Exergy and Cost Optimization of a

Ranendra Roy
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Two-Stage Refrigeration System
IIEST Shibpur,
Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India
e-mail: ranendraroy2009@gmail.com
Using Refrigerant R32 and R410A
An attempt has been made to investigate numerically a two-stage refrigeration system with
Arup Jyoti Bhowal flash intercooler of 50 kW cooling capacity using refrigerant R410A and its possible alter-

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Heritage Institute of Technology,
Kolkata 700107, West Bengal, India
e-mail: arupjyoti.bhowal@heritageit.edu
Bijan Kumar Mandal1
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
IIEST Shibpur,
Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India
e-mail: bkm375@yahoo.co.in
native R32. Development of the simulation model for the analysis of the system has been
carried out in engineering equation solver considering the energetic, exergetic, economic,
and environmental aspects. Evaporator and condenser temperatures have been varied from
−50 °C to −25 °C and 40 °C to 55 °C, respectively, to carry out the simulation work. Co-
efficient of performance (COP), exergetic efficiency, and plant cost rate are the three per-
formance parameters computed in this present work. Results show that the performances of
the system using R32 are comparable with those of the system using R410A. It is also
observed that R32 shows slightly better thermo-economic performances at higher con-
denser temperature. Multi-objective optimization has also been carried out using the
toolbox available for optimization in MATLAB to obtain the optimum performance and
optimum operating conditions for both the refrigerants. Optimization results also show
better thermo-economic performances of R32 over R410A though compressor discharge
temperature is higher in case of R32. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4046253]

Keywords: 2-stage refrigeration, R32, COP, exergetic efficiency, cost, optimization

Introduction Payne and Domanski [17], and Calm and Domanski [18] also sug-
gested R410A to be a promising replacement for R22 in air condi-
Refrigeration is the process of transferring heat from low temper-
tioners and heat pump applications. Though several studies
ature to high temperature with the expense of work [1]. The widely
recommended R410A to be a better alternative to R22, different
used system for any refrigeration process is the simple vapor com-
researchers are recently looking for some other alternatives of
pression refrigeration system (VCRS). But this system is effective
R410A as it is having higher global warming potential (GWP)
when the pressure ratio between evaporator and condenser is
value of 2000 [14] as suggested in the recent Kigali amendment
below 5 [2]. In case of higher pressure ratios, compressor power
[19] in 2016. Xu et al. [20] experimentally found an increase in
requirement increases and co-efficient of performance (COP) of
COP and capacity by 9% and 10%, respectively, using R32
the system decreases. In such cases, a multi stage vapor compres-
instead of R410A the refrigerant in a vapor-injected heat pump
sion refrigeration system is recommended for better performance.
system. Tu et al. [21] carried out a numerical study and also con-
Several numerical and experimental works have been conducted
ducted an experiment on a residential heat pump unit using R32
to assess the performance of refrigeration system. Sarbu [3],
and R410A. The numerical results showed that the cooling COP
Qureshi and Zubair [4], Best and Rivera [5], and Anand et al. [6]
obtained with R32 was 6% higher than the COP using R410A.
reviewed different systems and identified several strategies for
They also found a 2% improvement in heating COP from the exper-
future development of the existing system for the improvement in
imentation. In et al. [22], Piao et al. [23], Alabdulkarem et al. [24],
thermodynamic performances. Some previous work on refrigerants
and Yao et al. [25] also identified R32 to be the best replacement for
and their possible alternatives had also been reviewed by Mohanraj
R410A from their experimental study on a heat pump unit. Ust et al.
et al. [7] and Emani et al. [8]. Ahamed et al. [9] presented a review
[26] also recommended refrigerant R32 for its better performances
work on exergy analysis of a simple vapor compression refrigera-
over R410A for vapor compression refrigeration systems. Though
tion system. Chowdhury et al. [10] presented a review work on
several researchers recommended refrigerant R32 over R410A, it
energy and exergy analysis of a two-stage vapor compression refrig-
has the limitation of higher discharge temperature. Barve and Cre-
eration system. In another numerical study, Ahamed et al. [11] found
maschi [27] and Zilio et al. [28] found that the capacity obtained
an improvement in the exergetic performance of a single-stage
with R32 was always higher compared with R410A, but the dis-
vapor compression system using R600a over R134a. Gill et al.
charge temperature with R32 was always higher than that of R410A.
[12] and Abraham et al. [13] obtained better performances using
It has now been established that the multi-stage refrigeration
R450A and R430A, respectively, over refrigerant R134a.
system gives better performance when the pressure ratio and
The Montreal protocol and the subsequent amendments have put
hence the temperature lift is high. Nikolaidis and Probert [29]
restriction on the production and use of some of the most thermody-
carried out exergy analysis on a two-stage vapor compression
namically efficient chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluo-
refrigeration system using R22 as refrigerant. They reported that
rocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants due to their direct involvement in the
any reduction in exergy loss in evaporator or condenser resulted
depletion of stratospheric ozone layer. Calm and Hourahan [14] pre-
in decrease in overall plant irreversibility by 2.87 times or 2.40
sented refrigerants data summary and identified that refrigerant
times, respectively. Tiedeman and Sherif [30] showed that signifi-
R410A had thermophysical properties similar to those of R22.
cant error would occur if the intermediate pressure is taken as the
Spatz and Yana Motta [15], Yana Motta and Domanski [16],
geometric mean of the condenser and the evaporator pressure.
Ouadha et al. [31] concluded from their numerical study that signif-
1 icant exergy losses occurred mainly in compressor, expansion
Corresponding author.
Manuscript received October 29, 2019; final manuscript received January 24, 2020; valve, and condenser. They also found the optimum inter-stage
published online February 5, 2020. Assoc. Editor: Cheng-Xian Lin. pressure to be close to the arithmetic mean of the evaporator and

