Understanding
Applications for
Alternate Refrigerants
Ron Bonear
Emerson Climate Technologies
Agenda
 Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
 Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
 Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
 R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
 Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
 Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Evaluation
Methodology
 Alternate Refrigerant Evaluation — Performance
– Focus on Developing Fast/Flexible Refrigerant Release

Sidney Refrigeration Engineering Team Developed Test
Strategy for Simultaneous Approval of R-448A and R-449A
– Equivalent Chemical Composition Between the Two
Refrigerants

Thermophysical Comparison, Miscibility and Compatibility
Analysis Performed on R-448A/R-449A
UL Qualification Strategy
 Objective: Reduce UL Qualification Time
– Due to Chemical Equivalency of Refrigerants, UL Agreed to Full Model Line
Approvals of Both R-448A/R-449A by Testing Only R-448A
– Testing Required to Show That R-448A MCC Amp Values Were ≤ +10%
Above R-404A
– In All Instances, R-448A Met This Criteria

The Majority of MCC Values Fall Below That of R-404A
– As a Result, R-448A Has Been Released Using Existing R-404A MCC Values
By Utilizing This Approach, It Was Possible to Significantly Reduce the Total
Number of Compressors Tested:
 8 Scroll Compressors
 6 Semi-Hermetic Compressors (4 Discus / 2 KEL)
R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Evaluation
Methodology
 Alternate Refrigerant Evaluation — Reliability
– Evaluation of the Interaction of Refrigerants With Oil
 Miscibility/Solubility/Viscosity
– Bearing Analysis Performed Using Mobility Analysis
– Full Operating Envelope and Reliability (CFM) Testing
Performed Using R-448A/R-449A
Agenda
 Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
 Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
 Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
 R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
 Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
 Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Evaluation of Alternate Refrigerant
Performance
 Evaluation of R-448A/R-449A Relative to Existing Medium-
Pressure Refrigerants
– Evaluate Equivalency of R-448A Relative to R-449A
 Evaluate Refrigerant Chemical Compositions
– Evaluate R-448A Relative to R-404A and R-407A
 Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Pressure Differential
– Density
– Enthalpy

Refrigerant Performance Testing Comparison
Evaluation of Refrigerant Chemical
Composition
 R-448A/R-449A Relative Comparison
– Both R-448A and R-449A are medium-pressure, A1 refrigerants

Verify chemical composition ± 5%
Honeywell R-448A Composition
DuPont R-449A Composition
R-32 (26%)
R-32 (24%)
R-125 (26%)
R-125 (25%)
R-134a (21%)
R-134a (26%)
1234yf (20%)
1234ze (7%)
1234yf (25%)
Determination Made That the Two Refrigerants Are
Effectively Chemically Equivalent
Evaluation of Refrigerant Pressure
Differential
 Evaluate R-448A ∆P to R-404A/R-407A

R-448A exhibits a lower pressure differential than R-404A. R-448A
compressor loads will be lower.

R-448a and R-407A have essentially identical pressure differentials.
Evaluation of Refrigerant Density
 Evaluate R-448A Density Relative to R-404A/R-407A
Evaluation of Refrigerant Enthalpy
 Evaluate R-448A Theoretical Enthalpy Relative to R-404A/R-407A
Scroll MT — Mid/Dew Point Capacity
R-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (20/70)
Scroll MT — Mid/Dew Point Capacity
R-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (20/120)
Scroll LT — Mid/Dew Point Capacity
R-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (-25/70)
Scroll LT — Mid/Dew Point Capacity
R-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A (-25/105)
Scroll MT — Mid/Dew Point Weighted EER
R-404A Versus R-407A/R-448A
Scroll LT – Mid / Dew Point Weighted EER
R-404A Versus R-407A / R-448A
R-448A/R-449A Operating Envelopes —
Summary and Conclusions
 Following Operating Envelope Testing and CFM, R-448A/R-449A Will
Use Same Envelope as R-407A
 R-448A/R-449A Demonstrated Thermophysical Equivalence
 Discharge Line Temperatures Are Similar to But Slightly Higher Than
R-407A at HCR/MDP Conditions
– Reliability Testing Confirms Higher Temperatures at Envelope Corners
Are Acceptable
» Only Map Affected Is ZBK5 Envelope


