
other words, dH is in J/kg or Btu/lb, relative to its inlet state together with the bubble point temperature and
vapor qualities that correspond to these points. At the inlet no heat has yet been added so the heat absorbed
is zero. Figure 2, adapted from Collier and Thome (1994), graphically depicts a heat release curve for an
evaporating zeotropic mixture. Temperature is plotted on the y-axis while the heat absorbed is plotted on
the x-axis. The vapor quality is shown at intervals along the curve. The bubble point temperatures corre-
sponding to points on the curve are read off the y-axis.

Local Oil Concentrations

Preparation of a heat release curve (and determination of local thermodynamic and transport properties)
requires knowledge of the local oil concentration. The liquid phase concentration of oil circulating in a
refrigeration system is a function of its location in the system. Thus, to unequivocally define this concentra-
tion, a point is chosen where all the circulating fluid is in the liquid phase, which occurs in the refrigerant
line between the condenser and the expansion device. The oil concentration at this location will be defined
as winlet. After the expansion device the local vapor quality will range from 0.10 to 0.30 and the oil concen-
tration in the liquid phase will have increased. Along the evaporator the oil concentration continues to rise
as the refrigerant evaporates into the vapor phase.
From a conservation of the mass of the two components, and assuming no oil enters the vapor phase, the
following expression relates the local oil concentration wlocal to the local vapor quality x and the inlet oil
concentration winlet :

w local = w inlet ⁄ (1 – x ) (5)

For a pure refrigerant without any oil, wlocal is always equal to zero. Because the oil is essentially non-
volatile, the maximum exit vapor quality that can be achieved in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat
pump systems is (1−winlet ). This is an important limiting point because in designing a system with, for
example, 3% (by mass) oil, the exit vapor quality from the evaporator has to be less than 0.97. Equation (5)
is based on complete flow of the mixture through the system, i.e. no local oil holdup in the heat-transfer

Figure 1. Heat release curve for a zeotropic mixture

116 HVAC&R RESEARCH

tubes.

Procedures for Preparation of Heat Release Curve

The following procedure is used for preparation of a heat release curve at a fixed, isobaric pressure:
1. Select the desired pressure Psat and inlet oil concentration before the expansion valve, winlet.
2. Determine two pure refrigerant saturation temperatures at pressures just above and below Psat with an
accurate equation-of-state of the user's choice for determining the vapor pressure curve.
3. Use these two sets of values for Tbub and Psat to solve for a0 and b0 in Equation (1) with woil set to zero.
The solution is straightforward with two equations and two unknowns.
4. Use the new values of a0 and b0 in place of a0 = −2394.5 and b0 = 8.0736, respectively. All the other
values of a1 to a4 and b1 to b4 remain the same as in the original correlation since they only refer to the
effect of the oil on Tbub.
5. Select the vapor quality range for the heat release curve, i.e. set the inlet vapor quality, the exit vapor
quality [always less than the value of (1− winlet )], and the number of design intervals; i.e. if an evapora-
tor is divided into ten heat-transfer zones for design then 11 points are needed in the heat release curve.
6. Calculate the local oil concentrations corresponding to the local vapor qualities using Equation (5), i.e.
determine wlocal for each of the eleven vapor quality points above.
7. Calculate the local bubble point temperatures corresponding to the local vapor qualities and local oil
concentrations using Equations (1), (2), and (3) with woil set equal to wlocal at each point.
8. Calculate the values of hLV and (cp )V at these bubble point temperatures using methods for pure refriger-
ants. Determine the liquid specific heats of the refrigerant-oil mixtures (cp )V for each point based on the
local values of wlocal and Tbub (using the method described in the next section).
9. Determine the heat absorbed by the refrigerant-oil fluid in each interval, dH, and then add these to
obtain the total heat absorbed per unit mass of fluid from inlet to outlet.
The heat release curve preparation is now complete and the following values required for thermal design
of an evaporator are known for each local vapor quality x : wlocal, Tbub, and dH. (Note that the above
method ignores heats of mixing, which are normally small and typically not available for refrigerant-oil
mixtures, but these could be included when available.)