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031024-1
Copyright © 2020 by ASME
the condenser pressure. Zubair et al. [32] simulated a two-stage
refrigeration system and found that maximum exergy loss was
due to low compressor efficiency. They also reported a similar
trend in optimum intermediate pressure as reported by Ouadha
et al. [31]. Röyttä et al. [33] discussed about the optimization of a
two-stage refrigeration system with flash intercooler using R134a
and R245fa as refrigerants to obtain maximum COP. Agrawal
and Bhattacharyya [34] simulated a two-stage transcritical carbon
dioxide heat pump system with flash intercooler and concluded
that flash intercooling arrangement was not economical when
R744 was used as refrigerant. Shuxue and Guoyuan [35] experi-
mentally investigated on a two-stage compression refrigeration/
heat pump system with dual-cylinder rolling piston compressor
and compared with the performances of a single-stage compression
heat pump system. They found an increase in COP and cooling
capacity by 10–12% and 5–15%, respectively. Bertsch and Groll
[36] carried out a numerical and experimental investigation on a
two-stage heat pump of 17 kW heating capacity using R410A as
refrigerant. They found that the heat pump was capable of supplying
water at 50 °C, while operating at ambient temperatures between
−30 °C and 10 °C.
Sayyaadi and Nejatolahi [37] performed thermo-economic analy-
sis on a cooling tower assisted vapor compression refrigeration
machine. They also performed multi-objective optimization to eval-
uate the total exergy destruction and total system cost at optimum
condition. Aminyavari et al. [38] performed exergetic, economic,
and environmental analysis on a CO2/NH3 based cascade refrigera-
tion system. They also performed multi-objective optimization
employing genetic algorithm to find out the optimal conditions and
the optimal performances of the system and finally a unique solution
was obtained employing Technique for Order of Preference by Sim-
ilarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) decision making method. Keshtkar
[39] investigated the effect of subcooling and superheating on the
thermo-economic performances of a CO2/NH3 cascade refrigeration
system. They also performed two single-objective optimization and
one multi-objective optimization to obtain the best results. Eini et al.
[40] compared the optimized performances of a CO2/NH3 cascade
refrigeration system with those of a CO2/C3H8 cascade refrigeration
system. They considered three parameters, namely, exergetic effi-
ciency, plant cost rate, and overall risk as objective functions.
They found no significant differences between the two systems
from exergetic and economic point of view, but they identified
CO2/NH3 to be safer compared with the CO2/C3H8 system. Roy
and Mandal [41] carried out thermo-economic analysis and multi-
objective decision making employing genetic algorithm and
TOPSIS considering different low GWP refrigerant combinations
Fig. 1 (a) Schematic diagram and (b) P–h plot of a two-stage refrigeration system with flash intercooler
031024-2 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020
in cascade refrigeration system. Some optimization studies had
also been conducted on thermal energy storage system for air condi-
tioning applications by Sanaye and Shirazi [42], Sanaye and Shirazi
[43], and Navidbakhsh et al. [44]. Baakeem et al. [2] also carried out
thermo-economic analysis as well as single-objective optimization
for maximizing COP using conjugate directions method available
in engineering equation solver [45].
Though a huge number of papers are available on vapor compres-
sion refrigeration system, few problems still need attentions. There
are very less amount of work available on multi-stage refrigeration
system using flash intercooler. The impact of some environment
friendly refrigerants on the performance of multi-stage refrigeration
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021
system is still not clear. Few researchers pointed that optimization is
required to overcome the problem regarding high compressor dis-
charge temperature if the system needs to operate with R32
instead of R410A.
In this paper, energetic, exergetic, economic, and environmental
analyses of two-stage refrigeration system with flash intercooling
have been carried out using a low GWP refrigerant R32 as promis-
ing substitute of R410A. Multi-objective optimization has also been
carried out for the maximization of exergetic efficiency and for min-
imization of plant cost rate and compressor discharge temperatures.
A mathematical model has been developed in EES [45] using the
equations to describe a two-stage refrigeration system to carry out
the simulation work. EES is a program, used for solving numerous
equations, featuring highly accurate thermodynamic and transport
properties of several substances. The toolbox available in MATLAB
for optimization has been used for multi-objective optimization
and TOPSIS decision making method has been employed to find
out the optimum operating conditions and performance parameters.
System Description
The schematic of a two-stage refrigeration system with flash
intercooler has been presented in Fig. 1(a) and the corresponding
P–h plot has been shown in Fig. 1(b). The refrigerant in the evap-
orator absorbs heat from the refrigerated space at a rate of Q̇eva at
evaporator temperature, Teva and rejects to atmosphere from the
condenser at Q̇cond heat rate at condenser temperature, Tcond. Ẇ LP
and Ẇ HP amount of work has been supplied in the LP and HP
stages, respectively, to compress the refrigerant to condenser pres-
sure. Refrigerant coming out of LP compressor enters into the flash
tank (FT) where it mixes with the refrigerant coming out of the HP
throttle valve (TV). Refrigerant then leaves the flash tank at satura-
tion conditions.
Transactions of the ASME
Table 1 Different properties of refrigerant R410A and R32 [10] compressors. Isentropic efficiency (ηs) of both the compressors
can be expressed following Sayyaadi and Nejatolahi [37] as:
Molar Critical Boiling  
mass temperature point ASHRAE Pout
Refrigerant (g/mole) (°C) (°C) safety code ODP GWP ηs = 0.85 − 0.046667 (5)
Pin
R410A 72.58 72.5 −51.6 A1 0 2000 For LP compressor, Pin is the Peva and Pout is the Pi.
R32 52.02 78.2 −51.7 A2 0 550 For HP compressor, Pin is the Pi and Pout is the Pcond.
So, total compressor power (Ẇ total ) is given by

Ẇ total = Ẇ LP + Ẇ HP (6)
Refrigerant Properties Next, applying first law of thermodynamics to condenser, the

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

In the present study, two refrigerants R410A and R32 having heat rejection (Q̇cond ) from the system can be written as:
similar normal boiling point and critical temperature have been con-
Q̇cond = ṁHP (h4 − h5 ) (7)
sidered separately for the system and compared. Refrigerant R410A
constitutes R32 and R125 (50%/50% by mass) and belongs to zeo- The heat transfer area of different heat exchangers can be calcu-
tropic category having zero ozone depletion potential (ODP) and lated using Eq. (8) as [48]:
GWP value of 2000. R410A is also non-flammable and non-toxic
in nature. On the other hand, R32 belongs to hydro fluorocarbon Q
A= (8)
category having zero ODP and GWP value of 550 [14] which is U × LMTD
three times lower than that of R410A. Similar to R410A, R32 is Rate of exergy destruction (δ) of any component of the system
also non-toxic but mild flammability is reported in case of R32. can be expressed as [49–51]:
The important properties of these two investigated refrigerants
have been shown in Table 1.     T0

δ= (ṁ ex)in − (ṁ ex)out + Q̇ 1 − −
T in
   (9)
Mathematical Model T0 
Q̇ 1 − ± Ẇ
The modeling of the two-stage refrigeration system with flash T out
intercooler is carried out in engineering equation solver (EES) con-
sidering the energy, exergy, and economy concepts. The following where T0 is the dead state temperature or the ambient temperature
basic assumptions have been made to make the analysis feasible and which is taken as 25 °C. Exergy destructions in different compo-
simplified: nents is evaluated applying the above equation and those are
listed in Table 2.
• There is no pressure drop and heat loss from the pipelines and Total exergy destruction is estimated by adding the exergy losses
different system components. in different components and can be expressed as:
• The first law is applied to each component neglecting kinetic
energy and potential energy. δtotal = δeva + δLP,comp + δHP,comp + δcond + δHP,TV + δLP,TV + δFT
• Subcooling of condensed refrigerant has not been considered. (10)
• Steady-state conditions prevail in all the components of the
system. Finally, COP and exergetic efficiency (ηex) of the system can be
• Refrigerants coming out of the flash tank are in saturated written as [52,53]:
condition.
• Isentropic efficiencies depend on the pressure ratios in two Q̇eva
COP = (11)
cycles. Ẇ total

Energy and Exergy Analysis. The optimal intermediate pres- Ẇ total − δtotal
ηex = (12)
sure (Pi) for the two-stage compression refrigeration system can Ẇ total
be taken following Arora [46] and Purohit et al. [47] as:














Pi = Peva × Pcond (1) Economic Analysis. Economic analysis of any plant focuses on
three maincost components,
namely, total capital and maintenance
where Peva is the evaporator pressure and Pcond is the condenser cost rate CRk , operational cost rate (CROP) and CO2 penalty
pressure. Now, applying first law of thermodynamics to the evapo-
cost rate (CRenv) of the plant. The total plant cost rate (CRtotal) is
rator, cooling load (Q̇eva ) can be expressed following Baakeem et al. the sum of these three cost components and can be expressed as:
[2] as: 
CRtotal = CRk + CROP + CRenv (13)
Q̇eva = ṁLP (h1 − h8 ) (2)
where ṁLP is the mass flow rate in the low pressure (LP) side. Power
requirement by LP compressor (Ẇ LP ) and high pressure (HP) com- Table 2 Exergy destruction in different components
pressor (Ẇ HP ) can be written as:
Component Exergy destruction equation
ṁLP (h2 − h1 )
Ẇ LP = (3) δeva = Ex8 − Ex1 + Q̇eva (1 − T0 /Teva )
ηs × ηm × ηel Evaporator
LP compressor δLP,comp = Ex1 − Ex2 + Ẇ LP
HP compressor δHP,comp = Ex3 − Ex4 + Ẇ HP
ṁHP (h4 − h3 ) Condenser δcond = Ex4 − Ex5 − Q̇cond (1 − T0 /Tcond )
Ẇ HP = (4)
ηs × ηm × ηel HP throttle valve δHP,TV = Ex5 − Ex6
LP throttle valve δLP,TV = Ex7 − Ex8
where ṁHP is the mass flow rate in the HP side, ηel is the electrical Flash tank δFT = Ex2 − Ex3 + Ex6 − Ex7
efficiency of the motor and ηm is mechanical efficiency of the

