See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258176316

Selection of suitable natural refrigerants pairs for cascade refrigeration

system

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A Journal of Power and Energy · August 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0957650913487730

CITATIONS READS

11 11,365

3 authors, including:

Jahar Sarkar Souvik Bhattacharyya

Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) Varanasi Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani
208 PUBLICATIONS   5,588 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   779 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Heat Transfer and Flow Characteristics of Hybrid Nanofluids in Mini-Micro-channels View project

Innovative technologies for improving resource utilisation in the Indo-European fish value chains "ReValue" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jahar Sarkar on 18 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part A: http://pia.sagepub.com/
Journal of Power and Energy

Selection of suitable natural refrigerants pairs for cascade refrigeration system

Jahar Sarkar, Souvik Bhattacharyya and Arjun Lal
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 2013 227: 612 originally
published online 18 July 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0957650913487730

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pia.sagepub.com/content/227/5/612

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy can
be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pia.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pia.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pia.sagepub.com/content/227/5/612.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 1, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 18, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part A:

J Power and Energy
Selection of suitable natural refrigerants 227(5) 612–622
! IMechE 2013

pairs for cascade refrigeration system Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0957650913487730
pia.sagepub.com

Jahar Sarkar1, Souvik Bhattacharyya2 and Arjun Lal1

Abstract
This study presents thermodynamic analyses and optimization of a two-stage cascade system employing a choice of eight
natural refrigerants leading to the most suitable refrigerants pair for wide ranges of operating temperatures; the optimal
pair was based on best system performance (cooling coefficient of performance) as well as best volumetric cooling
capacity (compressor compactness). Out of the 56 possible combinations of high temperature and low temperature
fluids with eight natural refrigerants – namely, ammonia, carbon dioxide, propane, propylene, n-butane, isobutane,
ethane, and ethylene – the primary selection has been done based on the criteria of normal boiling point and critical
point of both low temperature and high temperature fluids following the guideline of the operating temperatures of a
refrigerant to be within its critical point and normal boiling point. All the selections have been made based on an
optimum intermediate temperature leading to maximum cooling coefficient of performance for an individual pair.
Effect of compressor isentropic efficiency on optimization and selection has been studied as well. Two selection
charts along with tables have been developed, one for the highest coefficient of performance and another for the highest
volumetric capacity; these design tools are expected to offer useful guidelines to select the best refrigerant pair for
specific ranges of condenser and evaporator temperatures.

Keywords
Cascade refrigeration system, natural refrigerants, intermediate temperature, optimization, coefficient of performance,
volumetric capacity

Date received: 7 November 2012; accepted: 15 March 2013

Introduction refrigeration system have been reported by several

A suitable selection of refrigerants in a cascade system
(employing two or more vapor compression refriger-
ation cycles in series as shown in Figure 1) in high
temperature (HT) and low temperature (LT) cycles
can provide the required LT while attaining good
system performance. Synthetic refrigerants are being
phased out worldwide to combat the twin menace of
the ozone layer depletion and global warming; in view
of this, several natural refrigerants are regaining their
importance and are on a revival path. For cascade
systems, lower temperature limit of the HT side is
termed as intermediate temperature (IT), which has
to be optimized as it influences system performance.
There are several natural refrigerants, such as ammo-
nia, carbon dioxide, butane, isobutane, propane, pro-
pylene, ethane, and ethylene, which are used in
various refrigeration and heat pump applications.
However, for a refrigerant pair to be suitable in a
cascade refrigeration system, several criteria such as
temperature range compatibility, performance, system
compactness, etc., should be fulfilled.
Theoretical as well as experimental analyses and
optimization of ammonia–carbon dioxide cascade
researchers.1–7 The energetic as well as exergetic ana-
lyses and optimization of CO2–C3H8 cascade system
for simultaneous refrigeration and heating were
reported by Bhattacharyya et al.8,9 DiNicola et al.10
experimentally determined the coefficient of perform-
ance (COP) of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
binary mixture in LT cycle with R404a in HT cycle.
Gong et al.11 experimentally studied the performance
of two binary azeotropic mixtures and a ternary azeo-
tropic mixture of R170 in the low-stage loop of a two-
stage cascade system. Mafi et al.12 carried out exergy
analysis for multistage cascade LT refrigeration sys-
tems with ethylene used in olefin plants. Kruse and
Russmann13 reported a theoretical investigation on
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
(BHU), Varanasi, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
Corresponding author:
Jahar Sarkar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (BHU), Varanasi 221005, India.
Email: js_iitkgp@yahoo.co.in