LIQUID SPECIFIC HEATS OF LUBRICATING OILS AND

REFRIGERANT-OIL MIXTURES
Liquid Specific Heat of Lubricating Oils
Liquid specific heats of lubricating oils are not normally cited by manufacturers; hence a general corre-
lating equation is required for their estimation. Thome (1992b) recommended the following equation for
lubricating oils as a function of specific gravity:

0.388 + 0.00045 ( 1.8T + 32 )

[ (c p )L ] = 4.186 -------------------------------------------------------------------- (6)
oil
s

where the liquid specific heat [(cp )L ]oil is in kJ/(kg·K), the temperature of the oil T is in °C (valid for −18°C
< T < 204°C) and s is the specific gravity of the liquid at 15.6°C (valid for 0.75 < s < 1.05). The expression
is an adaptation of the equation for crude oil cuts in Smith, Block, and Hickman (1973) to lubricating oils.
Manufacturers usually provide the density or specific gravity of lubricating oils at 60°F (15.6°C), which
facilitates the use of Equation (6). This correlation compares well with the tabular values for engine oil
cited in Incropera and DeWitt (1981) which have maximum deviations of −2% to +7%, which is sufficient
for present purposes because the sensible heat contribution is small (but not negligible) compared to the
latent heat term in Equation (4).

Liquid Specific Heat of Refrigerant-Oil Mixtures

For preparation of a heat release curve, the liquid specific heat of the refrigerant-oil mixture is required
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1995 117

at each local vapor quality as a function of oil concentration wlocal and bubble point temperature Tbub.
Working in the units of kJ/(kg·K) (Btu/lb·°F), a linear mixing law based on mass fractions of oil gives the
liquid specific heats of these mixtures as:

(c p )L = w oil [ (c p )L ] + ( 1 – woil ) [ (c p )L ] (7)

oil ref

Table 2. Heat Release Curve for R-134a/Oil Mixture

Local Bubble Oil Concentration Total Heat Absorbed Latent Sensible
Vapor Quality Pt. Temp. (°C) (% by mass) (kJ/kg) Heat Heat
(kJ/kg) (kJ/kg)
0.150 4.509 3.53 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.230 4.516 3.90 15.64 15.63 0.01
0.310 4.525 4.35 31.28 31.26 0.02
0.390 4.536 4.92 46.92 46.89 0.03
0.470 4.550 5.66 62.56 62.51 0.05
0.550 4.570 6.67 78.20 78.13 0.07
0.630 4.598 8.11 93.85 93.75 0.10
0.710 4.643 10.34 109.52 109.37 0.15
0.790 4.729 14.29 125.23 124.99 0.24
0.870 4.954 23.08 141.05 140.59 0.46
0.950 8.289 60.00 159.76 156.07 3.69
Saturation temperature of pure refrigerant = 4.4°C
Isobaric pressure for heat release curve = 343.1 kPa
Inlet oil concentration specified = 3.00% (by mass)
3
Oil density at reference temperature = 971.0 kg/m
Reference temperature for oil = 15.6°C

The above equation is evaluated with the refrigerant and oil properties at the local bubble point temper-
ature of the mixture. Because heats of mixing data are not available and because the values for the oil and
refrigerant are often within 10 to 30% of one another while the value for the oil is accurate to about ±10%,
the linear mixing law approach is appropriate here.

Heat Release Curve for R-134a/Oil Mixture

A common design temperature for evaporators is 4.4°C (40°F). For pure R-134a this temperature corre-
sponds to a saturation pressure of 343 kPa (49.8 psia). Table 2 lists the heat release curve for an R-134a/
ester oil mixture with an inlet concentration of 3% (by mass) oil for an evaporator covering the vapor qual-
ity range from 0.15 to 0.95. The oil has a density of 971 kg/m3 at 15.6°C. The first column is the local
vapor quality at intervals along the evaporator, Tbub and wlocal are given in the next two columns, and the
total heat absorbed relative to the inlet is shown in the fourth column. The contributions of latent heat and
sensible heating of the liquid and vapor are given in the last two columns, respectively. As can be seen, the
rise in the bubble point temperature and oil concentration in the liquid is sharpest at high vapor qualities.
The contribution of sensible heat becomes important at high vapor qualities because its effect is directly
dependent on the rise in Tbub.

