AMMONIA OR R22?

A design approach

By

Walter Gameiro, PhD ME

IIAR, IIF, EFRIARC, ASHRAE

Director of Refrigeration

with

As delivered at the
IIAR Convention

International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration

Colorado Springs, CO
March 15, 1998
 FOREWORD

Ammonia and R22 issues have been an object of IIAR ‘s members papers at least 9 times.

Each author has had a different approach and has focused on different points.

Let us remember and honor those before me, who have focused their attention on different aspects of
these Refrigerants:

Ammonia Truly An International Refrigerant? Yes or No? Peter Spellar 1980

What Every Ammonia Engineer Should Know about Freon Mike Zion 1983

The CFC Issue: What and So What! An Update Sydney Miner 1989

CFC Issue - Update Sydney Miner 1990

Large Central Water Chilling System Design, Cost and Energy

Comparison: R22 vs. Ammonia Ronald Cole 1990

R22 Vs. R717 ( Ammonia) Capital and Operating Cost Comparison

Studies for Refrigerated Facilities Thomas Leighty 1990

An Appraisal of Ammonia as an Alternative Refrigerant in Light

of the CFC and GWP Situation Sydney Miner 1992

Refrigerants after CFC ‘s - What are the Choices? Kenneth Hickman 1993

The Ozone Crisis and Business Opportunities for Ammonia Corin Millais 1994

Allow me to honor in particular, a man who gave a lot to the industry and to IIAR. Sydney Miner.

After 17 consecutive years of papers, if one does not wish to copy from these papers one needs a new
approach.

What could one say that could be of interest to the IIAR seminar attendees after these seven engineers?
Instead of showing tables, curves and data, or compiling a text from all of the above papers, one could
try and talk about the differences in designing systems and their analysis in terms of capital and running
costs. One could try and produce some trends of this industry.

One could talk about one’s real life experience.

Can we improve on what has been done in the past, now that the environment conditions are different?

We have tried to do just that.

2
 Summary

1- CFC’s Were Phased out.

• Impact in our industry.

2- Industrial and Commercial Refrigeration Options

• R 134a
• R22
• Blends
• Ammonia
• Propane

3- Industrial Refrigeration Real Choices in U.S.

• R717 Ammonia
• R22 Watch out for:
• Running Costs , Kw.h / TR
• Oil management systems
• Capital Cost

4- System Design Differences

• Commercial Refrigeration
R22 - Direct Expansion, Primary Refrigerant
R717 - Glycol or Brine, secondary Refrigerant

• Industrial Refrigeration
One Stage, Medium Temp. - 28 to 34°F
Two Stage Low Temp. -10 to -40°F

• System Practices
Direct Expansion
Flooded (Gravity Feed)
Recirculated (Liquid Overfeed)

5 - Sizing Comparison on a Re-circulated System

250 TR One stage 32 °F

250 TR Two Stage -20 °F

6- Conclusions

3
1- CFC’s were phased out.
All CFC’s were phased out at the end of 1996.
What this means is that R12 and R502, practically the only CFC’s that were used in our
industry were phased out. No refrigerant manufacturer can produce them; therefore,
only the existing stocks can provide the needs for the few Industrial plants that utilized
them as a refrigerant.

This means little to the United States.

Very few industrial plants in our business were small enough to employ these refrigerants.
The impact on the Industrial Refrigeration Industry was quite small.

2- Industrial and Commercial Refrigeration Options

The following options are available now:

R134a
Chlorine free, no ozone depletion, thus environmentally friendly, but, it is quite
inefficient when applied in Industrial Refrigeration. Therefore, very few designers
or end users are using it. It is commonly employed in the Air Conditioning Industry.

R134a became available in January, 1990, and is fair to say, it is a good

replacement for R12. The truth is, very few R12 systems were designed for
Industrial Refrigeration. So while a good refrigerant, R134a has had little impact in
our Industry.

If R134a is used, much caution should be exercised with the compatible oils, POE
(Polyol-Ester Oil), because they absorb moisture very rapidly.

R22
R22 has almost as good volumetric and adiabatic efficiency as Ammonia, for this
reason it is still a great competitor. When the systems are not very large or when
these large systems are to be installed in buildings containing a lot of people, as is
common in Air Conditioning and Commercial Refrigeration applications, it is still a
popular refrigerant.