All R-448A/R-449A Are the Same Envelopes as R-407A
Only Exception Is ZBK5 Envelope, With Slightly Reduced HCR
Corner Point
Final R-448A/R-449A MT K5 Operating
Envelope
Agenda
 Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
 Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
 Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
 R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
 Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
 Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Refrigerant Reliability Evaluation
 Refrigerant Reliability Assessment
– Reliability

Bearing Analysis
– Miscibility
– Solubility/Viscosity
– Mobility Analysis

DFMEA
– High RPN Failure Modes Drive CFM Test Strategy

CFM Testing Summary
Refrigerant Reliability Evaluation
 Reliability Development Envelope
Miscibility Evaluation
Viscosity Evaluation
Mobility Analysis of R-448A Relative to
R-404A
R-448A/R-449A CFM Summary
 Evaluated Full Range of Compressors Using Standard Reliability
Engineering Procedure
 Performed CFM Testing at Envelope Corner Points
– HCR
– MDP
– High Load
 Flooded Start and Defrost Cycles Tested to Verify Miscibility
– Ensure Full Hydrodynamic Bearing Film Thickness Following
Refrigerant Washout
 Mobility Used to Validate Minimum Oil Film Thickness to
Surface Finish Ratio (ʎ)
– R-448A/R-449A Meets or Exceeds ʎ for R-404A
All Scroll/Semi-Hermetic Compressors Passed Full Battery of CFM Testing
Agenda
 Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
 Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
 Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
 R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
 Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
 Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
R-448A/R-449A Summary and Conclusions
 From R-448A/R-449A Qualification, the Sidney Refrigeration Engineering
Team Has Utilized a Standardized Test Strategy for New Refrigerants
- Comparative Evaluation of Refrigerant Properties
- Full UL, Performance, Operating Maps and Reliability Testing
 Thermophysical Similarity of R-448A and R-449A Has Been Verified
 The Thermophysical Properties of R-448A Are Much Closer to
R-407A Than R-404A
- R-404A Is Much Denser Than R-448A; Higher Mass Flows
- R-448A Exhibits Lower ∆P; Lower Bearing Loading Than R-404A
- R-404A Capacity Significantly Greater Than R-448A at LT Conditions,
Roughly Equivalent on MT Applications
R-448A/R-449A Summary and Conclusions
 R-448A/R-449A Operating Envelopes Are Equivalent to Current R-407A
-
Ref ZB*K5 HCR Condensing Will Be Slightly Reduced to
Accommodate R-448A/R-449A and R407A on One Map
 Bearing Analysis Performed by Evaluating Miscibility/Viscosity, Loads,
M Mobility Analysis and CFM
 Comprehensive R-448A/R-449A Performance and Reliability
Evaluation Complete
 Captured Lessons Learned in Standardized Document
-
Utilized for All New Refrigerant Releases
 Accuracy and Completeness of Data for Both Performance and
Reliability Are Assured
Agenda
 Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
 Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
 Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
 R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
 Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
 Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Update on R-513A/R-450A and R-452A
 Performance and Initial Reliability Evaluations Underway for Low-
Pressure R-513A/R-450A (Europe and U.S.) and for Medium-Pressure
R-452A (U.S., Transport Scroll Only)
– Preliminary Performance Evaluation for Refrigerants Complete
– Initial Reliability Assessments of Both R-452A and R-513A Indicate
Higher Solubility Index May Pose Challenge for Compressor Boundary
Lubrication

