Technical Papers: 34th Annual Meeting International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration

Technical Papers
34th Annual Meeting

International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
March 1821, 2012
2012 Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition
Hilton Milwaukee City Center
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Return to the Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success of the 34th Annual Meeting of the International Institute of Ammonia
Refrigeration is due to the quality of the technical papers in this volume and the labor of its
authors. IIAR expresses its deep appreciation to the authors, reviewers and editors for their
contributions to the ammonia refrigeration industry.
Board of Directors, International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
ABOUT THIS VOLUME
IIAR Technical Papers are subjected to rigorous technical peer review.
The views expressed in the papers in this volume are those of the authors, not the
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration. They are not ofcial positions of the
Institute and are not ofcially endorsed.

International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
1001 North Fairfax Street
Suite 503
Alexandria, VA 22314
+ 1-703-312-4200 (voice)
+ 1-703-312-0065 (fax)
www.iiar.org
2012 Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition
Hilton Milwaukee City Center
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
IIAR 2012 1
Abstract
Calculations and analysis of practical case studies indicate that systems using CO
2
as a secondary
coolant provide energy savings in the range of 15 to 30 percent compared to their glycol, brine
counterparts. Those systems are also relatively simple. The development of CO
2
brine systems is
rapidly accelerating, with end-users in a number of countries opting for those plants. This paper
outlines one of the challenges faced by many contractors the design differences of CO
2
secondary
cooling systems as compared with traditional ammonia installations, or glycol layouts.
Technical Paper #7
System Design for CO
2
Secondary
Coolant Based System
Hernan Hidalgo
Danfoss Inc.
Baltimore, Maryland
Anatolii Mikhailov
Danfoss A/S
Kolding, Denmark
Technical Paper #7 IIAR 2012 3
2
Secondary Coolant Based System
Introduction
At the dawn of the 21st century, industrial ammonia refrigeration systems
experienced rapid changes while embracing other re-emergent natural refrigerants
such as CO
2
which in turn, helped realize potential benets to product safety and
operational effectiveness.
The evolution and variants of CO
2
system design range from CO
2
cascade, to DX
and brine systems or a combination. All of them have been used to fulll the
requirements of low and medium temperature systems. This paper focuses on
CO
2
secondary systems addressing the control challenges in some medium to high
temperature applications where the use of traditional ammonia or glycol based
systems is still widely common practice.
This paper provides the basics of CO
2
secondary system designs. Without being a
complete guide, the article creates a general understanding of the challenges and
opportunities that application of CO
2
as secondary coolant creates. Most of the
high and medium temperature applications that use glycol as a secondary cooling
today, could successfully apply CO
2
instead, with benets for the environment and
potentially the energy bill. The latter will be explored and reviewed later in the paper.
Traditional Systems Overview
Ammonia based systems are the preferred choice for industrial refrigeration system
designs. These systems provide a well known, predictable and easy-to-service layout
which has very desirable performance while keeping environmental standards. There
are, however, a signicant number of applications where the use of ammonia/glycol
systems may be preferred.
4 IIAR 2012 Technical Paper #7
2012 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NH
3
Direct
While most systems operate at +20F (6.7 C) evaporating temperatures at the
pump re-circulator package, high temperature units require the use of pressure
regulators to increase evaporating temperatures to achieve higher room temperatures
with an acceptable TD (temperature difference).
Though the practice is not uncommon, it brings some disadvantages in terms of
pump power required to overcome the setting of the pressure regulator as well as
energy consumption by the compressors.
Figure 1 shows a pumped ammonia valve arrangement for medium and/or high
temperature units. The pressure regulator shown in the wet return line is set at the
desired higher evaporating temperature. A unit operating at 45F would require an
evaporating temperature of 35F. The setting of the pressure regulator will around
55 psig. As +20F saturated liquid would have a pressure of ~ 34 psig, the ammonia
pump (s) require to have a differential pressure in excess of 30 psig just to feed liquid
to those units. Due to the high differential pressure required some designers may
have opted for high pressure liquid instead of medium temperature pumped liquid.
The down side beyond having higher power consumption at the pumps is the
recirculation of ammonia in process areas (with potentially a high number of
employees) or sensitive products susceptible to damage even with very low
concentrations of refrigerant in the room.
NH
3
/glycol based
Those hybrid NH
3
/glycol systems aim at addressing risk management of plants where
product contamination and/or extensive process areas where companies with very
low tolerance for potential ammonia leak exposure operate. The ultimate goal is to
reduce exposure to leaks with NH
3
which, of course, is highly desirable.
2
NH
3
/glycol systems (or any other refrigerant with glycol) accomplish the task.
Nevertheless, there are substantial repercussions plant managers have to contend
with as the systems:
Require a large foot print. Glycol pipe lines are rather large, especially when
insulation is taken into account. Glycol systems also require rather large vessels
(or dual vessels) to separate warm and cool liquid.
Pump power is extremely high which is present on energy bills month after
month.
Need to monitor and maintain Glycol mixture properties.
Figure 2 shows a hybrid refrigerant/glycol system.
Warm glycol is pumped through a chiller (NH
3
/Glycol commonly used). It is also
common to have another pump (system pump) feeding the cooler units in the plant.
The arrangement increases power consumption and complexity of the plant.
Motorized three way mixing valves with a small re-circulating pump are typically
used to obtain the right glycol temperature. This strategy is used when precise
temperature and / or humidity control is required. In other cases, a simple on/off
control method is quite common.
CO
2
as Brine Overview
Traditionally, CO
2
systems were built for low temperature applications due to the
high efciency associated with it. However, plants that have a demand for both low
and medium temperature requirements could also benet from applying CO
2
to the
medium temperature loop such as process areas, warehouses, banana rooms, etc.
The medium temperature side is typically a pumped circulation loop connecting
the cascade heat exchanger to the rest of the system. Nevertheless, stand alone
installations with a CO
2
medium temperature loop are also viable.
Figure 3 illustrates a conventional CO
2
system showing the medium temperature loop.
The vessel underneath the heat exchanger serves as a liquid/gas phase separator. The
returned vapor ows up to the exchanger by thermo-siphon effect to the exchanger.
This design makes control of CO
2
brine systems much easier than those used for CO
2