R22 is primarily used in air conditioning applications and smaller refrigeration

systems such as commercial refrigeration applications. It is not necessarily the
most efficient solution in all cases, but it is still widely used. One reason for
preference is that Refrigeration Engineers rarely design Air Conditioning Systems
and typically in a large Hypermarket design, there are two different engineers
looking at these two systems.

If a Refrigeration Engineer would design the total system with an integrated

approach, the efficiency could be better.

Blends
All of the available blends present the same problem, no matter how efficient they
may be. In the case of a leak, different components escape in different proportions.
Therefore, filling the system creates an unknown mixture. The only sensible thing to
do is empty the system and fill it up again with new refrigerant.

4
 In an industrial plant where 20,000 or 30,000 pounds of refrigerant are not
uncommon, losses of this nature with the new blends would be very expensive and
affect the running costs.

R502 can be replaced by several blends like R404A, R402A and R402B in one stage
low temperature application. R22 can be replaced with at least three blends R407C,
R410A and R507. They all have good thermodynamic efficiency, lower volume,
higher transport characteristics and they work best with constant displacement
compressors. R507 is an Azeotrope, inseparable and has no glide; R410A and
R407C are Zeotropes, separate and have glide. The first one has a glide of around
1EF in flooded evaporators, while the second has 12EF glide on direct expansion
evaporators. These blends represent a large investment in refrigerant, and
maintenance costs. R22 is still around $0.96/lb with a normal tendency to increase,
R134a costs around a stable $4.50/lb, and
R410A, R507 and R407C still cost around $6.60/lb, although prices will
eventually decrease.

All these blends require POE oils which are expensive and require special personnel
training to handle them because they are extremely hygroscopic.
This means that in two hours they will absorb 100 PPM from air exposure;
one day of exposure will bring around 300 PPM of water at 50% relative humidity
and 70°F.

The following chart will demonstrate the composition of some new available
refrigerants:

ASHRAE

Standard 34 Composition % Weight Replacing

R401A R22/152a/124 53/13/34 R12

R404A R125/143a/134a 44/52/4 R12 / R502

R402A R125/290/22 60/2/38 R502

R402B R125/290/22 38/2/60 R502

R407C R32/125/134a 23/25/52 R22

R410A R32/125 50/50 R22

R507 R125/143a 50/50 R22

R717
Ammonia: We will demonstrate why it is still and why it will continue to be the King of
Refrigerants for Industrial Refrigeration.
5
 Within a few years R717 could become the best option for large supermarkets,
since R22 is now being phased out like the CFC’s were.

R290
Propane: Some countries, like Germany, are taking the path of investigating this
refrigerant. It is quite efficient and many people already know how to deal with it
since the procedures are similar as Butane. A lot of people currently use it at home
for cooking and heating service water and air.

Propane is a serious option. Once it becomes easy to control, its large superheating
effect is a refrigerant capable to perform well with one stage reciprocating
compressors where Ammonia requires a compound. The main problem is that R290
is a highly explosive Refrigerant, therefore all plants will have to be explosion proof.

If for some reason your plant has to be explosion proof anyway, then Propane is
probably a good option.

ABOUT “POE” OILS

Since these oils are common to all new Refrigerants it makes sense to note the
following information about them:

Polyoilester Lubricants ( POE ) are extremely hygroscopic, absorbing water from

ambient air, direct contact with water or from impure refrigerants. Most manufacturers
do not recommend their use with more than 100 PPM of water due to potential
reliability problems.

They are “polar” by nature, therefore they will pick up particles such as scale,
grindings, shavings, and other manufacturing debris. The debris will remain in
suspension becoming major contributors to mechanical failure.

They “ Hydrolyze” in the presence of water forming acids, which also will contribute to
mechanical failure

They posses unique additives which vary with each manufacturer.

3- Industrial Refrigeration Real Choices in U.S.

Most design engineers and end users do not trust the new blends yet. There are
very few manufacturers who have published capacities of compressors, condensers
and evaporators for the new refrigerants. The valve and controls capacity are not
commonly known as well. Side effects of running plants with the new refrigerants are
still being learned.

The theoretical options were briefly explained above. Current real life options for U.S.
Industrial Refrigeration plants for the Food and Beverage Industries are mostly
equated (not exclusively) between R717 and R22.