DEFINITION OF BOILING HEAT-TRANSFER COEFFICIENT FOR

REFRIGERANT-OIL MIXTURES
Definitions of boiling heat-transfer coefficients
Application of the thermodynamic approach to heat transfer requires a corresponding change to the def-
inition of the boiling heat-transfer coefficient. The pool boiling heat-transfer coefficient h for pure refriger-
ants is defined as:

h = q ⁄ ( Tw – Tsat ) (8)
118 HVAC&R RESEARCH

where
q = heat flux (Q/A)
Tw = heated wall temperature
Tsat = saturation temperature of the pure liquid
Q = heat flowing through the heated area A
For flow boiling this definition refers to the local heat-transfer coefficient at a specific local vapor qual-
ity, local heat flux, local wall temperature and local saturation temperature. Experimentally, Tsat is nor-
mally determined from the vapor pressure curve of the pure fluid and the measured pressure.
For refrigerant-oil mixtures, the pool boiling heat-transfer coefficient h is defined as:
h = q ⁄ ( Tw – Tbub ) (9)

where
q = heat flux (Q/A)
Tw = heated wall temperature
Tbub = bubble point temperature of the bulk liquid
Q = heat flowing through the heated area A
In flow boiling, Equation (9) refers to the local heat-transfer coefficient at a specific local vapor quality,
local heat flux, local wall temperature, and local bubble point temperature.

Effects on Experimental Data

In all (or nearly all) published flow boiling heat-transfer tests to date for refrigerant-oil mixtures, the
definition given by Equation (8) has been used where Tsat was determined from a vapor pressure curve for
the pure refrigerant. Using the correct definition given by Equation (9) and the fact that Tbub > Tsat (e.g.,
consider values of Tbub in Table 2 where Tsat = 4.4°C (40°F) for pure R-134a), all of the published data
should actually have smaller boiling wall superheats than those reported by a value of (Tbub − Tsat ); and
thus the correct heat-transfer coefficients will be larger than those reported at the heat fluxes cited.
For example, at a typical heat flux of 10 kW/m2 (3170 Btu/h·ft2 ·°F), for a plain copper tube the reported
local heat-transfer coefficient would be in the range of 2500 W/(m2 ·K) (440 Btu/h·ft2 ·°F), such that the
wall superheat (Tw − Tsat ) is 4.0 K (7.2°F). If (Tbub − Tsat ) is equal to 0.2 K (0.36°F), then the correct heat-
transfer coefficient will actually be 5.3% higher, i.e. [10000/(4.0 − 0.2) = 2632 W/(m2 ·K) (463.5 Btu/
h·ft 2·°F)]. For the widely-used microfin type of copper tubes, the reported flow boiling heat-transfer coef-
ficient will be approximately twice that of the plain tube, or 5000 W/(m2 ·K) (880.6 Btu/h·ft2 ·°F), giving
an apparent wall superheat of 2.0 K (3.6°F) and a correct value of 1.8 K (3.24°F). The correct heat-transfer
coefficient will then be 5556 W/(m2 ·K) (978.4 Btu/h·ft2 ·°F) or 11.1% larger. With large local oil concen-
trations, which occur at high local vapor qualities in these tubes, the effect is much more dramatic. For
instance, evaluating the effect of using (Tw − Tsat ) equal to 0.5 K (0.9°F) in the above example, the correct
heat-transfer coefficients for the plain and microfinned tubes will be higher by 14.3% and 33.3%, respec-
tively. Hence, applying the thermodynamic approach in future tests (or reevaluating prior data) provides a
substantial improvement in the accuracy and the integrity of experimental test data.
Another important aspect to consider is the manner in which published refrigerant-oil flow boiling data
have been presented to date. All local coefficients are cited for the nominal inlet oil concentration winlet,
say 1, 2 or 5% (by mass) oil. Using Equation (5), it can be seen that the local oil concentration wlocal
increases as a function of the inlet oil concentration and the local vapor quality. Thus, comparing local
heat-transfer coefficients at a local vapor quality of 0.50 really means a comparison of data at local oil con-
centrations wlocal at 2, 4 and 10% (by mass) rather for winlet values of 1, 2 and 5% (by mass); similarly at a
vapor quality of 0.80 the comparison is for wlocal of 5, 10 and 25% (by mass) oil in the liquid phase, respec-
tively. As a consequence, in the future it would be helpful if refrigerant-oil flow boiling data were pre-
sented showing the local oil concentration in addition to the nominal value at the tube inlet.

HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN APPROACH FOR

REFRIGERANT-OIL MIXTURES
The thermodynamic approach for modeling refrigerant-oil mixtures was developed with the objective of
keeping it simple enough for engineering practice while not sacrificing on accuracy. The implications of its
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1995 119

use and improvements for design of refrigeration system evaporators are discussed in the following sec-
tions.