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

Sarkar et al. 613

Figure 1. Schematic of a two-stage cascade refrigeration system.

natural refrigerant based cascade systems employing

nitrous oxide as LT refrigerant and compared it with
an R23–R134a cycle. Bhattacharyya et al.14 studied the
effects of design and operating parameters on system
performance of a novel N2O–CO2 cascade system for
refrigeration and heating. Kilicarslan and Hosoz15 stu-
died energy and irreversibility analyses of a cascade
refrigeration system for various refrigerant couples,
although most of them were synthetic refrigerants.
Kanoglu16 performed exergy analysis of propane–
ethane–methane cascade refrigeration cycle used for
natural gas liquefaction. These reported studies show
that either analyses of one or two natural refrigerant
pairs have been performed or comparison of natural
refrigerants with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) has been done;
they clearly lack a comprehensive comparison among
various possible natural refrigerant pairs.
This study presents thermodynamic analyses and Figure 2. Temperature-entropy diagram of a cascade
optimization of IT for a cascade system employing a refrigeration system.
choice from eight natural refrigerants. Selection
charts for suitable refrigerants pairs based on max-
imum cooling COP as well as volumetric capacity
have been developed for a wide range of evaporator corresponding cycle diagram on the T-s plane is
and condenser temperatures. Furthermore, the effect shown in Figure 2. The HT circuit absorbs heat
of compressor isentropic efficiency on system per- from the LT circuit in cascade heat exchanger at evap-
formance has been studied. oration temperature (known as IT) and rejects heat to
ambient through the condenser. The LT circuit pro-
duces refrigeration at required low evaporator tem-
Theoretical modeling and simulation perature (Tev), using the refrigerating effect of the
A schematic diagram of a two-stage cascade refriger- HT circuit. In practice, there is a certain overlap
ation system is illustrated in Figure 1 and the between IT and condenser temperature of LT circuit

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

614 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 227(5)

(T3 > IT) and the difference between these two tem- . Isenthalpic expansion of refrigerants in expansion
peratures is called the overlapping temperature (OT). valves.
Out of the eight natural refrigerants (ammonia, . Negligible changes in kinetic and potential
carbon dioxide, propane, propylene, n-butane, iso- energies.
butane, ethane, and ethylene) considered in this
study, there is the possibility of using each refrigerant A mathematical model of the system is presented
as HT fluid or LT fluid, which yields 56 possible com- below. The cooling capacity of the evaporator is
binations of HT fluid and LT fluid. However, there defined by
are certain required characteristics of refrigerants
which make them suitable for certain temperature Q_ ev ¼ m_ LT ðh1  h4 Þ ð3Þ
range only. These important characteristics are
normal boiling point and critical point of both HT where h is specific enthalpy. Compressor power con-
and LT fluids. The operating temperatures of a sumption for the HT circuit is given by
refrigerant should be in between its critical point
and normal boiling point. According to these guide- _ HT ¼ m_ HT ðh2h  h1h Þ
W ð4Þ
lines, normal boiling point temperature (NBP) of
refrigerants should be less than evaporating tempera- Whereas for the LT circuit, it is given by
ture of corresponding circuit, i.e.
_ LT ¼ m_ LT ðh2  h1 Þ
W ð5Þ
Tev 5NBPLT , IT5NBPHT ð1Þ
The rate of heat transfer in the cascade heat
This ensures that no vacuum is created inside the exchanger is expressed as
evaporator, hence eliminating the possibility of entry
of air and moisture into the system; additionally, Q_ chx ¼ m_ LT ðh2  h3 Þ ¼ m_ HT ðh1h  h4h Þ ð6Þ
operating at a temperature well above NBP would
result in higher vapor density at compressor inlet, so The mass flow ratio can be derived from the above
that sufficient mass flow rate is maintained. The equation given by
second criterion to be satisfied is that the critical tem-
perature (CT) of refrigerants should be much greater m_ HT ðh2  h3 Þ
m¼ ¼ ð7Þ
than the condensing temperature corresponding to m_ LT ðh1h  h4h Þ
that circuit, i.e.
The rate of heat rejection by the condenser is
IT þ OT5CTLT , Tco 5CTHT ð2Þ given by

