Development of a mini-channel evaporator model using R1234yf as working fluid

Exergy analysis of R1234yf and R1234ze as R134a replacements in a two evaporator vapour compression refrigeration system

“…A detailed examination of R1234yf by Ozgur et al (2012) showed that R1234yf is a good alternative to R134a according to energy and exergy analysis results. Similarly, other researchers draw our attention to the usage of R1234yf and R1234ze as R134a replacement in VCRS (Jarall, 2012;Esbri et al 2013;Lai, 2014;Molés et al, 2014;Babiloni et al, 2014, Jankovic et al, 2015, Zhao et al, 2015.…”

Calculation Method for Flow Boiling and Flow Condensation of R134a and R1234yf in Conventional and Small Diameter Channels

“…The modification of the empirical correction described by Equation (3) includes the effect of reduced pressure (p sat /p kr ). The new version of the correction P is applied in Equation (5), where the reduced pressure is raised to the power a. The value of the exponent a was adjusted using the regression analysis of functions of several variables.…”

“…Previous studies have considered R152a [3] and the natural refrigerant CO 2 [4] as possible replacements for R134a in marine air conditioning systems. It should be borne in mind, however, that R152a is a flammable refrigerant, while for the CO 2 system the working pressure is significantly higher than that for the R134a system, which would lead to significant system modifications and higher costs [5]. Recently, R1234yf has been believed to be a promising candidate as an alternative for R134a [6].…”

Development and Validation of a Minichannel Evaporator Model under Dehumidification

“…Currently, several models or simulation tools for heat exchangers are available in the literature: for finned conventional-tubes (Domanski, 1991;Ragazzi, 1995;Lee and Domanski, 1997;Corberán et al, 2002;Jiang et al, 2006;Singh et al, 2008;CoilDesigner, 2010;EVAP-COND, 2010;IMST-ART, 2010) and for micro/minichannel heat exchangers (Kim and Bullard, 2001;Yin et al, 2001;Wu and Webb, 2002;Asinari et al, 2004;Fernando et al, 2008;Brix et al, 2009;García-Cascales et al, 2010;Jin et al, 2011;Martínez-Ballester, 2012;Zhao et al, 2012;Gossard et al, 2013;Ren et al, 2013;Huang et al, 2014;Huang et al, 2015;Yin et al, 2015).…”

“…Some of the above mentioned models (Kim and Bullard, 2001;Yin et al, 2001;Corberán et al, 2002;Asinari et al, 2004;Fernando et al, 2008;Singh et al, 2008;Brix et al, 2009;CoilDesigner, 2010;IMST-ART, 2010;Jin et al, 2011;Martínez-Ballester, 2012;Ren et al, 2013;Huang et al, 2014;Huang et al, 2015) apply the energy conservation equations to each control volume or finite element, while others (Domanski, 1991;Ragazzi, 1995;Lee and Domanski, 1997;Wu and Webb, 2002;Jiang et al, 2006;EVAP-COND, 2010;García-Cascales et al, 2010;Zhao et al, 2012;Gossard et al, 2013;Yin et al, 2015) apply the classical ε-NTU method. The main difference between both methodologies is that the ε-NTU method uses several implicit assumptions resulting in less freedom to describe the actual phenomena, especially at a presence of the dehumidification process on the air-side of the evaporator.…”