What do we need to watch when choosing the Refrigerant nowadays?

Plant Location and Type.

6
If we have to design a plant downtown in some city, chances are that we will not always be allowed
to use Ammonia.
Air conditioning of an office building, a large store or even a large supermarket are not
traditionally done with Ammonia. Very few owners accept the risk of having an Ammonia plant
where a large density of people is constant during day hours and the risk of a large spill even
being remote cannot be ignored.

System Size

This can often be a determinant factor.

In a home air conditioning application, very few (if any) people use Ammonia as a refrigerant.
In a Commercial application, the plant needs to be large enough to justify the use of Ammonia.
Multiple compressor usage of 3, 5 and 7-1/2 HP units is typical in this type of application.
This size of compressor is not common yet for Ammonia.
There is not a lot of small equipment (compressors, evaporators and condensers) available to run
with Ammonia.

Normally, HFC ’s are used as common Refrigerants in the smaller plants and Ammonia only plays
a significant role in the larger industrial plants

When a design engineer or an End User Thinks about R22 as a Refrigerant,

There Are a Few Details to Watch Out For:

Capital Cost
In a small or medium system the use of R22 corresponds to smaller capital costs.
As a general rule, manufacturers of small compressors do not make units suitable
for Ammonia. Some manufacturers of small compressors for the Commercial
Refrigeration Market, particularly in Europe, converted their Halocarbon units to
compress Ammonia and therefore they are currently available in that market.

It is a general rule of thumb to say, if the system is small enough to be efficient with
Direct Expansion, where we can use Copper/Aluminum evaporator coils, then it is
more than likely a R22 plant is cheaper to install than Ammonia.

If the system is large enough not to allow DX design, if it requires a flooded system
or a re-circulated system, and you cannot use copper/aluminum coils, then chances
are an Ammonia plant is cheaper.

Compressors and condensers are often bigger when using R22. Piping is always
bigger and vessels are bigger. Oil recovery systems are more complex, thus more
expensive and are not trouble free.

The above four points are a common scenario in Industrial Refrigeration and we will
try to demonstrate why it is cheaper to install an Ammonia System.

Quoting directly from Prof. Will Stoecker ’s Book (Industrial Refrigeration II):

• “Ammonia enjoys higher heat transfer coefficients than R22, primarily because
most of the thermodynamic and transport properties that affect heat transfer are
favorable to Ammonia.”
• “The ratios of these properties for Ammonia relative to R22 are the following:

7
 • Specific heat of liquid and vapor, 4 to 1 (ammonia is better)
• Latent heat of vaporization , 6 to 1 (ammonia is better)
• Liquid thermal conductivity, 5.5 to 1 (ammonia is better)
• Viscosities. 0.8 to 1 (ammonia is better)
• Liquid density, 0.5 to 1 “ (ammonia is better)

Table showing differences in allowable capacities in two typical pipes with

these two refrigerants:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerant Drop in sat. Temp. Of 1°F Drop in sat. Temp. Of 2°F
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ø4" Ø6" Ø4" Ø6"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R717 155 TR 450 TR 208 TR 600 TR
R22 56.7 TR 167 TR 80 TR 237 TR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table shows clearly why piping it is cheaper with ammonia, as long as we are
designing comparable systems. (Source : Ind. Refrigeration II / Prof. W. Stoecker)

Running Costs

In a small system the running costs are often not important. The differences in
running costs in a small system and between an efficient and common system
often are small enough to take a decade or more to be amortized. In most cases
the owners do not wish to make that investment.

On a medium sized system these costs can have some impact on the project and
should be analyzed more carefully.
We should always check out the comparison between KW/H.TR between all
refrigerants. Differences between R22 and R717 common systems are not the
exception.

In large Commercial applications often the running costs are overlooked. Most
designers will go with the trends that have ruled the industry for the last decades
and it appears that only few individuals actually conduct an energy analysis to
compare the use of HFC ’s , HCFC ’s and other possible refrigerants.
In large commercial applications this analysis should be done. It often pays to
check out the comparison.

In Industrial Refrigeration, this choice is normally a “no-brainer”.

Ammonia is always cheaper to run than R22.