This will ensure that a reasonable refrigerating Q_ co ¼ m_ HT ðh2h  h3h Þ ð8Þ

effect is achieved and that the cycle will be a subcrit-
ical one (condensation is nearly isothermal, which The cooling COP of the system is expressed as
makes it close to Carnot cycle) leading to superior
performance. Considering these characteristics, Q_ ev ðh1  h4 Þ
thermodynamic analyses have been carried out to COP ¼ ¼
_ LT þ W
W _ HT ðh2  h1 Þ þ mðh2h  h1h Þ
obtain suitable refrigerant pairs for a wide range of
ð9Þ
condensing temperature of HT circuit and evapora-
tive temperature of LT circuit. The combined volumetric refrigeration capacity of
The cascade refrigeration system has been modeled the cascade refrigeration system (in terms of specific
employing energy balance on each component. The volume and enthalpy), signifying the compactness of
following general assumptions have been made for combined LT and HT compressors, is defined by
the analysis.
Q_ ev h1  h4
. The compression processes are adiabatic but not Vc ¼ ¼
m_ LT v1 þ m_ HT v1h v1 þ ðm_ HT =m_ LT Þv1h
isentropic. ð10Þ
h1  h4
. Refrigerant states at the cascade heat exchanger ) Vc ¼
v1 þ mv1h
outlet for HT cycle and evaporator outlet are dry
saturated, and that at condenser exit and cascade Based on the theoretical model presented above, a
heat exchanger outlet for LT cycle are wet simulation code was developed to investigate the
saturated. effect of various operating and design parameters on
. Heat transfer processes in all the heat exchangers the cascade system performance for different refriger-
are isobaric. ant pairs. This code was integrated with thermo-
. Heat transfer with the ambient is negligible for all dynamic property subroutines to estimate properties
components except the condenser. of the working fluids such as ammonia, carbon

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

Sarkar et al. 615

dioxide, n-butane, isobutane, propane, ethane, pro- propylene pairs yield the maximum COP for Tev ran-
pylene, and ethylene; these property codes were devel- ging from 25 to 42  C and for all values of Tco.
oped exclusively for this study based on correlations NH3/propylene pair exhibits the maximum COP for
reported earlier in the literature.17–21 Efficient iterative Tev ranging from 42  C to 48  C and for all values
procedures were employed to predict assorted state of Tco. For Tev within 48  C and 72  C, NH3/
properties with reasonable accuracy. After sorting ethane combination leads to the maximum COP for
out suitable refrigerant pairs according to equations whole range of Tco. However, as Tev decreases further,
(1) and (2) and Table 1, performance parameters such IT falls below NBP of HT refrigerant and hence
as cooling COP and volumetric cooling capacity were ammonia is not suitable for lower values of Tev, and
calculated. propylene replaces ammonia as the HT refrigerant.
Consequently, the propylene/ethane combination
appears to be the best choice.
Results and discussion
The chart in Figure 3 should be used along with
The primary objective of the study was to identify the Table 2 which shows the variation of COP and cor-
suitable pair of natural refrigerants which yields responding optimum IT, ratio of mass flow rates and
(i) maximum COP and (ii) maximum volumetric cool- volumetric cooling capacity with change in evapor-
ing capacity for given ranges of evaporator and con- ator and condenser temperatures for the refigerant
denser temperatures. For this exercise, overlap pairs with maximum COP. For example, let us
temperature was taken as 5  C and the isentropic effi-
ciency for both HT and LT compressors was assumed
to be 0.78.2 The ranges of evaporator and condenser
temperatures were taken as 25  C to 85  C and
25  C to 55  C, respectively.
Previously reported studies showed that the cool-
ing COP first increases and then decreases with IT and
there exists an optimum value for IT that yields the
highest COP, signifying best system performance for a
given set of operating parameters. Additionally, the
optimum IT is dependent on the refrigerants used and
the operating and design conditions. All subsequent
analyses done in this study are based on optimum IT,
for comparisons based both on maximum COP and
on volumetric cooling capacity.

Selection of suitable refrigerants pairs based

on maximum COP
The chart in Figure 3 shows the refrigerants pairs
which exhibit the best system performance in terms
of COP for the studied ranges of evaporator and Figure 3. Chart for best refrigerants pair selection based on
condenser temperatures. NH3/propane and NH3/ maximum COP.

Table 1. Properties of natural refrigerants.

Critical
pressure Triple Specific Latent heat
Refrigerant NBP ( C) CT ( C) (bar) point ( C) heat ratio (kJ/kg)

Ammonia 33.35 132.3 113 77.7 1.346 1370

CO2 78.4 30.98 73.77 56.6 1.3* 349.5*
Propane 42.39 96.98 42.47 187.1 1.184 426.1
Propylene 48 92.42 46.65 185 1.211 439.5
n-Butane 0.87 152 37.96 135 1.119 385.3
Isobutane 12 134.7 36.4 159.6 1.127 366.2
Ethane 88.84 32.18 48.72 –182.80 1.296 489.7
Ethylene 104 9.195 50.4 –169.16 1.358 482.5
Note: Specific heat ratio and latent heat are given at NBP except * given at 56 C.