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031024-3
 Capital investment and maintenance cost rate of individual com-
ponent is given by
CRk = Ck × φ × CRF
where Ck is the capital cost component of individual components, φ
is the maintenance factor, and CRF is the capital recovery factor.
The capital cost of different components of the two-stage refrigera-
tion system can be estimated using the cost functions as given by
Mosaffa et al. [48]. These cost functions are presented in Table 3.
Capital recovery factor (CRF) can be calculated from the follow-
ing Dincer et al. [52] as:
System Optimization
Objective Function. In this paper, four parameters including
(14) exergetic efficiency, plant cost rate, and two compressors discharge
temperatures have been selected as objective functions where exer-
getic efficiency should be maximized and other three functions
should be minimized for the system using refrigerant R32. In case
of the R410A based system, only two parameters, namely, exergetic
efficiency and plant cost rate have been chosen as objective func-
tions. Several researchers identified the problem of high compressor
discharge temperature using R32 in the system. However, this
problem does not exist in case of the R410A. This motivated

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

authors to select four parameters as objective functions in case of
i(i + 1)n
CRF = (15) R32 based system and two parameters in case of R410A based
(1 + i)n − 1 system for system optimization.
where i and n are the annual interest rate and plant life time,
respectively. Design Parameters. Two design parameters have been selected
Hence, total capital and maintenance cost rate is the sum up of the for the present multi-objective optimization problem, namely, evap-
capital and maintenance costs of all components and this can be orator temperature (Teva), and condenser temperature (Tcond). The
expressed as: range of variation of these two design parameters are shown in
 Table 5.
CRk = CReva + CRcond + CRFT + CRLP,comp + CRHP,comp
Multi-Objective Optimization. A multi-objective optimization
+ CRHP,TV + CRLP,TV (16) is a realistic approach for solving optimization problems having
Again, rate of operational cost of the system can be estimated multiple conflicting objectives [55]. Solving these problems via
as [42]: single-objective optimization cannot satisfy both the objective
functions. Unlike single-objective optimization, in case of multi-
CROP = N × Ẇ total × Cel (17) objective optimization, a single unique solution may not exist
which can fulfill multiple objectives at a reasonable level. In a
where N is the annual operational hour of the system and Cel is the typical multi-objective optimization problem, a set of solutions
unit electricity cost. exist where all of them are equally acceptable. These set of solutions
are named as Pareto optimal solutions or non-dominated solution.
Environmental Analysis. CO2 penalty cost is levied due to the After that, decision-maker has to decide the best solution among
emission of pollutants to the environment which act as green house all the non-dominated solutions using different decision-making
gases. As energy supply system emits CO2 which contributes techniques. A multi-objective optimization problem can be
mainly to the global warming, the CO2 emission is chosen to expressed mathematically as follows [41,56]:
analyze the environmental criteria. Each country has been given a
limit of CO2 emission to reduce the global carbon footprint. If a
country emits less carbon than the limit, it can sell the rest in the
form of carbon trading and gains financially. So, it will be Table 4 Values of different input parameters
always beneficial to reduce the carbon emission and thus the rate
of CO2 penalty cost or the cost rate to avoid CO2 emission due to Parameters Values Ref.
power generation which will be consumed by the LP and HP com-
Cooling load, Qeva 50 kW [41]
pressors of two-stage refrigeration system. This cost rate can be esti- Dead state temperature, T0 25 °C [49]
mated as [54] Degree of superheating 5 °C [41]
Overall heat transfer co-efficient of 0.03 kW/m2 K [48]
CRenv = mCO2 e × CCO2 (18) evaporator
where CCO2 is the cost of CO2 avoided and mCO2 e is the amount of Overall heat transfer co-efficient of 0.04 kW/m2 K [48]
condenser
annual green house gas (GHG) emission from the system which is
Air temperature difference in 10 K [48]
calculated following Wang et al. [54] as evaporator and condenser
Inlet air temperature to the evaporator −10 °C [41]
mCO2 e = μCO2 e × Eannual (19)
Maintenance factor, ϕ 1.06 [41,42,48]
where μCO2 e and Eannual are the emission factor and annual energy Annual interest rate, i 14% [41,42,48]
Plant lifetime, n 20 years [41]
consumption of the system in kWh, respectively. Annual operational hour, N 4266 h [48]
Values of some input parameters have been assumed for the com- Electrical power cost, Cel 0.09 USD/kWh [41]
plete analysis of the system and those are listed in Table 4. Emission factor, μCO2 e 0.968 kg/kWh [41]
Cost of CO2 avoided, CCO2 0.09 USD/kg of CO2 [41,42]
emission
Table 3 Capital cost components of different components

Component Capital cost function [48]

0.46
HPC compressor CHP,comp = 9624.2 × Ẇ HP
0.46
LPC compressor CLP,comp = 10167.5 × Ẇ LP Table 5 Range of design parameters
HPC throttle valve CHP,TV = 114.5 × ṁHP
LPC throttle valve CLP,TV = 114.5 × ṁLP Design parameters Range
Evaporator Ceva = 1397 × A0.89
eva
Condenser Ccond = 1397 × A0.89
cond Evaporator temperature −50 ◦ C ≤ Teva ≤ −25 ◦ C
Flash tank CFT = 280.3 × ṁFT Condenser temperature 40 °C ≤ Tcond ≤ 55 °C

031024-4 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020 Transactions of the ASME

 Find parents for crossover. For the optimization problem, authors have
used the multi-objective optimization genetic algorithm available
x = (xi ) ∀i = 1, 2, 3 . . . .Npar (20) in the optimization toolbox of MATLAB software. A population size
of 200 double vector type initial candidate solutions (individuals)
Minimize or maximize is created. A tournament selection approach with tournament size
2 is used to select the parent solutions for crossover. The crossover
fi (x), ∀i = 1, 2, 3, . . . ..Nobj (21)
fraction is set at 80% and constraint dependent mutation is imple-
mented. The termination criterion is set at 200 generations. The
gj (x) = 0, ∀j = 1, 2, 3, . . . ., m (22) distance crowding algorithms available in MATLAB optimization
toolbox has been used to measure the concentration of the popula-
tion. Additionally, for maintaining diversity in the Pareto front pop-
hk (x) = 0, ∀k = 1, 2, 3, . . . ., n (23) ulation an upper limit of 35% of the population size is set for the