Less KW/H.TR which means less Dollars to pay to the Utility company.
Easier systems to run and service, which means less maintenance costs.
Less overall amount of refrigerant leaked to the atmosphere will also offer less
running costs. Even if the same amount was leaked, Ammonia is some ten times
cheaper than R22.

Ammonia is the chosen Refrigerant because the difference in running costs (energy
and service) is large enough to allow for a quick decision.

8
Oil Management

Never ignore the specialties of oil management in a R22 plant.

We all know R22 mixes up very well with oil and is not that easy to separate the
two efficiently at discharge temperatures.

Since there is not a 100% efficient oil separator we have to assume that oil will go
pass the oil separator, through the condenser, receiver, and deposit at evaporators
or low side vessels.

There are some differences in oil recovery systems between an Ammonia and a R22
plant.

It is imperative to design the system in order to recover the oil from the oil separator
and distribute it efficiently to all compressor sumps, particularly if we are using
reciprocating compressors.

In Fig.1 we see the differences in system designs when performed with R22 and
Ammonia. It is common and advisable to design all systems in order to allow the
mechanical transportation of the refrigeration oil that did not get trapped in the oil
separator back to the compressor.

This detail is not critical when we use Ammonia because the amount of oil that
escapes a good oil separator is minimal.

Note that with R22, best results are achieved when we design a common oil
separator that distributes recovered oil to a common line; each compressor will
have an oil float installed next to its sump so that every time the oil level decreases,
the float will allow oil flow to maintain the sump oil level.

An oil separator for each compressor is also possible, but it is more common in
Ammonia systems. Since a float does not know the difference between liquid
refrigerant and oil it is advisable to install a thermostat on the shell of the oil
separator above the oil level to measure the gas temperature. This thermostat will
only allow an oil solenoid to open to the sump when oil separator temperature is
above 95°F. This way we will make sure that upon early morning start-up of the
compressors, any Refrigerant condensed through the night will not flow back to the
compressor sump.

The Suction Header / down-leg connections for R717 and R22 should be different,
as shown in Fig.1. The reason is simple. Unlike Ammonia, in the case of R22 we
are particularly interested in making sure that all the oil that made its way to the
suction header will be brought down to the compressor sump. There are other ways
to achieve this. The most simple and effective way is to dip the connection almost
all the way down into the header and cut the pipe at a 45° angle. When the oil and
liquid level inside the header rises up, the section of this down-leg pipe will be
reduced gradually increasing the velocity. This creates the conditions that drag oil
mechanically to the sump.

All liquid and suction lines need enough velocity to create mechanical drag of the
oil all the way back to the compressor.

9
 When systems are Direct Expansion this is quite easy, even when the system is at
part load, by the use of double or triple risers at the evaporators.

However, when we design a system with enough velocity to bring the oil back to the
compressors, we make it easier on the liquid refrigerant originated by occasional
surges to also reach the compressor, and that is something we have to avoid.
Compressors were designed to compress gases and do not react well when
liquid is brought down to them. To avoid this, every time we have Direct
Expansion, Ammonia or R22, we need to design Suction Accumulators.

These vessels are slightly different though.

The Ammonia Suction Accumulator is a pressure vessel with incoming pipe facing
down. The outlet pipe starts on top inside the vessel. The suction gas and liquid
mixture coming from the evaporators due to a liquid surge is sent down to the
bottom, and because the vessel has a large enough diameter, the combination of low
velocity, gravity and the time to reach the outlet pipe will separate liquid from gas.

In case some liquid gets trapped inside the vessel, some heat is required to
help its evaporation. This heat is typically provided by a liquid coil inserted
on the liquid line on its way to the evaporators. Be careful, it will ensure
evaporation of any liquid, but it will increase superheat as well.

The most common examples are the Suction Accumulators as shown in Fig. 2.

When we deal with Industrial Systems particularly with flooded or liquid overfeed
systems the oil management, often becomes a complex solution.

4- System Design Differences

As the title indicates this is not a simple comparison between R22 and R717 efficiencies.
It intends to be a comparison between the practices commonly used in Commercial
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning with R22 and a new design with Ammonia.
We could have chosen to design a system with R717 / DX as refrigerant where the
condensers were air cooled. Even though the electrical consumption would prove to be
smaller, what would it mean in real terms? Probably nothing. Since very few (if any)
people would attempt to design and build a system like that.
We chose to design a new system. A packaged skid mounted system that would deliver
water and would deliver brine at two different temperatures, through flexible hoses to
insulated pipes on the roof to the rooftop fan/coils and under the floor to the cabinets.
Considering that these would have returns, we would have six pipes to deal with but no
associated superheat and one electrical connection to the main panel. Since these plants
normally do not have any maintenance personnel, in case of a major breakdown, a chain
of hypermarkets could have a spare unit that would be replaced in a matter of hours.
This means a new real life application for Ammonia systems.