Heat Exchanger Design by Zone

Modern, computerized thermal design methods subdivide a heat exchanger into five to ten zones where
local heat-transfer coefficients are determined for each zone individually. In each zone j a mean overall
heat-transfer coefficient (Uo )j is determined for the evaporating fluid and the heating fluid. Since two-phase
heat-transfer and pressure drop correlations are functions of vapor quality, it is convenient to divide an
evaporator into zones by equal steps in local vapor quality. For each zone, the following equation applies:

Q j = ( Uo )j ( Ao )j Fj ( LMTD )j (10)

where the subscript j refers to the particular zone, Q j is the heat duty of that zone in W (or Btu/h), (Uo )j is
the overall heat-transfer coefficient for the zone in W/(m2 ·K) (or Btu/h·ft2 ·°F), (Ao )j is the heat-transfer
surface area required for the zone in m2 (ft2 ), Fj is the crossflow correction factor to the log-mean tempera-
ture difference (Fj = 1.0 for pure counterflow or pure cocurrent flow or when one fluid is isothermal), and
(LMTD)j is the log-mean temperature difference for the zone in K (or °F) determined from its standard
equation with the four terminal temperatures of the zone.
As an example of how the thermal design process proceeds, refer to Table 2, where each heat-transfer
zone will be defined by one step in vapor quality. Thus consider here the first zone ( j = 1) with a vapor
quality change from 0.15 to 0.23. The bubble point temperatures at the inlet and outlet of the zone are
4.509°C and 4.516°C. The heat absorbed by the refrigerant-oil mixture is 15.64 kJ/kg in this zone. The
thermal heat duty of this zone Q1 is then determined by multiplying 15.640 kJ/kg by the mass flow rate of
the refrigerant-oil mixture in kg/s to obtain the duty in watts. The design outlet temperature of the chilled
water is normally 45°F (7.2°C) for ARI standard conditions. Thus, the water's outlet temperature in this
zone is assumed to be 7.2°C for counter-current flow. Using the flow rate of the chilled water and its spe-
cific heat together with the zone's heat duty Q1, the inlet temperature of the chilled water in this zone is cal-
culated. Now the four terminal temperatures of the zone are known and (LMTD)1 can be calculated (and
the crossflow correction factor F1 too). Fixing the number of tubes and assuming a length for the zone such
that (Ao )1 is obtained, the heat flux is determined for the zone. The chilled water heat-transfer coefficient is
calculated based on the bundle geometry and water flow rate. The boiling-side heat-transfer coefficient is
then determined for the zone; it is normally determined at both the inlet and outlet vapor qualities of the
zone, 0.15 and 0.23 for the present example, and then the average coefficient is determined from these two
values. Now (Uo )1 for the zone can be calculated. The calculation iterates with assumption of a new value
of (Ao )1 until the heat duty predicted by the right-hand side of Equation (10) matches the heat duty of the
zone Q1.
The thermal design process then passes onto the next zone ( j = 2) and the procedure is repeated. The heat
absorbed in the second zone is (31.28 − 15.64) = 15.64 kJ/kg, the inlet and outlet vapor qualities are 0.23
and 0.31, and the inlet and outlet bubble point temperatures are 4.516°C and 4.525°C, respectively. After
analyzing all the individual zones, the size of the evaporator is known from summation of the tube lengths
for each zone.

Physical Properties
Besides the heat release curve, the thermodynamic and physical properties of a refrigerant-oil mixture
are required for thermal design. These properties are determined at the vapor quality values corresponding
to the heat release curve. The liquid phase properties must be estimated for each local vapor quality using
the local oil concentration and the local bubble point temperature. The liquid phase properties required are
density, viscosity, specific heat, thermal conductivity and surface tension. The vapor phase properties are
for the pure refrigerant since no oil is present in the vapor. The vapor physical properties usually required
are density, viscosity, specific heat, thermal conductivity and latent heat. These are evaluated at the local
bubble point temperature at each vapor quality.