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

where x, Npar, fi(x), Nobj, gj(x), and hk(x) are the decision variables
vectors, number of decision variables, objectives, number of objec-
tives, equality, and inequality constraints, respectively. Few tuning
parameters have also been chosen for the optimization procedure
and those are shown in Table 6. Turning parameters have significant
influence on the optimization outcome, and thus as per the recom-
mendation of Kalita et al. [57], a pilot study was carried out.
However, due to paucity of space, only the outcomes of the pilot
study and the best-observed turning parameter combination for
the present problem are reported in Table 6. Crossover and mutation
probabilities were found to be the most significant tuning parame-
ters. It was seen that a relatively low mutation probability was ben-
eficial, which is perhaps due to the fact that low mutation
probability avoids loosing key genetic material [58,59]. During
pilot trials, the solutions were found to be converged by 140–180
generations. Thus, the generation limit was kept as 200 since a
larger generation limit would lead to wastage of computational
resources. Tournament selection ensured the unbiased selection of
Table 6 Tuning parameters for optimization
Tuning parameters Values
Population size 300
Selection Tournament
Mutation Uniform
Crossover Intermediate
Crossover ratio 0.9
Generation 200
Function tolerance 1e−5
present optimization problem.
Validation of the Simulated Results
The predicted results from the present model have been validated
against the published numerical work of Kılıç [60] for the verifica-
tion of the accuracy of the model. Two most important parameters
(COP and exergetic efficiency) of the two-stage refrigeration system
with intercooler have been chosen for validation. Influence of evap-
orator temperature on the COP and exergetic efficiency of the
system using R404A as refrigerant for a fixed condenser tempera-
ture of 35 °C have been plotted in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), respectively.
Also, the influences of condenser temperature on the COP and exer-
getic efficiency of the system for a fixed evaporator temperature of
−10 °C are presented in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. The
abovementioned four figures show that results obtained from the
present model are in good agreement both quantitatively and qual-
itatively with the results of Kılıç [60] for COP as well as exergetic.
Maximum difference between the present study and the work of
Kılıç [60] in all the parameters lies within 5%. So, it can be said
that the present model is capable of producing results within the
acceptable range. In the Results and Discussion section, a flash
intercooler instead of simple intercooler as used by Kılıç is intro-
duced to the system. Cost analysis of the system has also been
carried out using the present model.
Results and Discussion
The two-stage vapor compression refrigeration system with flash
intercooler is simulated using refrigerants R410A and its possible

Fig. 2 (a) Variation of COP with evaporator temperature and (b) variation of exergetic efficiency with evaporator temperature

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031024-5

Fig. 3 (a) Variation of COP with condenser temperature and (b) variation of exergetic efficiency with condenser temperature
alternative R32 to compare the thermo-economic performances.
A computer-based model has been developed to carry out the
simulation.
Effect of Evaporator Temperature on COP. Figure 4 shows
the variations of COP of the investigated system with the evaporator
temperature keeping the condenser temperature fixed at 40 °C for
both R410A and R32 refrigerants. It can be seen from the figure
that the COP of the system increases with the increase in evaporator
temperature. As evaporator temperature increases, pressure ratios in
both stages decrease which causes a decrease in the compressor
power for the system. The decrease in compressor power conse-
quently results in increase in COP of the system. Similar trends
are noted for both the investigated refrigerants. Results show that
Fig. 4 Variation of COP of the system with evaporator
temperature
031024-6 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021
COP with the R32-based system is comparable with R410A
system throughout the evaporator temperature range. However,
the COP of R32 system at evaporator temperature of −50 °C is
found to be 0.27% less than that of R410A system. The correspond-
ing value at −25 °C evaporator temperature is 0.32% higher.
Evaporator Temperature on Exergetic Efficiency. The varia-
tions of exergetic efficiency of the system with the evaporator tem-
perature have been plotted in Fig. 5. Condenser temperature has
been kept fixed at 40 °C. The figure shows that exergetic efficiency
increases with the increase in evaporator temperature. This can be
explained from the fact that as evaporator temperature increases,
the intermediate temperature increases. This leads to decrease in
the pressure ratios in both the stages which finally causes a decrease
Fig. 5 Variation of exergetic efficiency with evaporator
temperature
Transactions of the ASME
Table 7 Exergy destruction in individual component at Tcond =
40 °C for both refrigerants

Teva
Refrigerant (°C) δcond δeva δFT δHP Comp δLP Comp δLP,TV δHP,TV

R410A −50 1.43 0.02 1.21 9.37 5.51 1.04 4.55

R32 2.67 0.01 2.32 8.59 5.22 1 3.47
R410A −45 1.07 0.02 0.92 7.52 4.64 0.95 3.87
R32 2.02 0.01 1.81 6.93 4.41 0.92 2.96
R410A −40 0.81 0.02 0.71 6.12 3.94 0.87 3.29
R32 1.56 0.01 1.43 5.67 3.76 0.83 2.52
R410A −35 0.62 0.02 0.55 5.02 3.37 0.79 2.8

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

R32 1.2 0.01 1.14 4.68 3.22 0.76 2.15
R410A −30 0.48 0.02 0.43 4.16 2.89 0.71 2.37
R32 0.94 0.01 0.91 3.89 2.78 0.68 1.83
R410A −25 0.37 0.03 0.35 3.45 2.49 0.64 2
R32 0.73 0.01 0.73 3.25 2.39 0.61 1.54

in the exergy destruction and increase in exergetic efficiency [53].

Predicted results show that the exergetic performances of R32 are
slightly better than those of R410A in the system for higher evapo-
rator temperatures as presented in Table 7. Exergetic efficiency
using R32 below evaporator temperature of −40 °C is slightly
lower than that of the R410A system but, beyond that exergetic effi-
ciency increases gradually. At −25 °C evaporator temperature,
exergetic efficiency of R32 based system is found to be 0.3%
higher than the R410A-based system. Table 7 also shows that
both compressors and the high pressure throttle valve are the
three major components for high exergy destruction.
Evaporator Temperature on Total Plant Cost Rate. The
effect of evaporator temperature on the total plant cost rate has
been presented in Fig. 6. It is clearly visible in the figure that the
plant cost rate initially decreases upto a certain value of evaporator
temperature and then again rises with the increase in evaporator
temperature. Figures 7 and 8 show the variations of different cost
components with evaporator temperature for the refrigerants R32
and R410A, respectively, for the fixed condenser temperature of
40 °C. The increase in evaporator temperature decreases the com-
pressor power and, consequently, lowers the operational cost rate
Fig. 7 Variations of different cost components of the plant with
evaporator temperature using R32
and CO2 penalty cost. But the increase in evaporator temperature
causes an initial decrease and then increase in the total capital and
maintenance cost of the plant (shown in Figs. 7 and 8). This can
also be explained from the fact that as evaporator temperature
increases the capital and maintenance cost rates of condenser, HP
compressor and LP compressor decrease but, at the same time,
this increases for evaporator as shown in Fig. 9. The capital and
maintenance cost rates of the flash intercooler and two throttle
valves are not shown separately in the abovementioned figure as
these values are negligible compared with other components
costs. The increase in capital and maintenance cost rate of evapora-
tor is less than the sum of decrease in other cost components of the
system upto the evaporator temperature of −31 °C. This results in
decrease in the total capital and maintenance cost rate of the
plant. But, beyond that evaporator temperature, the capital and

Fig. 6 Influence of evaporator temperature on total plant cost Fig. 8 Variations of different cost components of the plant with
rate evaporator temperature using R410A