Commercial Refrigeration.
We have two basic options. The designer can choose to go R22 / DX as it has been
happening for the last 50 years, or, in some cases like a Large Superstore or Hypermarket,
the designer can choose to go Ammonia with glycol or Brine

10
 Let us study one case we could consider typical for a large Hypermarket

Let us imagine that this large Hypermarket will require the following loads:

Freezer applications 31 TR Temp. -20 F

Cooler applications 143 TR Temp. +32 F
Comfort Air Conditioning 429 TR Temp. +71 F (around 100,000 Sq. Ft.)

With the typical solution, R22 - DX / Air cooled condensers, we could

expect the following:
Freezer 5 Packages = 31.50 TR 82.65 KW. 2.62 KW/TR
Coolers 8 Packages = 143.12 TR 206.40 KW. 1.44 KW/TR
Air Conditioning 16 Rooftops = 428.80 TR 474.24 KW. 1.10 KW/TR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall picture 603.42 TR 763.29 KW 1.26 KW/TR

With an Industrial Refrigeration approach, R717 - Critically Charged

Flooded evaporators and evaporative condenser, we could expect
as follows:

Freezer Booster Screw Compressor 1 x 160 mm Short 33.3 TR 19.02 KW

Cooler Booster Screw Compressor 1 x 200 mm Short 182.5 TR 58.86 KW
Hi-Press. Screw compressor 1 x 250 mm Short 620.0 TR 353.6 KW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall picture 603 TR 431.48 KW 0.716 KW/TR

Conclusion of commercial refrigeration system design differences:

1) OVERALL PLANT EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT : 75.97%

In this Commercial Refrigeration case study we can improve the common Overall Plant
Efficiency :

Typical 1.26 KW / TR

Using new Ammonia Technology and Brine, we can improve to a Common Overall
Efficiency :

New Solution 0.716 KW / TR

2) SAVINGS > $160,735.00 / year in compressor consumption only

In a case study like this one, a plant of 603 TR working 24 hours a day means that we can expect
to save this client an average of 7000 hours / year:

7000 hours x 603 TR x ( 1.26 - 0.716 ) KW/H.TR x $ .07 / KW/H = $ 160,735.00

11
3) INVESTMENT DIFFERENCE CAN BE RECOVERED IN ONE YEAR.

Because the Investment difference was priced less than $160,735.00

Industrial Refrigeration
Figures 3 and 4 show two typical ways to design One stage Medium Temperature and
Two Stage Low Temperature both with Ammonia (R 717), flooded or re-circulated
systems.

These examples serve the purpose of highlighting the differences in design, if the same
diagrams were to be done with R22. The next drawings Figs. 5 , 6 and 7 show what
would be the differences in design of some of the components if we were to replace
R717 with R22.

The example in Fig. 5 highlights the differences required on a Re-circulator with pumps
operating on R717 and on R22.

For the same refrigeration capacity, the diameter of the Re-circulator , the incoming wet
suction, outgoing dry suction pipes, and the liquid feed assembly would be bigger on
R22. Over and above that, a complex system of oil recovery from the wet suction to the
dry suction is a must. The contraption is composed of a “Sniffer” system allowing oil pick
up from three different points: through a solenoid valve that will open only when the
compressor is running, into a thermostatically controlled expansion valve sized carefully
due to the pressure differential being very small, and a Heat exchanger to make sure the
refrigerant through this valve evaporates before the “U” bend with higher gas velocity,
where it connects.

Similar type oil recovery is shown on Fig. 6 to get the oil out of a flooded evaporator, and
is compared with an Ammonia system where clearly this problem is negligible. All we
need is a drain valve to drain oil about once a month.

Yet another type of similar oil recovery system is shown in Fig. 7 to remove the oil from
an Intercooler, operating with R22 and R717. Be reminded that once more the size of
vessel and pipes will be bigger with R22.