Effect of Pressure Drop

120 HVAC&R RESEARCH

During thermal design of an evaporator the effect of two-phase pressure drop on the local boiling point
temperature should be taken into account to increase the accuracy of the calculations. Thus, one has several
options: (1) calculate the heat release curve values stepwise with the local pressure, the latter obtained from
a stepwise calculation of the two-phase pressure drop, (2) prepare two heat release curves, one at the inlet
pressure and another at or near the outlet pressure, and interpolate between them using the calculated local
pressure from a stepwise calculation of the two-phase pressure drop, or (3) prepare only one heat release
curve at the mean pressure between the inlet and outlet of the evaporator.

Exit Conditions
Within an evaporator it is not thermodynamically correct to refer to superheating of the refrigerant when
oil is present because the rise is that of the local bubble point temperature along the equilibrium bubble
point curve, not superheating of the fluid. The word superheat implies that all of the liquid has been evapo-
rated and become superheated vapor.
The temperature difference between the chilled water and the refrigerant at the exit of the evaporator is
normally small; for chilled water entering at 12.8°C (55°F) and refrigerant evaporating at 4.4°C (40°F), the
temperature difference is only 8.3 K (15°F) at the exit. Thus the rise in the bubble point temperature
severely limits the fraction of refrigerant that can actually be evaporated.

Log-Mean Temperature Difference and Heat Duty

Figure 3 depicts a plot of the bubble point temperatures versus enthalpy change for the values in Table 2.
For comparison purposes, pure R-134a evaporating at the same pressure (Tsat = 4.4°C or 40°F) is also
shown with an exit superheat equal to the final bubble point temperature of the mixture of 8.29°C
(14.92°F). Inlet and outlet chilled water temperatures of 12.8°C (55°F) and 7.2°C (45°F) are assumed and
its temperature-enthalpy profile is shown on the diagram. The graphical comparison is indicative of the
effect oil has on the LMTD of an evaporator, in this case neglecting the effects of two-phase pressure drop
on Tbub and Tsat . The effective LMTD determined by dividing the evaporator into 10 zones is about 6%
lower for the 3% (by mass) oil mixture. Thus, use of the thermodynamic approach yields a significant
improvement in accuracy in evaluating LMTDs during thermal design of an evaporator and eventual bench
tests.
In a performance test an exit temperature equal to the exit bubble point temperature of 8.29°C (14.92°F)
in Figure 3 might be measured. Using the old oil contamination approach, one would have presumed the
refrigerant was completely evaporated and superheated by 3.85°C (6.92°F), which gives an enthalpy
change of 169.60 kJ/kg (73.07 Btu/lb) rather than the actual value of 159.76 kJ/kg (68.83 Btu/lb) for the
refrigerant-oil mixture. In that case the heat duty obtained by multiplying the enthalpy change by the mea-
sured refrigerant flow rate would be too high, by 100 (169.6 − 159.76)/159.76 = 6.2%, and seriously affect
the accuracy of the test results plus any conclusions drawn from them. Thus, the new thermodynamic
approach provides significant improvement in the integrity of heat balances in evaporator performance
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1995 121

Figure 2. Temperature-enthalpy (LMTD) diagram for

pure R-134a and an R-134a/oil mixture

tests.

Effect of Oil on Boiling Heat-Transfer Coefficients

Experiments have shown that boiling coefficients can be significantly increased or decreased by the
presence of oil depending on the local conditions, albeit based on test data reduced using the oil contamina-
tion approach.

REFRIGERATION SYSTEM CONTROLS AND OIL PROBLEMS

Refrigeration equipment controls based on pure refrigerant operating cycles are well developed and pro-
vide relatively trouble-free operation. Yet precise control is impeded by oil buildup over time in the refrig-
erant charge. The thermodynamic approach has important implications for the improved design of these
control systems (and thus increased energy efficiency). For example, in small systems the sensing device of
the control system is often a thermostatic valve, which is comprised of a tubular-type element filled with
pure refrigerant and placed in the refrigerant exhaust flow of the evaporator. This element is then con-
nected via a small diameter tube to a spring- loaded bellows that regulates the movement of the needle in
the expansion valve. The internal pressure increases when the element is heated by the exhaust flow and
vice-versa when it is cooled. The movement of the needle caused by this pressure change regulates the
restriction in the expansion valve and hence the pressure drop across it, which in turn sets the saturation
pressure, temperature and vapor quality after the valve for the refrigerant entering the evaporator and hence
regulates refrigeration capacity.
The evaporator exhaust temperature is equal to the exit bubble point temperature when oil is present (i.e.
8.29°C in Figure 3). Thus, the temperature difference sensed by the thermostatic valve is equal to the exit
bubble point temperature minus the saturation temperature of the pure refrigerant inside the element (i.e.
4.4°C), not the implied “superheat.” As the oil concentration increases in the refrigerant charge over time,
122 HVAC&R RESEARCH