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

616
consider the case of natural refrigerant pair selection
for an application where evaoporator temperature has
to be maintained say at 65  C and condenser tem-
perature for heat rejection is 35  C. From the chart,
NH3/ethane pair should be selected to obtain max-
imum COP and corresponding values of optimum
IT and mass flow rates ratio as shown in Table 2
are 28.05  C and 0.424, respectively.
The HT circuit can employ high boiling point and
high CT refrigerants so as to ensure positive pressure
inside cascade heat exchanger and reasonable refriger-
ation effect respectively. From Table 1, it is clear that
latent heat for ammonia is much higher than other
refrigerants, which makes it the best refrigerant for
the HT circuit. Although ammonia also has a high
value of  ( ¼ 1.346), which leads to high isentropic
work, but the relatively large value of latent heat com-
pensates for it in the calculation of COP. The limiting
factor for use of ammonia at lower values of Tev is its
normal boiling point (around 33  C) and hence
becomes unsuitable for the HT circuit if IT falls
below  33  C. Next to ammonia, ethane and ethylene
have high values of latent heat but their low boiling
points and low CTs make them unsuitable for HT
circuit use. The next best option as the HT circuit
refrigerant is propylene followed by propane. Since,
propylene has lower NBP (–48  C), it can be used at
lower values of Tev, where ammonia and propane
cannot be used. Although butane and isobutane
have lower values of latent heat, they also have com-
paratively lower values of  leading to less isentropic
work and higher COP. However, their much higher
NBP makes them unsuitable as HT refrigerant.
The use of a lower NBP refrigerant ensures a smal-
ler compressor displacement in the LT circuit and
hence a higher COP. Moreover, low NBP ensures a
positive pressure inside the evaporator even at lower
values of Tev and thus prevents any possible leakage
of air and moisture into the system. Based on NBP
and the corresponding hfg values (Table 1), it is evi-
dent that propane and propylene offer great potential
even as LT refrigerant for Tev values greater than their
NBPs. Thus, propane and propylene both will be suit-
able as the LT refrigerant in combination with ammo-
nia as the HT refrigerant. These NH3/propane and
NH3/propylene pairs yield similar values of maximum
COP due to their comparable values of latent heat
and specific heat ratio. Since propane and propylene
have NBP of 42  C and 48  C, respectively, they
cannot be used in the LT circuit for Tev values below
these temperatures respectively and ethane, ethylene
and CO2 appear to be a good choice for LT refriger-
ant. The triple point temperature of CO2 prevents its
use as LT refrigerant below a Tev of 56  C. While
both ethane and ethylene have similar values of hfg, a
higher value of  for ethylene leads to a lower COP
compared to that with ethane as the LT refrigerant,
and thus ethane appears to be the best choice for the
LT circuit. Thus, NH3/ethane and propylene/ethane
Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 227(5)
pairs lead to the maximum COP at lower values of
Tev. The equation of a straight line which separates
NH3/ethane and propylene/ethane region in the chart
is given by
Tev ¼ 0:572Tco  57:83 ð11Þ
Table 2 shows the variation of optimum IT and the
corresponding COP and Vc for refigerants pairs
exhibiting the maximum COP. As Tev decreases
while keeping Tco at a fixed value, maximum COP
and optimum IT decrease. As an illustration, with
ammonia as HT and ethylene as LT refrigerants for
Tco ¼ 25  C, OT ¼ 5  C, C ¼ 0.78 (for both HT and
LT compressors), as Tev varies from 85  C to 5  C,
maximum COP and optimum IT vary as shown in
Figures 4 and 5. Again as Tco increases, keeping Tev
fixed, the maximum COP decreases while optimum IT
increases almost linearly. For example, we may con-
sider a cascade system with ammonia as HT and
ethylene as LT refrigerant, with Tev ¼ –25  C,
OT ¼ 5  C, C ¼ 0.78 (for both HT and LT compres-
sors), as Tco is varied from 20  C to 55  C, maximum
COP and optimum IT varies as shown in Figures 4
and 5. Thus, as the cycle temperature lift increases, the
COP decreases due to decrease in refrigeration effect
and increase in work input. From Figures 4 and 5, it is
also clear that optimum IT bears an approximately
linear relationship with Tco and Tev for a certain
pair. Most of the previously reported correlations
for optimum IT are also linear.1–7 Hence, it is possible
to establish linear correlation of optimum IT for suit-
able refrigerant pairs at various temperature ranges.
Selection of suitable refrigerants pairs based on
maximum volumetric capacity
The volume of suction vapor required per unit of
refrigeration is an indication of the size of compres-
sor. Alternatively, refrigeration capacity per unit
volume of suction vapor may be used to estimate
the required compressor capacity for the same
refrigeration capacity employing various refrigerants.
Usually reciprocating compressors are used with
refrigerants with high pressure and small volumes of
suction vapor, while a centrifugal compressor is used
with refrigerants at low pressures and large volumes
of suction vapor. For a single-stage vapor compres-
sion cycle, refrigeration capacity per unit volume of
suction vapor can be used to estimate the size of a
compressor and a comparison can be made between
various refrigerants. However, for a cascade system,
there are two compressors – one in the HT circuit and
another in the LT circuit. Size of compressor directly
impacts its initial manufacturing cost and up to some
extent the operating cost as well (for a reciprocating