System Practices

In Fig. 5 we can see what the differences would be on a Re-circulator package with
Refrigerant Pumps operating with R717 and R22.

In Fig. 6 we can see the differences between the piping in a Flooded evaporator with
R717 and R22.

In Fig. 7 we can see the differences required to make the same Intercooler work with
these two Refrigerants.

12
5- Sizing Comparison on Re-circulated Systems
Fig. 8 shows a diagram of a typical Re-circulated System with a capacity of 250 TR
Medium Temperature where the equipment and pipes were sized with the same criteria for
comparison.

It is obvious that a R22 system will become significantly more expensive, if both are re-
circulated or flooded. The vessels are usually smaller with Ammonia, however an
exception is made only when the capacity of a given vessel is too big for the capacity with
Ammonia but enough for the same capacity with R22.

Pipe diameters are almost always larger with R22, for similar reasons.

Fig. 9 Shows a Diagram of another typical System also with a capacity of 250 TR but Low
Temp. Pipes are sized to make a quick comparison. It is obvious that the end results are
the same in medium or low temperature applications.
It may seem that a R22 booster is better the R717, because often provides larger capacity
but the fact is that the efficiency is poorer. In the case studied the booster efficiency of
Ammonia was 1.514 TR/BHP against 1.479 TR/BHP. The high pressure side compressors
( reciprocating compressors in this case ) was 0.896 TR/BHP for Ammonia and 0.8595 TR/
BHP for R22.
The overall figures to obtain 250 TR were 0.5178 TR/BHP with Ammonia at -20/+20/+95
degrees F, while R22 produced a value of 0.4917 TR/BHP only.

The booster side required a 175 HP motor for the compressor with R717. The same motor
could be used with R22 provided the screw compressor capacity was limited by software to
the 250 TR required.
The high pressure side required a 325 HP motor with Ammonia and a 350 HP with R22.
In this studied case, therefore we can conclude that the Ammonia solution was 5.3%
better in terms of efficiency.

The compressors and condensers are often larger, the piping and valves are almost
always bigger in diameter. The vessels are almost always bigger with R22, there are oil
recovery contraptions for R22 that are not required for R717, therefore the system has to
be more expensive.

It is almost impossible a flooded or re-circulated system can be made cheaper with R22.

The only exception is when we can replace an Ammonia flooded or re-circulated system
with R22 Direct expansion and the system is small enough to allow the use of Copper/
Aluminum coils and/or Commercial size compressors instead of Industrial Compressors.
We believe this does not happen too often.

13
The conjunction of both studies allows us to establish the following comparison charts :

Compressor Design Comparison (Medium Temp. Example)

R717 (Ammonia) R22 Both Re-circulated

4/1 3/1 Recirculation ratio

248 TR 248 TR Comp. Requirement

100 m3/hour 134 m3/hour Compressor size

248.7TR @ 100% cap 248.0 TR @ 82.5% cap Comp. capacity

239.5 BHP @ 100% cap 265.1 BHP @ 82.5% Abs. Power

0.963 BHP/TR 1.069 BHP/TR COP.

250 HP 300 HP Minimum size motor

Smaller Pipe Diameter Bigger Pipe Diameters On all system lines

Regular Oil Separation Special Oil Recovery System

$14.29/hour $15.82/hour Average to run compressor

$0.08/Kw/h $0.08/Kw/h Price = KW/H

14
System Design Comparison (Medium Temp. Example)

System Design Ammonia R717 R22

Discharge line 3.1/2" 5"

Liquid drop to receiver 3" 4"

Liquid to Re-circulator 2" 3.1/2"

Pumped liquid 3.1/2" 5"

Wet suction 8" 10"

Dry suction 6" 8"

Hot gas line 1.1/2" 2"

Re-circulator diameter 36" 48"

Liquid pump 65 G.P.M. 145 G.P.M.

Pump motor 3 HP 5 HP

Evaporative condenser Nominal - 400 Nominal - 450

Condenser fans 25 HP 30 HP

Condenser pump 1 HP 1 HP

Evaporators 8 x [3 x 1.5] HP 8 x [3 x 1.5] HP

The results on the low temperature design are similar.