the exhaust bubble point temperature tends to rise further. This causes the thermostatic valve to errone-
ously “think” that the exit superheat has increased, such that the increased temperature difference acts on
the needle in the expansion valve to increase refrigerant flow and thermal capacity.
In simple terms, existing controllers have a problem telling the difference between (1) a change in the
requested refrigeration duty of the system indicated by a temperature change of the setpoint thermistor and
(2) a change in oil concentration in the refrigerant charge. Thus, new improved control schemes require
measurement of a parameter related to the oil concentration, together with new control logic that appropri-
ately models the oil's effect on refrigeration capacity.

CONCLUSIONS
A new, comprehensive thermodynamic approach for modeling mixtures of refrigerants and lubricating
oils has been presented. The model includes generalized methods for predicting the following thermody-
namic properties of refrigerant-oil mixtures: bubble point temperatures, local oil concentrations, liquid spe-
cific heats and enthalpy changes during evaporation. Using this method, heat release (enthalpy) curves are
easily generated, and the effect of oil on the LMTD of evaporators can be modeled. The boiling heat-trans-
fer coefficient has been redefined for refrigerant-oil mixtures, based on the bubble point temperature rather
than on the saturation temperature of the pure refrigerant. The thermodynamic approach enables advances
to be made in two-phase refrigeration heat-transfer research and design by including in the analysis the
type of oil and the effects of its physical properties.

NOMENCLATURE
A empirical constant
A surface area
(Ao )j outside surface area of zone j
a0 (a1, a2 , a3, a4) empirical constants
B empirical constant
b0 (b1 , b2, b3, b4) empirical constants
(cp )L specific heat of liquid
(cp )V specific heat of vapor
Fj cross-flow correction factor of zone j
h heat-transfer coefficient
hLV latent heat of vaporization
H enthalpy
(LMTD)jlog-mean temperature difference of zone j
Psat saturation pressure
Q heat duty
q heat flux
s specific gravity of liquid
T temperature
Tbub bubble point temperature
Tsat saturation temperature
Tw wall temperature
(Uo )j outside overall heat-transfer coefficient of zone j
X liquid concentration
x vapor quality
winlet oil inlet concentration
wlocal local oil concentration
woil oil concentration
Y vapor concentration

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present study is part of ASHRAE Research Project 800-RP titled, “Heat-Transfer And Pressure
Drop In The Dryout Region Of Intube Evaporation With Refrigerant/Lubricant Mixtures,” sponsored by
the technical committee TC 1.3. The Swiss Federal Office of Energy (OFEN) has also provided key fund-
ing for this study.
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1995 123

REFERENCES
Collier, J.G., and J.R. Thome. 1994. Convective boiling and condensation, 3rd Ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Hesse, U., and H. Kruse. 1988. Prediction of the behavior of oil refrigerant mixtures. In Status of CFCs—Refrigeration
Systems and Refrigerant Properties, IIR, Commissions B1, B2, E1 and E2, Purdue University 2: 101-109.
Incropera, F.P., and D.P. DeWitt. 1981. Fundamentals of heat transfer, p. 780. New York: John Wiley.
Jensen, M.K. 1987. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York (Private communication).
Liley, P.E., and W.R. Gambill. 1973. Physical and chemical data. In Chemical Engineering Handbook, 5th ed. Chapter
3, pp. 3-226 - 3-250. Perry and Chilton, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shao, W., H. Kraft, and E. Granryd. 1992. A simple experimental investigation of saturated vapor pressure for HFC-
134a-oil mixtures. Int. J. Refrig. 16 (6): 357-361.
Smith, B.D., B. Block, and C.D. Hickman. 1973. Distillation. In Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, pp. 13-4 to 13-14.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, J.M., and H.C.Van Ness. 1987. Introduction to chemical engineering thermodynamics, 4th Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Takaishi, Y., and K. Oguchi. 1987. Measurements of vapor pressures of R-22/oil solutions. In Proceedings of the XVII-
Ith International Congress of Refrigeration, Vienna, Volume B: 217-222.
Thome, J.R. 1992a. Prediction of vapor pressures of refrigerant-oil mixtures. Internal Report, LENI Laboratory, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland (Dec. 16).
Thome, J.R. 1992b. Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Lubricating Oils. EPFL, Lausanne, LENI Report
(December 21). Lausanne, Switzerland: LENI (Laboratory for Industrial Energetics), Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology.