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031024-7
 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021
Fig. 9 Variations of components cost rates with evaporator tem-
perature for R32 based system Fig. 11 Variation of exergetic efficiency of the system with con-
denser temperature

maintenance cost rate increases rapidly which results in increase in

the total capital and maintenance cost rate of the plant and thus,
finally results in initial decrease and then increase in the total
plant cost rate. The annual plant cost rate of the R32 system is com-
parable with that of the R410A system. Plant cost rate of R32
system is only 0.21% higher at −50 °C evaporator temperature,
whereas this value is even less (0.1%) at −25 °C evaporator temper-
ature than that of the R410A based system.
Condenser Temperature on COP. Figure 10 illustrates the
effect of condenser temperature on the COP of the system at cons-
tant evaporator temperature of −35 °C for both refrigerants R32 and
R410A. The figure shows a decreasing trend of COP with the
increase in condenser temperature. As condenser temperature
increases, the optimum intermediate pressure increases. As a
result of that, the compressors in both the stages need to compress
the vapor refrigerants to a higher pressure. This, consequently,
increases the required compressor power for the system. As com-
pressor power requirement increases, the COP of the system
decreases as the constant cooling load of the evaporator remains
the same. Further, it can also be noted from the abovementioned
figure that COP with R32 is slightly higher than that with
R410A. Also, the difference in COP between both refrigerants
increases gradually and it is found to be 0.1% and 3.82% for con-
denser temperatures of 40 °C and 55 °C, respectively.
Condenser Temperature on Exergetic Efficiency. The effect
of condenser temperature on exergetic efficiency has been depicted
in Fig. 11 keeping evaporator temperature fixed at −35 °C. The
figure shows a decreasing trend of exergetic efficiency with the
increase in the condenser temperature. The rise in condenser tem-
perature leads to increase in the pressure ratios in each stage
which causes an increase in the exergy destruction as presented in
Table 8 and, consequently, decreases the exergetic efficiency of
the system. Table 8 also identifies two compressors and HP throttle
valve to be the major contributors for exergy losses. The exergetic

Table 8 Exergy destructions in individual components at

T eva = − 35 ◦ C for both refrigerants

Tcond
Refrigerant (°C) δcond δeva δFT δHP Comp δLP Comp δLP,TV δHP,TV

R410A 40 0.62 0.02 0.55 5.02 3.37 0.79 2.80

R32 1.20 0.01 1.14 4.68 3.22 0.76 2.15
R410A 43 0.70 0.02 0.60 5.49 3.58 0.86 3.22
R32 1.33 0.01 1.22 5.08 3.41 0.81 2.43
R410A 46 0.78 0.02 0.64 6.01 3.79 0.93 3.70
R32 1.48 0.01 1.31 5.51 3.61 0.87 2.75
R410A 49 0.88 0.02 0.69 6.60 4.02 1.00 4.27
R32 1.64 0.01 1.40 5.98 3.82 0.93 3.11
R410A 52 1.00 0.02 0.74 7.26 4.26 1.08 4.94
R32 1.82 0.01 1.50 6.50 4.03 0.99 3.52
R410A 55 1.14 0.02 0.80 8.03 4.50 1.16 5.74
Fig. 10 Variation of COP of the system with condenser R32 2.02 0.01 1.60 7.08 4.25 1.05 3.98
temperature

031024-8 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 12 Influence of condenser temperature on total plant cost
rate
efficiency decreases from 55.55% to 51.15% when the condenser
temperature is increased from 40 °C to 55 °C for R32 system. The
decrease in exergetic efficiency is found to be slightly more with
R410A. It changes from 55.49% to 49.62% for the same increase
of condenser temperature.
Condenser Temperature on Total Plant Cost Rate. Influences
of condenser temperature on the plant cost rate and different cost
components of the system using refrigerants R32 and R410A sepa-
rately for a fixed evaporator temperature of −35 °C have been
shown in Figs. 12–14, respectively. In Fig. 12, the plant cost rate
first rapidly decreases and again increases with the increase in con-
denser temperature as shown in the figure. The increase in compres-
sor power requirement with the increase in condenser temperature
Fig. 13 Variations of different cost components with condenser
temperature using refrigerant R32
Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021
Fig. 14 Variations of different cost components with condenser
temperature using R410A
leads to an increase in operational cost and CO2 penalty cost rate
for both R32 and R410A based system. But, the increase in con-
denser temperature results in decrease in the total capital and main-
tenance cost of the system due to the decrease in capital and
maintenance cost rate of condenser as shown in Fig. 15 due to
decrease in heat exchanger area. Initially, the decrease in capital
and maintenance cost is more than the increase in operational and
CO2 penalty cost which leads to decrease in the total plant cost.
However, the increase in operational and CO2 penalty costs over-
shoots the decrease in capital and maintenance cost rate beyond
the condenser temperature of 48 °C. As a result, the total plant
cost rate starts increasing after this. Predicted results show that
total plant cost of the system using R32 is slightly less than the
other system. Minimum cost rates are required when both R32-
and R410A-based systems are operated at 49 °C and 47 °C
Fig. 15 Effect of condenser temperature on component costs of
R32 based system
JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031024-9
Table 9 Variations of quality of vapor with evaporator Table 11 Compressors discharge temperature with evaporator
temperature for Tcond of 40 °C temperature

R410A R32 LPC HPC

compressor compressor
Evaporator temperature (°C) xLP xHP xLP xHP discharge discharge
temperature temperatures Refrigerant
−50 0.19 0.37 0.16 0.29 (°C) (°C) flowrate (kg/s)
−45 0.19 0.35 0.16 0.28 Evaporator
−40 0.18 0.33 0.15 0.27 temperatures (°C) R410A R32 R410A R32 R410A R32
−35 0.18 0.32 0.15 0.25
−30 0.17 0.30 0.14 0.24 −50 40.8 80.7 83.5 116.2 0.43 0.28
−25 0.17 0.28 0.14 0.22 −45 36.5 72.2 77.6 106.1 0.42 0.27
−40

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

condenser temperatures, respectively. The corresponding plant cost
rate values are 65,946 USD per year and 66,493 USD per year,
respectively.
Quality of Refrigerant Vapor. The variations of quality of
refrigerant vapor after the high-pressure throttle valve and also
the quality of the vapor after low-pressure throttle valve with evap-
orator temperature and condenser temperature have been presented
in Tables 9 and 10, respectively, for both the two investigated
refrigerants. It is clear from the abovementioned two tables that
the quality of vapor after both throttle valves decreases with the
rise in evaporator temperature and increases with the increase in
condenser temperature. This is due to the change in pressure ratio
with the increase in evaporator and condenser temperatures.
However, it is interesting to note that the refrigerant R32 produces
less vapor after throttling compared with that of R410A. This can be
attributed to the much higher latent heat of vaporization of R32 than
R410A at any temperature. The table shows that nearly 22% and
17% less vapors are formed using refrigerant R32 than R410A
after high pressure throttle valve and low pressure throttle valve,
respectively, at condenser temperature of 40 °C and evaporator tem-
perature of −35 °C. This also reduces refrigerant mass flowrate in
the system due to the availability of more quantity of liquid refrig-
erant entering the evaporator. As a result, compressor power
requirement is also reduced in case of refrigerant R32.
Compressor Discharge Temperature Distribution. The effect
of evaporator temperature and the condenser temperature on both
LP compressor and HP compressor discharge temperatures have
been shown in Tables 11 and 12, respectively. The discharge tem-
peratures of both the compressors using R32 are noted to be higher
throughout the investigated ranges of evaporator and compressor
temperature compared with those of R410A-based system. The
similar trend of compressor discharge temperature has also been
reported by Barve and Cremaschi [27], Xu et al. [20], and Zilio
et al. [28]. The higher adiabatic index of R32 compared with
R410A is one of the main reason for higher discharge temperatures
of the compressors with R32 system [22]. The increased suction
superheat as mentioned by Guo et al. [61] may also be the other
33.5 65.6 72.8 97.7 0.40 0.26
−35 31.4 60.3 68.7 90.6 0.39 0.26
−30 30 56.2 65.3 84.4 0.38 0.25
−25 29.3 52.8 62.3 78.9 0.38 0.25
reason for the same. Guo et al. [61] also mentioned few solutions
in their work to control compressor discharge temperature.
It can also be noted from these tables that in case of R32 the
amount of refrigerant circulating in the system is much lower
than that of the R410A. Results show that circulation of refrigerant
in the system for R32 is almost 35% less than that of the R410A
throughout the investigation. This reflects the requirement of
lower amount of charge in the R32 system than that in R410A
system. This may be considered as an added advantage.
Volumetric Flow Rate Variations. The variations of volumet-
ric flowrate with mass flowrate at different evaporator temperatures
for a fixed condenser temperature of 40 °C for both refrigerants R32
and R410A have been presented in Tables 13 and 14, respectively.
Both the tables clearly show that the volumetric flowrate in the
evaporator decreases with the increase in evaporator temperature.
This is because of the decrease in specific volume of the refrigerant
entering the evaporator due to low quality of refrigerant. However,
mass flowrate in the LP cycle increases with evaporator tempera-
ture. The mass flowrate in the evaporator increases from
0.154 kg/s to 0.163 kg/s and volumetric flowrate decreases from
7.714 × 10−3 m3/s to 2.57 × 10−3 m3/s in case of R32 when the
evaporator temperature is increased from −50 °C to −25 °C. On
the other hand, both the mass flowrate and the volumetric flowrate
of the HP stage decrease with the increase in evaporator. This is due
to the increase in intermediate pressure and decrease in specific
volume of vapor refrigerant entering the high pressure compressor.
The mass flowrate in the HP stage decreases from 0.28 kg/s to
0.25 kg/s and volumetric flow rate decreases from 19.56 ×
10−3 m3/s to 9.98 × 10−3 m3/s in case of R32 when the evaporator
temperature is increased from −50 °C to −25 °C. A closer look at
the both the tables reveals that the volumetric flowrate in any
stage of the investigated system using refrigerant R32 is much
Table 12 Compressors discharge temperature with condenser
temperature