compressor there will be higher frictional losses for a
large size compressor and more power is required to
run it compared to a smaller compressor). Thus,
Sarkar et al.
Figure 4. Variation optimum IT with condenser temperature
for maximum COP.
Figure 5. Variation of maximum COP with condenser
temperature.
compressor size should be as small as possible for
unit refrigeration capacity. Currently available lit-
erature on cascade systems has employed refriger-
ation capacity per unit volume of suction vapor of
LT compressor to estimate the size of the LT com-
pressor. However, this does not provide any idea
about the size of the HT compressor which
together with the LT compressor forms the total
power requirement of the cscade system. Hence,
a new defination is introduced in this study
(equation (10)).
A chart (Figure 6) has been prepared which lists the
refrigerants pairs which yields the highest values of
volumetric capacity for a wide range of condenser
and evaporator temperatures. This chart should be
used in combination with Table 3 to evaluate the max-
imum volumetric capacity and the corresponding
Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014
617
Figure 6. Selection chart for best refrigerants pair based on
volumetric refrigeration capacity.
Figure 7. Variation of optimum IT with evaporating
temperature for maximum Vc.
values of COP, optimum IT and mass flow rate
ratio. From this chart, it is evident that CO2,
ethane, and ethylene as LT fluid and Propylene as
HT fluid are the best in terms of Vc. Optimum IT
increases with increase in both Tev and Tco, whereas
maximum Vc is mainly affected by Tev (Figures 7 and
8). Restrictions for maximum operating pressure and
pressure ratio are also important issues in selecting a
refrigerant pair. In view of the modern developments
related to high pressure sustainability, the maximum
pressures for selected pairs (Tables 2 and 3) are within
allowable limit. However, ammonia yields more pres-
sure ratio (maximum of 21) for some operating tem-
peratures (compressor efficiency degrades with
increase in pressure ratio), which can be avoided by
replacing it with the next best refrigerant propylene or
using multistage compression.
618
Figure 8. Variation of maximum volumetric capacity with
evaporating temperature.
Figure 9. Effect of compressor isentropic efficiency on
system performance with NH3/ethane and NH3/ethylene.
Effect of compressor isentropic efficiency
on optimization and selection
It may be observed that compressor efficiency has a
distinct effect on system performance, and in fact
COP is linearly related to isentropic efficiency. Let
us consider a case where ethane and ethylene are the
LT refrigerants, with Tev ¼ –70  C, TC ¼ 40  C,
OT ¼ 5  C. As the compressor efficiency is changed,
there is a large variation in system COP as shown in
Figure 9. Ammonia has been used as the HT refriger-
ant in both cases and the same isentropic efficiency
has been applied to both HT and LT compressors.
As compressor efficiency increases, system COP
increases linearly. For the ammonia/ethylene system,
as compressor efficiency is increased from 60 to 90%,
system COP increases almost by 62%. Similar is the
Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 227(5)
trend for the ammonia/ethane based system as well.
Thus compressor isentropic efficiency is very import-
ant, and its effect is more pronounced when tempera-
ture lift is rather large and COP is low. There is a
slight increase in the value of optimum IT with
change in copmpressor efficiency. Hence, the com-
pressor isentropic efficiencies have negligible effect
on selection charts based on both maximum COP
and maximum volumetric capacity (Figures 3 and 6).
Conclusions
In this study, the selection of suitable natural refriger-
ants pairs for a cascade system has been made in
sequential stages stated as follows. Initial selection is
based on its operating temperatures which should be
in between its NBP and CT. Next, optimization of IT
is carried out leading to the maximum cooling COP,
and a final selection of refrigerant pair based on best
system performance along with the best volumetric
cooling capacity. The following summarized com-
ments and conclusions characterize this study.
1. Charts have been prepared based on the maximum
COP and the maximum Vc after optimizing IT
with respect to maximum COP for a wide range
of Tco and Tev values; these are expected to offer
useful guidelines for selecting a refrigerant pair for
particular applications.
2. Based on the maximum COP, ammonia was found
to be the best HT refrigerant for higher value of
Tev, while propylene appears to be the best work-
ing fluid for lower value of Tev.
3. Based on the maximum COP, propane and pro-
pylene are the best as LT refrigerant for higher
value of Tev, while ethane exhibits the best perfo-
mance for lower value of Tev.
4. Refrigerants with high NBPs are best suited as HT
refrigerants, while for LT circuit, refrigerants with
lower NBPs yield the best performance.
5. A comparison has been made based on the best
Vc, which is related to the size of compressors for
unit refrigeration capacity and it was found that
propylene/CO2 pair is the best for high values of
Tev followed by propylene/ethane and propane/
ethylene pair for low values of Tev.
6. As expected, an increse in isentropic efficiency of
compressors increases COP linearly; however,
there has been a little effect on the optimum IT
and refrigerant pair selection.
7. The best COP as well as the best volumetric cool-
ing capacity values increase with increase in oper-
ating temperatures keeping fixed temperature lift.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Sarkar et al. 619