APPENDIX
Numerous comparisons were made of Equations (1), (2), and (3) to measured vapor pressure/tempera-
ture data for refrigerant-oil mixtures (and also with Equation (1) rearranged to predict Psat for a given Tbub
when data were presented at isotherms). A selection of these are shown in Tables 3 through 6, which dem-
onstrate that the accuracy of the present method for oil concentrations of woil < 0.50 is very good, similar to
that of predictions of independent vapor pressure data for pure refrigerants with a general type of vapor
pressure equation. The level of accuracy is less from 0.50 < woil < 0.70, while for woil > 0.70 the accuracy
is poor as the type of oil becomes more important.
Hesse and Kruse (1988) measured vapor pressure curves for R-22, R-114 and their binary mixtures
together with an unspecified synthetic alkyl benzene lubricating oil. Tables 3 and 4 show a comparison
with some of their R-22/oil and R-114/oil data, respectively, at the temperature of 60°C. The values of a0
and b0 for R-114 were determined by fitting Equation (1) to the pure refrigerant vapor pressures at 0 and
60°C (so that a0 = −2849.839 and b0 = 7.99403). For oil mass concentrations up to 0.50, the generalized
method works well. those predicted using a0 = −3384.388 and b0 =
Jensen (1987) measured saturation temperatures 8.251246 obtained from fitting Equation (1) to val-
and pressures of R-113 and 4 different types of ues of the vapor pressure for pure R-113. The aver-
lubricating oils (identified as 3GS, 4GS, 5GS and age error for the pure R-113 values is 0.33°C while
RCO-2) at ambient atmospheric pressure. Oil con- for the R-113/oil mixtures the average error is
centrations of 0, 0.02, 0.05 and 0.10 were tested. As slightly larger, 0.37 K.
shown in Table 5, his data compare very well with
Table 3. Predicted Vapor Pressures of R-114/Oil Mixtures
Measured by Hesse and Kruse (1988)
woil (by mass) (Psat )exp (MPa) (Psat)calc (MPa) % error
0.10 0.5765 0.561 −2.7
0.30 0.551 0.5424 −1.6
0.50 0.498 0.5075 +2.0

Table 3. Predicted Vapor Pressures of R-114/Oil Mixtures

Measured by Hesse and Kruse (1988)
woil (by mass) (Psat )exp (MPa) (Psat)calc (MPa) % error
0.70 0.357 0.4193 +17.5
124 HVAC&R RESEARCH