Higher Solubility Reduces Oil Viscosity and May Affect Boundary
Lubrication During Liquid Applications
– Currently Evaluating Alternate, Higher Viscosity Oil as
Countermeasure
R-450A/R-513A Refrigerant Performance —
Capacity
R-450A/R-513A Refrigerant Performance —
EER
R-452A Refrigerant Performance — Capacity
R-452A Refrigerant Performance — EER
Agenda
 Overview of R-448A/R-449A Refrigerant Development Methodology
– Evaluation Strategy — R-448A /R-449A Refrigerants
 Performance Development
– Thermophysical Comparison of Refrigerants
– Refrigerant Performance
 Reliability Evaluation
– Effect of New Refrigerants on Compressor Components
– Reliability Assessment
 R-448A/R-449A Development Summary and Conclusions
 Brief Update on Alternate Refrigerants — R-450A/R-513A and R-452A
 Update on ECT’s Alternate Refrigerant Facilities Development Plan
Recap of Alternatives for Refrigeration
Applications
1
A1 – Non-Flammable
A2L – Mildly Flammable
Pressure Building
or
CO2
Capacity
HFO 1234yf
HFO 1234ze
ARM-42
~600
Qualitative – Not to
Scale
3
2
2015
R-448A = N40
R-449A = DR33
R-449B = ARM-32
N20
< 1,500
R-444B = L20
L40, DR7
NH3
~300
ARM-20b
<150
R-32/HFO
Blends
HDR110
R290
DR3
ARM-20a
R-134a
Like
R-123 Like
(V. Low Pr.)
4
2016
R-446A, R-447A, ARM-71a
R-32/HFO 400–675 R32
Blends
R-410A
Like
R-404A and
R-407/22
Like
A3 – Flammable
B2L – Toxic, Mildly Flam.
R-32/HFC/HFO
Blends
HFC/HFO R-450A = N13
Blends R-513A = XP10
R-410A
R-22
R-407A
R-407C
R-407F, R-452A = XP44
AR M-35
R-404A
R-507A
(3922)
R134a
DR2, N12, ARC 1
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
GWP Level
Emerson’s A3 / A2L Facilities Development
Plan
Emerson’s A3 / A2L Facilities Development
Plan
Emerson’s A3 / A2L Facilities Development
Plan
Selecting a TXV for
Use With R-448A /
R-449A / R-513A
Brad Hopson
Emerson Climate Technologies
Selecting a TXV for
Use With R-448A /
R-449A / R-513A
Brad Hopson
Emerson Climate Technologies
TXV Selection Review
1. Refrigeration Type
2. Evaporator Temperature/Pressure
3. Evaporator Capacity
4. Condensing Temperature/Pressure
5. Liquid Temperature
6. Distributor Type (if used)
Note: The valve is sized to the evaporator and not the compressor.
Glide and the p-h Diagram
 Zeotropic Blends Exhibit Glide
 Calculating Delta P at
Expansion Device:
– Bubble Point (Saturated
Liquid) for Condensing
Pressure
– Dew Point (Saturated
Vapor) for Evaporating
Pressure
TXV Pressure Differential
 This Is Also the Delta P at the Expansion Device
 Lower Delta P Generally Lowers Valve Capacity
 In the Given Applications, the Change in Pressure Differential Is Very Small
Superheat
Superheat Curves (and Other Secrets)
Evaporator Temp.
 R-404A Bulb Charges Are NOT Optimized for R-448/449
 Superheat Settings MUST Be Adjusted
 At Low Temps, the Superheat Tends to Rise
Low-Temp. Valve Capacity Adjustment
 Low-Temp. Applications Require Larger Valves
 In Practice, Choose a Valve With 50% More Capacity
Summary
 Pressure Differential:
– Use Bubble Point for Condensing Pressure
– Use Dew Point for Evaporating Pressure
 R-513A — Use R-134A Tables
 R-448A/R-449A
– Medium-Temp – Very Similar to R-404A
– Low-Temp – Select Approximately 50% More Capacity
Thank You!
Questions?
DISCLAIMER
Although all statements and information contained herein are believed to be accurate and reliable, they are presented without guarantee or
warranty of any kind, expressed or implied. Information provided herein does not relieve the user from the responsibility of carrying out its
own tests and experiments, and the user assumes all risks and liability for use of the information and results obtained. Statements or
suggestions concerning the use of materials and processes are made without representation or warranty that any such use is free of patent
infringement and are not recommendations to infringe on any patents. The user should not assume that all toxicity data and safety measures
are indicated herein or that other measures may not be required.