References 11. Gong M, Sun Z, Wu J, et al. Performance of R170

1. Lee TS, Liu CH and Chen TW. Thermodynamic ana-
lysis of optimal condensing temperature of cascade-con-
denser in CO2/NH3 cascade refrigeration systems. Int J
Refrigeration 2006; 29: 1100–1108.
2. Getu HM and Bansal PK. Thermodynamic analysis of
an R744–R717 cascade refrigeration system. Int J
Refrigeration 2008; 31: 45–54.
3. Dopazo JA, Fernández-Seara J, Sieres J, et al.
Theoretical analysis of a CO2–NH3 cascade refriger-
ation system for cooling applications at low tempera-
tures. Appl Therm Eng 2009; 29: 1577–1583.
4. Bingming W, Huagen W, Jianfeng L, et al.
Experimental investigation on the performance of
NH3/CO2 cascade refrigeration system with twin-
screw compressor. Int J Refrigeration 2009; 32:
1358–1365.
5. Wang BM, Xing ZW and Wu H. Experimental study on
the performance of a twin-screw CO2 compressor in
NH3/CO2 cascade refrigeration system. Proc IMechE,
Part A: J Power and Energy 2010; 224: 1141–1146.
6. Dopazo JA and Fernandez-Seara J. Experimental
evaluation of a cascade refrigeration system prototype
with CO2 and NH3 for freezing process applications. Int
J Refrigeration 2011; 34: 257–267.
7. Rezayan O and Behbahaninia A. Thermoeconomic
optimization and exergy analysis of CO2/NH3 cascade
refrigeration systems. Energy 2011; 36: 888–895.
8. Bhattacharyya S, Mukhopadhyay S, Kumar A, et al.
Optimization of a CO2–C3H8 cascade system for
refrigeration and heating. Int J Refrigeration 2005; 28:
1284–1292.
9. Bhattacharyya S, Bose S and Sarkar J. Exergy maxi-
mization of cascade refrigeration cycles and its numer-
ical verification for a transcritical CO2–C3H8 system.
Int J Refrigeration 2007; 30: 624–632.
10. DiNicola G, Giuliani G, Polonara F, et al. Blends of
carbon dioxide and HFCs as working fluids for the low-
temperature circuit in cascade refrigerating systems. Int
J Refrigeration 2005; 28: 130–140.
mixtures as refrigerants for refrigeration at  80  C
temperature range. Int J Refrigeration 2009; 32:
892–900.
12. Mafi M, Naeynian SM and Amidpour M. Exergy ana-
lysis of multistage cascade low temperature refriger-
ation systems used in olefin plants. Int J Refrigeration
2009; 32: 279–294.
13. Kruse H and Russmann H. The natural fluid nitrous
oxide – an option as substitute for low temperature syn-
thetic refrigerants. Int J Refrigeration 2006; 29:
799–806.
14. Bhattacharyya S, Garai A and Sarkar J.
Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a novel
N2O-CO2 cascade system for refrigeration and heating.
Int J Refrigeration 2009; 32: 1077–1084.
15. Kilicarslan A and Hosoz M. Energy and irreversibility
analysis of a cascade refrigeration system for various
refrigerant couples. Energy Conv Manage 2010; 51:
2947–2954.
16. Kanoglu M. Exergy analysis of multistage cascade
refrigeration cycle used for natural gas liquefaction.
Int J Energy Res 2002; 26: 763–774.
17. Haar L and Gallagher JS. Thermodynamic properties
of ammonia. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1978; 7: 635–792.
18. Span R and Wagner W. A new equation of state for
carbon dioxide covering the fluid region from the triple
point temperature to 1100 K at pressures up to 800
MPa. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1996; 25: 1509–1596.
19. Younglove BA and Ely JF. Thermophysical properties
of fluids. II. Methane, ethane, propane, isobutane and
normal butane. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1987; 16:
577–798.
20. Tillner-Roth R. Fundamental equations of state.
Aachan: Shaker Verlag, 1998.
21. Jahangiri M, Jacobsen RT, Stewart RB, et al.
Thermodynamic properties of ethylene from the freez-
ing line to 450 K at pressures to 260 MPa. J Phys Chem
Ref Data 1986; 15: 593–734.