LPC HPC
Table 10 Variations of quality of vapor with condenser compressor compressor
temperature for Teva of −35 °C discharge discharge
temperature temperatures Refrigerant
R410A R32 (°C) (°C) flowrate (kg/s)
Condenser
Condenser temperature (°C) xLP xHP xLP xHP temperatures (°C) R410A R32 R410A R32 R410A R32

40 0.18 0.32 0.15 0.25 40 31.4 60.3 68.7 90.6 0.39 0.26
43 0.19 0.34 0.15 0.27 43 33.9 63.9 72.7 95.4 0.41 0.27
46 0.19 0.36 0.16 0.28 46 36.4 67.4 76.7 100.3 0.43 0.28
49 0.2 0.38 0.16 0.3 49 38.9 71 80.7 105.1 0.45 0.29
52 0.21 0.4 0.17 0.32 52 41.4 74.6 84.7 110 0.48 0.30
55 0.21 0.43 0.17 0.34 55 44 78.2 88.7 114.9 0.51 0.31

031024-10 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 13 Mass flowrate versus volumetric flowrate for different Teva and Tcond = 40 °C using R32

Condenser temperature (°C) Evaporator temperature (°C) ṁLP (kg/s) V̇ eva (m3 /s) ṁHP (kg/s) V̇ HP,comp (m3 /s)

40 −50 0.154 0.007714 0.28 0.01956

−45 0.156 0.006098 0.27 0.01684
−40 0.157 0.00486 0.26 0.01463
−35 0.159 0.003904 0.26 0.0128
−30 0.161 0.003158 0.25 0.01127
−25 0.163 0.00257 0.25 0.00998

Table 14 Mass flowrate versus volumetric flowrate for different Teva and Tcond = 40 °C using R410A

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

Condenser temperature (°C) Evaporator temperature (°C) ṁLP (kg/s) V̇ eva (m3 /s) ṁHP (kg/s) V̇ HP,comp (m3 /s)

40 −50 0.227 0.00967 0.43 0.02177

−45 0.230 0.00769 0.42 0.0187
−40 0.233 0.00617 0.41 0.01621
−35 0.236 0.00499 0.40 0.01415
−30 0.239 0.00406 0.39 0.01243
−25 0.242 0.00333 0.38 0.01098

lower than that using R410A at any evaporator temperature.
Detailed calculation predict that nearly 23% and 10% less refriger-
ant volume flowrates are required for the LP and HP stages, respec-
tively, when R32 is used in the system instead of R410A.
The above results clearly identify that the use of refrigerant
R32 is much beneficial for the evaporator temperature ranging
from −35 °C to −25 °C and condenser temperature ranging from
40 °C to 55 °C. Though the compressor discharge temperature is
slightly higher in case of R32, it can be a good option as replace-
ment of R410A due to its low GWP value.
Optimization Results. Figures 16(a) and 16(b) show the Pareto
fronts of the of two-stage refrigeration system working with refrig-
erants R410A and R32, respectively. The figure clearly depicts the
conflict between the two objectives (exergetic efficiency and plant
cost rate). It can be seen from both the figures that total plant cost
rate increases when exergetic efficiency is increased. Figure 16(a)
shows that the plant cost rate of the R410A based system increases
from 64,417 USD to 70,585 USD when exergetic efficiency is
increased from 53.71% to 58.65%. So, it can be said that a 9.2%
increase in exergetic efficiency can be achieved at a cost of increase
in the plant cost rate by 9.6%. In case of R32 system, the increase in
plant cost rate is noted to be 12% for an improvement of exergetic
efficiency by 8.7%.
Again, any point on the Pareto front is capable to satisfy both the
objective functions at a reasonable level. However, the decision
maker has to select only one point among the Pareto optimal solu-
tions for practical reasons and that selection is dependent on the
importance of individual objective functions. Few decision-making
methods are available in the literature for the selection of one
optimum point from Pareto front. In this work, TOPSIS [41]
decision-making method has been employed to select the unique
solution of the multi-objective optimization problem. Optimum
points obtained by TOPSIS method for both systems have been
shown in the figures by an “Asterisk” symbol. The operating param-
eters and optimum performances of the individual systems have
also been presented in Table 15.
It can be noted from this table that the operating parameters and
most of performance parameters at optimum condition are very

Fig. 16 Pareto optimum solutions for both (a) R410A and (b) R32 based system

Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031024-11
Table 15 Optimum operating condition and performance ex = specific exergy
parameters CR = cost rate
CRF = capital recovery factor
Parameters R410A R32 δ = exergy destruction
−27.2 −28.1
η = efficiency
Evaporator temperature (°C)
μ = emission factor
Condenser temperature (°C) 45.2 44.5
Intermediate pressure (°C) 0.904 0.899 φ = maintenance factor
Compressor discharge temperature (°C) 70.3 89.2
Compressor power (kW) 27.4 27.3
Mass flowrate (kg/s) 0.41 0.26 Subscript
COP 1.824 1.831 comp = compressor
Exergy destruction (kW) 11.88 11.72
cond = condenser