15
COMPARISON CHART, for similar re-circulated systems.

Ammonia R22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01- Compressor selection Smaller Investment Bigger Investment (normally)
02- Refrigeration Capacity Same Same
03- Electrical Consumption Smaller Bigger
04- Coefficient of Performance Better Worse
05- Compressor Installed power Smaller Bigger
06- Compressor running costs Lower Higher
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07- Pipe investment Smaller Bigger
08- Pipe Insulation investment Smaller Bigger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09- Re-circulator Smaller Bigger ( normally )
10- Liquid pump investment Smaller Bigger
11- Liquid Pump Motor Smaller Bigger
12- Pump Consumption Smaller Bigger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13- Evaporative Condenser Smaller Bigger
14- Condenser Investment Smaller Bigger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15- Evaporator Investment Same Same ( often higher )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16- Oil Recovery system Cheaper Expensive
17- Oil Recovery system Trouble free More service.

6- Conclusions
It is difficult to establish rigid laws of design for Industrial Refrigeration, however, one can
outline a few trends of this Industry. When designing a new system, a design engineer
should check out the following basic details:

• Verify which system has the smallest Capital Cost and the smallest Running Costs
• Consider carefully before designing systems requiring Refrigerant replacement within
a few years.
• In Small systems it is normally cheaper to design HFC or HCFC ’s especially on
Medium or High temperatures if one can use DX.
• In Medium sized Systems sometimes is still cheaper to go that way because the
efficiency difference of Ammonia will not always amortize the investment in short
enough time.
• In Large systems, Flooded or Re-circulated Industrial Refrigeration, always design with
Ammonia.

• Cheaper Investment.
• Cheaper to run.
• No oil management nightmares.

16
NOTE:
The ASHRAE design manuals are excellent tools for the Refrigeration Engineer and not only I use them myself but also
endorse them as well. There are cases however that need some attention.

The latest information on separation velocities printed on ASHRAE requires some caution.
I personally never have used such high velocities to design a separator. Every time I tried to expand a plant and deviate
slightly from my own set of curves I have experienced problems that had to be solved resorting to other engineering
ways. I caution everyone from using the ASHRAE separation velocities currently printed because they are too high.
There is a group of people concerned with the same problem, ready to challenge these high values, leaded by Professor
Wilbert Stoeker of Urbana University in Illinois.

These are the curves I have been using trouble free for the last 20 years or more. They may be a little conservative but
they will keep you out of trouble.

To check my own criteria against the state of the American Industry I have checked the printed capacities on technical
American manufacturer catalogs.
They are pretty much in line with the type of velocities shown in my curves.
They are not exactly the same but they reflect the same concern.
Find enclosed an example provided by Marcos Braz of the RVS, a company of the EVAPCO group.

Whatever these velocities are, what is important is the fact that nowhere in the curves we are allowed a higher velocity
with R22, which means that the separation vessels, like Re-circulators, Intercoolers or Suction Accumulators, need to be
always smaller in diameter when we use Ammonia, therefore cheaper.
These following tables showing Ammonia and R22 capacities for side by side comparison, were designed to demonstrate
that whatever pipe application, or size, it will always provide more refrigeration capacity with Ammonia than with R22.
Therefore, a larger diameter pipe is always required when R22 is used.

If the larger pipes are used in a system, then it is always more expensive to erect a R22 system then an Ammonia one.

The tables printed on this paper are:

BASIS OF DESIGN Showing the normal design criteria to pipe design in a Refrigeration System.

Discharge Lines Allowable capacities from 3/4" to 8" Ø

High Pressure Liquid Lines Allowable capacities from 1" to 4" Ø

Condenser to Receiver Allowable capacities from 1" to 4" Ø

Recirculation Liquid Int. Temp. Allowable capacities from 3/4" to 8" Ø

Recirculation Liquid Low Temp. Allowable capacities from 3/4" to 8" Ø

Gravity Feed down legs Liquid flows at different suction Temp.

Liquid Pump flows in 2 systems Liquid flows at different suction Temp.

Wet Suction Lines - Int. Temp. Allowable capacities from 2" to 12" Ø

Dry Suction Lines - Int. Temp. Allowable capacities from 2" to 12" Ø

Wet Suction Lines - Low Temp. Allowable capacities from 2" to 12" Ø

Dry Suction Lines - Low Temp. Allowable capacities from 2" to 12" Ø

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26