Appendix

Table 2. Variation of optimum parameters of refigerants pairs for maximum COP.

Tev ( C) Tco ( C) HT/LT pair IT ( C) M COP Vc (kJ/m3)

25 25 NH3/propylene 3.01 0.353 3.044 1193

35 25 NH3/propylene 7.55 0.368 2.416 882
45 25 NH3/propylene 12.07 0.385 1.956 632
55 25 NH3/ethane 26.34 0.383 1.537 795
65 25 NH3/ethane 30.60 0.408 1.276 602
75 25 propylene/ethane 34.76 1.712 1.048 504
85 25 propylene/ethane 39.34 1.854 0.879 364
25 30 NH3/propylene 1.09 0.359 2.752 1201
35 30 NH3/propylene 5.67 0.375 2.212 886
(continued)

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

620 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 227(5)

Table 2. Continued

Tev ( C) Tco ( C) HT/LT pair IT ( C) M COP Vc (kJ/m3)

45 30 NH3/propylene 10.22 0.392 1.809 634

55 30 NH3/ethane 25.05 0.390 1.428 808
65 30 NH3/ethane 29.30 0.416 1.192 612
75 30 NH3/ethane 33.54 0.444 1.000 453
85 30 propylene/ethane 36.91 1.930 0.820 368
25 35 NH3/propylene 0.77 0.365 2.505 1206
35 35 NH3/propylene 3.83 0.382 2.036 889
45 35 NH3/propylene 8.42 0.400 1.678 635
55 35 NH3/ethane 23.80 0.397 1.331 820
65 35 NH3/ethane 28.05 0.424 1.117 621
75 35 NH3/ethane 32.29 0.453 0.941 460
85 35 propylene/ethane 34.37 2.013 0.765 371
25 40 NH3/propylene 2.60 0.372 2.293 1210
35 40 NH3/propylene 2.03 0.389 1.881 891
45 40 NH3/propylene 6.64 0.408 1.561 636
55 40 NH3/ethane 22.59 0.405 1.242 829
65 40 NH3/ethane 26.83 0.432 1.047 629
75 40 NH3/ethane 31.06 0.463 0.886 466
85 40 propylene/ethane 31.79 2.106 0.712 373
25 45 NH3/propylene 4.38 0.379 2.108 1212
35 45 NH3/propylene 0.27 0.396 1.743 892
45 45 NH3/propylene 4.91 0.416 1.457 636
55 45 NH3/ethane 21.41 0.413 1.162 838
65 45 NH3/ethane 25.64 0.442 0.984 636
75 45 NH3/ethane 29.87 0.473 0.835 471
85 45 propylene/ethane 29.12 2.210 0.662 374
25 50 NH3/propylene 6.13 0.386 1.946 1212
35 50 NH3/propylene 1.46 0.404 1.621 891
45 50 NH3/propylene 3.20 0.424 1.362 635
55 50 NH3/ethane 20.25 0.421 1.089 845
65 50 NH3/ethane 24.47 0.451 0.926 641
75 50 NH3/ethane 28.69 0.483 0.788 475
85 50 NH3/ethane 32.93 0.521 0.671 340
25 55 NH3/propylene 7.85 0.394 1.802 1211
35 55 NH3/propylene 3.16 0.413 1.510 890
45 55 NH3/propylene 1.51 0.434 1.276 635
55 55 NH3/ethane 19.11 0.431 1.022 850
65 55 NH3/ethane 23.32 0.462 0.871 646
75 55 NH3/ethane 27.53 0.495 0.744 478
85 55 NH3/ethane 31.77 0.532 0.635 342

Table 3. Variation of optimum parameters of refigerants pairs for maximum Vc.