Table 4. Comparison to Measured Bubble Point Temperatures of

R-113/Oil Mixtures from Jensen (1987)
Oil Type woil (by mass) (Psat) exp (MPa) (Tbub)exp (°C) (Tbub)calc (°C) Error (°C)
None 0.0 0.09980 47.0 47.47 +0.47
3GS 0.02 0.10051 47.8 47.78 −0.02
3GS 0.05 0.10016 47.8 47.81 +0.01
3GS 0.10 0.09861 48.6 47.56 −1.04
None 0.0 0.09820 46.6 46.97 +0.37
4GS 0.02 0.09820 47.0 47.07 +0.07
4GS 0.05 0.09820 47.6 47.21 −0.39
4GS 0.10 0.09833 48.6 47.48 −1.12
None 0.0 0.09733 46.5 46.71 +0.21
5GS 0.02 0.10027 47.5 47.71 +0.21
5GS 0.05 0.10027 48.2 47.85 −0.35
5GS 0.10 0.10027 48.2 48.07 −0.13
RCO-2 0.02 0.09887 46.8 47.28 +0.48
RCO-2 0.05 0.09887 47.5 47.62 +0.12
RCO-2 0.10 0.09887 48.6 48.05 −0.55
Table 5. Predicted Bubble Point Temperatures of R-134a/EXP-0275
Oil Mixture Data of Shao, Kraft and Granryd (1992)
woil (Psat)exp (MPa) (Tbub)exp (Tbub )calc Error Tsat of Rise in
(by mass) (°C) (°C) (°C) R-134a (°C) Tbub (°C)
0.05 0.127 −20.0 −21.28 −1.28 −21.28 0.00
0.05 0.197 −10.0 −10.43 −0.43 −10.47 0.05
0.05 0.291 0.0 0.04 +0.04 0.04 0.08
0.05 0.414 10.0 10.23 +0.23 10.11 0.12
0.05 0.571 20.0 20.22 +0.22 20.06 0.16
0.05 0.767 30.0 30.03 +0.03 29.82 0.21
0.05 1.014 40.0 39.93 −0.07 39.68 0.25
0.11 0.125 −20.0 −21.65 −1.65 −21.66 0.01
0.11 0.196 −10.0 −10.51 −0.51 −10.60 0.09
0.11 0.290 0.0 0.04 +0.04 −0.14 0.18
0.11 0.411 10.0 10.16 +0.16 9.90 0.26
0.11 0.568 20.0 20.25 +0.25 19.89 0.36
0.11 0.763 30.0 30.10 +0.10 29.64 0.46
0.11 1.010 40.0 40.09 +0.09 39.53 0.56
0.398 0.124 −20.0 −20.44 −0.44 −21.85 1.41
0.398 0.193 −10.0 −9.25 +0.75 −10.99 1.74
0.398 0.283 0.0 1.26 +1.26 −0.82 2.08
0.398 0.401 10.0 11.58 +1.58 9.16 2.42
0.398 0.551 20.0 21.69 +1.69 18.92 2.77
0.398 0.742 30.0 31.85 +1.85 28.69 3.15
0.398 0.972 40.0 41.67 +1.67 38.14 3.53
0.67 0.113 −20.0 −20.11 −0.11 −24.01 3.90
0.67 0.169 −10.0 −9.70 +0.30 −14.35 4.65
0.67 0.244 0.0 0.57 +0.57 −4.85 5.42
0.67 0.341 10.0 10.66 +0.66 4.43 6.23
0.67 0.462 20.0 20.48 +0.48 13.43 7.05

Table 3. Predicted Vapor Pressures of R-22/Oil Mixtures

Measured by Hesse and Kruse (1988)
woil (by mass) (Psat )exp (MPa) (Psat)calc (MPa) % error
0.20 2.350 2.345 −0.2
0.30 2.310 2.304 −0.3
0.50 2.175 2.156 −0.9
0.70 1.590 1.781 +12.0
0.80 1.177 1.506 +28.0
125 HVAC&R RESEARCH

Table 5. Predicted Bubble Point Temperatures of R-134a/EXP-0275

Oil Mixture Data of Shao, Kraft and Granryd (1992)
woil (Psat)exp (MPa) (Tbub)exp (Tbub )calc Error Tsat of Rise in
(by mass) (°C) (°C) (°C) R-134a (°C) Tbub (°C)
0.67 0.605 30.0 29.78 −0.22 21.92 7.87
0.67 0.778 40.0 39.01 −0.99 30.31 8.70
Shao, Kraft and Granryd (1992) measured vapor pressure curves for R-134a/oil and R12/oil mixtures.
Table 6 shows a comparison of Equation (1) to the tabular data presented in their article for four different
R-134a/oil concentrations over a wide range of temperature (for a synthetic ester-based oil designated as
EXP-0275). Their woil = 0.88 data are not shown because the errors are very large since 0.88 is greater than
the limit of 0.70 of Equation (1). The accuracies were cited to be 0.3 K and 0.1% for their measured values
of temperature and pressure. Examination of Table 6 shows quite accurate prediction of the bubble point
temperatures with an average error of 0.63 K; for Tbub = 273.15 K this represents an error of 0.23%. The
maximum error is +1.85 K, which represents an error of 0.61% in the bubble point temperature of 303.15
K. The values of a0 and b0 were determined from saturation temperatures of −10 and 30°C (a0 = −2685.141
and b0 = 8.597401).
The two columns to the right in Table 6 show the saturation temperature of pure R-134a calculated using
Equation (1) and the increase in the saturation temperature of the R-134a/oil mixture relative to that of pure
R-134a. The rise in Tbub with increasing pressure for a fixed oil concentration is clearly demonstrated. (The
accuracy of the predictions in Table 6 could be improved by calculating different values of a0 and b0 for
each temperature (−20, −10, 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40°C)] as recommended by the method.