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021

Exergetic efficiency (%) 56.7 57.1
Plant cost rate (USD/year) 67,241 66,643 el = electrical
eva = evaporator
FT = flash tank
HP = high pressure
close for the two-stage refrigeration system using R410A and R32 in = inlet
as refrigerants. However, the annual plant cost rate is nearly 1% less LP = low pressure
in case of R32 system compared with R410A system. But, the m = mechanical
discharge temperature from the HP compressor is 27% higher in out = outlet
case of R32 system. At the same time, it should be kept in mind s = isentropic
that the GWP of R32 is much less compared with that of R410A. TV = throttle valve
1,2,3,…. = state point
0 = dead state
Conclusions
Following conclusions can be drawn from the work on two-stage References
refrigeration system with flash tank of 50 kW cooling capacity: [1] Dincer, I., 2017, Refrigeration Systems and Applications, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
• COP and exergetic efficiency of the two-stage refrigeration [2] Baakeem, S. S., Orfi, J., and Alabdulkarem, A., 2018, “Optimization of a
system using both the refrigerants R410A and R32 increase Multistage Vapor-Compression Refrigeration System for Various Refrigerants,”
with the increase in evaporator temperature. No noticeable Appl. Therm. Eng., 136, pp. 84–96.
change in the thermodynamic performances of the system is [3] Sarbu, I., 2014, “A Review on Substitution Strategy of Non-Ecological
Refrigerants From Vapour Compression-Based Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning
observed with R410A and R32. Slightly higher COP and exer- and Heat Pump Systems,” Int. J. Refrig., 46, pp. 123–141.
getic efficiency are obtained with R32 compared with the [4] Qureshi, B. A., and Zubair, S. M., 2013, “Mechanical Sub-Cooling Vapor
R410A particularly at high condenser temperatures. Compression Systems: Current Status and Future Directions,” Int. J. Refrig.,
• Total plant cost rate of the R32 based system is comparable 36(8), pp. 2097–2110.
[5] Best, R., and Rivera, W., 2015, “A Review of Thermal Cooling Systems,” Appl.
with that of the R410A based system and even less at higher Therm. Eng., 75, pp. 1162–1175.
evaporator temperatures. Total plant cost rate of R32-based [6] Anand, S., Gupta, A., and Tyagi, S. K., 2013, “Simulation Studies of
system is 0.1% less than that with R410A for evaporator tem- Refrigeration Cycles: A Review,” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 17,
perature of −25 °C and condenser temperature of 40 °C. pp. 260–277.
[7] Mohanraj, M., Jayaraj, S., and Muraleedharan, C., 2009, “Environment Friendly
• Total plant cost rate initially decreases and then increases with Alternatives to Halogenated Refrigerants—A Review,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
the increase in condenser temperature. Better economic perfor- Control, 3(1), pp. 108–119.
mance is noted with R32 refrigerant. Slightly less operational [8] Emani, M. S., Roy, R., and Mandal, B. K., 2017, “Development of Refrigerants:
cost and CO2 penalty cost rates are required with R32 based A Brief Review,” Indian J. Sci. Res., 14(2), pp. 175–181.
[9] Ahamed, J. U., Saidur, R., and Masjuki, H. H., 2011, “A Review on Exergy
system throughout the condenser temperature range. Analysis of Vapor Compression Refrigeration System,” Renewable Sustainable
• At optimum condition, refrigerant R32 shows slightly Energy Rev., 15(3), pp. 1593–1600.
better exergetic and economic performances compared with [10] Chowdhury, S., Roy, R., and Mandal, B. K., 2019, “A Review on Energy and
R410A. However, the compressor discharge temperature is Exergy Analysis of Two-Stage Vapour Compression Refrigeration System,”
Int. J. Air-Conditioning Refrig., 27(2), p. 1930001.
higher with refrigerant R32 than that with R410A. [11] Ahamed, J. U., Saidur, R., Masjuki, H. H., and Sattar, M. A., 2012, “An Analysis
• In spite of having the problem of higher compressor discharge of Energy, Exergy, and Sustainable Development of a Vapor Compression
temperature, refrigerant R32 can be used as an alternative of Refrigeration System Using Hydrocarbon,” Int. J. Green Energy, 9(7), pp. 702–
R410A in two-stage refrigeration system due to its lower 717.
[12] Gill, J., Singh, J., Ohunakin, O. S., and Adelekan, D. S., 2019, “Exergy Analysis
GWP value of 550 compared with that of R410A having of Vapor Compression Refrigeration System Using R450A as a Replacement of
GWP of 2000. R134a,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 136(2), pp. 857–872.
[13] Abraham, J. D., Andrew, P., and Mohanraj, M., 2019, “Thermodynamic
Nomenclature Performance of Automobile air Conditioners Working With R430A as a
Drop-in Substitute to R134a,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 136(5), pp. 2071–2086.
h = specific enthalpy [14] Calm, J. M., and Hourahan, G. C., 2001, “Refrigerant Data Summary,” Eng. Syst.,
i = interest rate 18(11), pp. 74–77.
[15] Spatz, M. W., and Yana Motta, S. F., 2004, “An Evaluation of Options for
n = plant life Replacing HCFC-22 in Medium Temperature Refrigeration Systems,”
s = specific entropy Int. J. Refrig., 27(5), pp. 475–483.
C = cost [16] Yana Motta, S. F., and Domanski, P. A., 2000, “Performance of R-22 and its
N = annual operational hour Alternatives Working at High Outdoor Temperatures,” International
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, Paper 464, pp. 47–54.
P = pressure [17] Payne, W. V., and Domanski, P. A., 2002, “A Comparison of an R22 and an
Q = heat R410a air Conditioner Operating at High Ambient Temperatures,” International
T = temperature Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, Paper 532, pp. 1–8.
W = power [18] Calm, J. M., and Domanski, P., 2004, “R-22 Replacement Status,” ASHRAE J.,
46(8), pp. 29–39.
X = quality of vapor [19] Heath, E. A., 2017, “Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That
ṁ = mass flow rate Deplete the Ozone Layer (Kigali Amendment),” Int. Legal Mater., 56(1),
V̇ = volumetric flowrate pp. 193–205.

031024-12 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020 Transactions of the ASME