Tev ( C) Tco ( C) HT/LT pair IT ( C) M COP Vc (kJ/m3)

25 25 Propylene/CO2 12.75 0.935 2.829 1905

35 25 Propylene/CO2 17.59 1.022 2.245 1525
45 25 Propylene/CO2 22.45 1.114 1.818 1202
55 25 Propylene/CO2 27.37 1.213 1.491 929
65 25 Propylene/Ethane 30.25 1.585 1.253 675
(continued)

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

Sarkar et al. 621

Table 3. Continued

Tev ( C) Tco ( C) HT/LT pair IT ( C) M COP Vc (kJ/m3)

75 25 Propylene/Ethylene 41.23 1.605 1.014 510

85 25 Propylene/Ethylene 45.62 1.752 0.8513 385
25 30 Propylene/CO2 10.90 0.968 2.53 1910
35 30 Propylene/CO2 15.60 1.060 2.033 1534
45 30 Propylene/CO2 20.30 1.156 1.661 1215
55 30 Propylene/CO2 25.08 1.260 1.372 943
65 30 Propylene/Ethane 28.00 1.645 1.16 681
75 30 Propylene/Ethylene 39.18 1.671 0.9405 517
85 30 Propylene/Ethylene 43.44 1.827 0.7919 392
25 35 Propylene/CO2 9.00 1.003 2.273 1912
35 35 Propylene/CO2 13.53 1.100 1.847 1542
45 35 Propylene/CO2 18.08 1.202 1.521 1225
55 35 Propylene/CO2 22.71 1.312 1.264 955
65 35 Propylene/Ethane 25.70 1.712 1.075 686
75 35 Propylene/Ethylene 37.07 1.744 0.8716 523
85 35 Propylene/Ethylene 41.19 1.910 0.7361 398
25 40 Propylene/CO2 7.05 1.043 2.05 1907
35 40 Propylene/CO2 11.41 1.145 1.681 1546
45 40 Propylene/CO2 15.80 1.253 1.395 1233
55 40 Propylene/CO2 20.25 1.370 1.165 964
65 40 Propylene/Ethane 23.33 1.785 0.995 688
75 40 Propylene/Ethylene 34.89 1.826 0.8069 527
-85 40 Propylene/Ethylene 38.88 2.003 0.6834 403
25 45 Propylene/CO2 5.05 1.087 1.853 1898
35 45 Propylene/CO2 9.23 1.196 1.532 1543
45 45 Propylene/CO2 13.44 1.310 1.279 1237
55 45 Propylene/CO2 17.72 1.435 1.074 971
65 45 Propylene/Ethane 20.90 1.867 0.9206 688
75 45 Propylene/Ethylene 32.65 1.918 0.7458 529
85 45 Propylene/Ethylene 36.49 2.107 0.6332 406
25 50 Propylene/CO2 2.99 1.137 1.677 1883
35 50 Propylene/CO2 6.97 1.252 1.397 1538
45 50 Propylene/CO2 10.99 1.375 1.172 1236
55 50 Propylene/CO2 15.08 1.508 0.9883 974
65 50 Propylene/Ethane 18.39 1.959 0.8504 686
75 50 Propylene/Ethylene 30.34 2.022 0.6877 529
85 50 Propylene/Ethylene 34.01 2.225 0.5852 407
25 55 Propylene/CO2 0.86 1.194 1.518 1860
35 55 Propylene/CO2 4.64 1.317 1.272 1526
45 55 Propylene/CO2 8.46 1.448 1.073 1231
55 55 Propylene/CO2 12.35 1.591 0.9082 974
65 55 Propylene/Ethane 15.79 2.065 0.7837 681
75 55 Propylene/Ethylene 27.95 2.142 0.632 527
85 55 Propylene/Ethylene 31.45 2.362 0.5388 407

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

622 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 227(5)

Vc volumetric refrigeration capacity

Notation (kJ/m3)
_
W compressor work (kW)
COP coefficient of performance
CT critical point temperature (  C) C compressor isentropic efficiency
H specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)  saturated vapor specific heat ratio
hfg latent heat of evaporation (kJ/kg)
IT intermediate temperature ( C)
M ratio of HT to LT mass flow rates
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
Subscripts
NBP normal boiling point ( C) chx cascade heat exchanger
OT overlap temperature ( C) co condenser
Q_ heat transfer rate (kW) ev evaporator
T temperature ( C) HT high temperature circuit
V specific volume (m3/kg) LT low temperature circuit

Downloaded from pia.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on January 10, 2014

View publication stats