[20] Xu, X., Yunho, H., and Reinhard, R., 2013, “Performance Comparison of R410A
and R32 in Vapor Injection Cycles,” Int. J. Refrig., 36(3), pp. 892–903.
[21] Tu, X., Liang, X., and Zhuang, R., 2011, “Study of R32 Refrigerant for
Residential Air-Conditioning Applications,” International Congress of
Refrigeration, Prague.
[22] In, S., Cho, K., Lim, B., Kim, H., and Youn, B., 2014, “Performance Test of
Residential Heat Pump After Partial Optimization Using low GWP
Refrigerants,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 72(2), pp. 315–322.
[23] Piao, C. C., Shigeharu, T., Michio, M. K., Tanimoto, K. M., and Nakai, A., 2012,
“Alternatives to High GWP HFC Refrigerants: Residential and Small Commercial
Unitary Equipment,” ASHRAE/NIST Refrigerants Conference, Gaithersburg.
[24] Alabdulkarem, A., Eldeeb, R., Hwang, Y., Aute, V., and Radermacher, R., 2015,
“Testing, Simulation and Soft-Optimization of R410A Low-GWP Alternatives in
Heat Pump System,” Int. J. Refrig., 60, pp. 106–117.
[25] Yao, Y., Zhang, Z., Hu, H., and Huang, H., 2018, “Performance Comparison of
R32 and R410A in Direct Evaporative All Fresh Air-Handling Units Under
Variable Temperature Conditions,” Sci. Technol. Built Environ., 24(9),
pp. 962–973.
[26] Ust, Y., Akkaya, A. V., and Safa, A., 2011, “Analysis of a Vapour Compression
Refrigeration System via Exergetic Performance Coefficient Criterion,” ASME
J. Energy Inst., 84(2), pp. 66–72.
[27] Barve, A., and Cremaschi, L., 2012, “Drop-in Performance of Low GWP
Refrigerants in a Heat Pump System for Residential Applications,” International
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference, Paper 1211, pp 1–10.
[28] Zilio, C., Brignoli, R., Kaemmer, N., and Bella, B., 2015, “Energy Efficiency of a
Reversible Refrigeration Unit Using R410A or R32,” Sci. Technol. Built
Environ., 21(5), pp. 502–514.
[29] Nikolaidis, C., and Probert, D., 1998, “Exergy-Method Analysis of a Two-Stage
Vapour-Compression Refrigeration-Plants Performance,” Appl. Energy, 60(4),
pp. 241–256.
[30] Tiedeman, J. S., and Sherif, S. A., 2003, “Optimum Coefficient of Performance
and Exergetic Efficiency of a Two-Stage Vapour Compression Refrigeration
System,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 217(9), pp. 1027–
1037.
[31] Ouadha, A., En-nacer, M., Adjlout, L., and Imine, O., 2005, “Exergy Analysis of
a Two-Stage Refrigeration Cycle Using Two Natural Substitutes of HCFC22,”
Int. J. Exergy, 2(1), pp. 14–30.
[32] Zubair, S. M., Yaqub, M., and Khan, S. H., 1996, “Second-Law-Based
Thermodynamic Analysis of Two-Stage and Mechanical-Subcooling
Refrigeration Cycles,” Int. J. Refrig., 19(8), pp. 506–516.
[33] Röyttä, P., Turunen-Saaresti, T., and Honkatukia, J., 2009, “Optimising the
Refrigeration Cycle With a Two-Stage Centrifugal Compressor and a Flash
Intercooler,” Int. J. Refrig., 32(6), pp. 1366–1375.
[34] Agrawal, N., and Bhattacharyya, S., 2007, “Studies on a Two-Stage Transcritical
Carbon Dioxide Heat Pump Cycle With Flash Intercooling,” Appl. Therm. Eng.,
27(2–3), pp. 299–305.
[35] Shuxue, X., and Guoyuan, M., 2011, “Exergy Analysis for Quasi Two-Stage
Compression Heat Pump System Coupled With Ejector,” Exp. Therm Fluid
Sci., 35(4), pp. 700–705.
[36] Bertsch, S. S., and Groll, E. A., 2008, “Two-Stage Air-Source Heat Pump for
Residential Heating and Cooling Applications in Northern US Climates,”
Int. J. Refrig., 31(7), pp. 1282–1292.
[37] Sayyaadi, H., and Nejatolahi, M., 2011, “Multi-Objective Optimization of a
Cooling Tower Assisted Vapor Compression Refrigeration System,”
Int. J. Refrig., 34(1), pp. 243–256.
[38] Aminyavari, M., Najafi, B., Shirazi, A., and Rinaldi, F., 2014, “Exergetic,
Economic and Environmental (3E) Analyses, and Multi-Objective Optimization of
a CO2/NH3 Cascade Refrigeration System,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 65(1–2), pp. 42–50.
[39] Keshtkar, M. M., 2016, “Effect of Subcooling and Superheating on Performance
of a Cascade Refrigeration System With Considering Thermo-Economic Analysis
and Multi-Objective Optimization,” ASME J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Technol., 5(2),
pp. 42–47.
[40] Eini, S., Shahhosseini, H., Delgarm, N., Lee, M., and Bahadori, A., 2016,
“Multi-Objective Optimization of a Cascade Refrigeration System: Exergetic,
Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications
Economic, Environmental, and Inherent Safety Analysis,” Appl. Therm. Eng.,
107, pp. 804–817.
[41] Roy, R., and Mandal, B. K., “Thermo-Economic Analysis and Multi-Objective
Optimization of Vapour Cascade Refrigeration System Using Different
Refrigerant Combinations,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., pp. 1–15. DOI: .
[42] Sanaye, S., and Shirazi, A., 2013, “Four E Analysis and Multi-Objective
Optimization of an Ice Thermal Energy Storage for Air-Conditioning
Applications,” Int. J. Refrig., 36(3), pp. 828–841.
[43] Sanaye, S., and Shirazi, A., 2013, “Thermo-Economic Optimization of an Ice
Thermal Energy Storage System for Air-Conditioning Applications,” Energy
Build., 60, pp. 100–109.
[44] Navidbakhsh, M., Shirazi, A., and Sanaye, S., 2013, “Four E Analysis and
Multi-Objective Optimization of an Ice Storage System Incorporating PCM as
the Partial Cold Storage for Air-Conditioning Applications,” Appl. Therm.
Eng., 58(1–2), pp. 30–41.
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/thermalscienceapplication/article-pdf/12/3/031024/6489164/tsea_12_3_031024.pdf by Suny At Buffalo user on 02 February 2021
[45] Klein, S. A., and Alvarado, F. L., 1992, EES: Engineering Equation Solver for the
Microsoft Windows Operating System, F-Chart software.
[46] Arora, R. C., 2012, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.,
India.
[47] Purohit, N., Gupta, D. K., and Dasgupta, M. S., 2016, “Effect of Inter-Stage
Pressure on the Performance of a Two Stage Refrigeration Cycle Using Inter
Cooler,” Energy Proc., 90, pp. 171–178.
[48] Mosaffa, A. H., Farshi, L. G., Infante Ferreira, C. A., and Rosen, M. A., 2016,
“Exergoeconomic and Environmental Analyses of CO2/NH3 Cascade
Refrigeration Systems Equipped With Different Types of Flash Tank
Intercoolers,” Energy Convers. Manage., 117, pp. 442–453.
[49] Arora, A., and Kaushik, S. C., 2008, “Theoretical Analysis of a Vapour
Compression Refrigeration System With R502, R404A and R507A,”
Int. J. Refrig., 31(6), pp. 998–1005.
[50] Roy, R., and Mandal, B. K., 2019, “Energetic and Exergetic Performance
Comparison of Cascade Refrigeration System Using R170-R161 and
R41-R404A as Refrigerant Pairs,” Heat Mass Transfer, 55(3), pp. 723–731.
[51] Roy, R., and Mandal, B. K., 2017, “Thermodynamic Analysis of Modified
Vapour Compression Refrigeration System Using R-134a,” Energy Proc., 109,
pp. 227–234.
[52] Dincer, I., Rosen, M. A., and Ahmadi, P., 2017, Optimization of Energy Systems,
Wiley, New York.
[53] Roy, R., and Mandal, B. K., 2018, “Exergy Analysis of Cascade Refrigeration
System Working With Refrigerant Pairs R41-R404A and R41-R161,” IOP
Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 377(1), p. 012036. IOP Publishing.
[54] Wang, J., Zhai, Z. J., Jing, Y., and Zhang, C., 2010, “Particle Swarm Optimization
for Redundant Building Cooling Heating and Power System,” Appl. Energy,
87(12), pp. 3668–3679.
[55] Najafi, B., Najafi, H., and Idalik, M. D., 2011, “Computational Fluid Dynamics
Investigation and Multi-Objective Optimization of an Engine Air-Cooling
System Using Genetic Algorithm,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech.
Eng. Sci., 225(6), pp. 1389–1398.
[56] Srinivas, N., and Deb, K., 1994, “Muiltiobjective Optimization Using
Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms,” Evol. Comput., 2(3), pp. 221–
248.
[57] Kalita, K., Dey, P., and Haldar, S., 2019, “Robust Genetically Optimized Skew
Laminates,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 233(1),
pp. 146–159.
[58] Kalita, K., Nasre, P., Dey, P., and Haldar, S., 2018, “Metamodel Based
Multi-Objective Design Optimization of Laminated Composite Plates,” Struct.
Eng. Mech., 67(3), pp. 301–310.
[59] Ghadai, R. K., Kalita, K., Mondal, S. C., and Swain, B. P., 2018, “PECVD
Process Parameter Optimization: Towards Increased Hardness of Diamond-
Like Carbon Thin Films,” Mater. Manuf. Processes, 33(16), pp. 1905–1913.
[60] Kılıç, B., 2012, “Exergy Analysis of Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle
With Two-Stage and Intercooler,” Heat Mass Transfer, 48(7), pp. 1207–1217.
[61] Guo, W., GaoFeng, J., Honghong, Z., and Dan, W., 2012, “R32 Compressor for
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Applications in China,” International
Compressor Engineering Conference, Paper 2098, pp. 1–8.
JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031024-13