cascade systems:
There is no need to balance the load of the CO
2
and NH
3
compressors in the
cascade heat exchanger. In CO
2
brine systems the balance occurs automatically.
The system could operate oil-free, which eliminates the need of elaborate oil-
return systems.
However, even though CO
2
brine systems do not operate with any compressors, they
feature a lot of similarities to traditional cascade systems.
Figure 4 illustrates a simplied CO
2
system and the correlation of the different
conditions of the refrigerant in the log P-H diagram.
The CO
2
pump raises the pressure with a slight increase in the refrigerant temperature
due to mechanical losses (1-2). Further friction losses and head pressure positions
CO
2
on point (3).
When the refrigerant reaches the high pressure rated pumped liquid valve station
containing shut off valve, strainer, pulse width modulating valve and shut off valve
modules, the refrigerant reaches the saturated liquid state. (4)
The refrigerant then evaporates and depending on the recirculation rate, wet vapor
returns to the CO
2
receiver to complete the loop. (6)
2
CO
2
liquid and gas phases are separated in the receiver. Gas (7) fows to the heat
exchanger where it condenses returning as slightly sub-cooled liquid. (8)
Liquid in the vessel remains in its saturated state. Some degree of sub-cooling can be
achieved depending on the liquid column height at the pump suction. (1)
Energy Efciency of CO
2
brine systems
Certainly, indirect ammonia systems have dramatically reduced the ammonia charge
by the use of secondary coolants such as CO
2
volatile brine and glycol. However,
CO2 brine offers additional benets such as increased efciency compared to glycol
systems.
One key advantage of NH
3
/CO
2
heat exchangers compared to other uids is the very
high heat transfer coefcient available. (Handschuh, 2008) This applies to both air
units and heat exchangers.
The gains in evaporator performance are largely dependent on the dimensioning and
circuiting of the evaporator. Some comparisons of carbon dioxide coil design show
some variations of the heat transfer coefcient. A CO
2
coil design with 10 circuits
instead of 20 circuits using the same overfeed rate could raise the heat transfer
coeffcient about 9 percent. (Pearson, IIAR 2009)
It should also be mentioned that the lowest heat transfer in air cooled evaporators
is on the air side. Therefore, the attention will be placed on the refrigerants heat
exchange. As the temperature difference (TD) between CO
2
and the other uid (e.g.
ammonia) is quite small, the overall gains in operating higher compressor suction
(NH
3
side) may range from 1.8F to 7.2F (0.5K to 4K). (Stenhede, 2007) As a
result, the energy consumption by the NH3 compressors would drop.
Furthermore, properties such as high specic heat and high vapor density of CO
2

make an ideal combination to reduce line sizes and optimize components throughout
the refrigeration system design. Comparison of line sizes between CO
2
and other
refrigerants has been done extensively proving large differences worth highlighting
again. (Vestergaard 2004)
Figure 5 shows dramatic reduction in pipe sizes for both supply and return of
medium and low temperature systems. Smaller CO
2
pipes mean lower surface areas
which reduce the heat loss compared to larger brine/glycol pipes. (Hinde, 2009)
Another advantage is the lower pumping power required which will be discussed in
more detail.
Energy Consumption
Traditional system designs call for recirculation rates of 3:1 to 4:1 with NH
3
. The
required recirculation rate for CO
2
to obtain the same or higher heat transfer
coeffcient is lower. Re-circulation rates vary from 1.1 to 2 only. (Handschuh, 2008)
The vastly lower recirculation rates reduce the energy to circulate CO
2
through the air
units. However, the main contributor to having a low pumping power is in fact that
CO
2
is volatile brine.
For example, when using other uids such as glycol, the temperature of the uid
as it passes the cooling unit will be raised between 10F to 15F (5K to 8 K). As
a result, a signicant mass ow circulating the unit is required to achieve the same
effect compared to using CO
2
.
CO
2
pumps, on average, consume only 5 percent to 10 percent of the energy required
to pump water based brines while achieving the same capacity. This also holds
2
true even though CO
2
systems operate higher head pressures than glycol systems.
(Mikhailov, 2010)
The following analysis attempts to provide an overview of the potential savings.
Mass ow Comparison
A relatively simple calculation provides the mass ow of CO
2
and the mass ow of
ethylene glycol required to transfer a certain amount of energy.
For ethylene glycol, the following equation is used:
M = Q / (C T)
Assuming:
Glycol temperature: 10C,
C=3.42
T=4 K, which is typical for this kind of systems
Because CO
2
evaporates, a different formula is used:
M =Q/h,
The latent heat for CO
2
at 10C: 260 kJ/kg
Now, calculating the mass ow needed to reject 260 kW of cooling load under the
above operating conditions:
CO
2
: 260kW/260kJ/Kg ~ 1 kg/s
Ethylene glycol: 260/(3.42x4) ~ 20kg/s
Only one kg/s of CO
2
vs. 20 kg/s of glycol is required.
This highlights that the mass ow of CO
2
required to obtain the same cooling effect
becomes only a fraction of the mass ow used by traditional brine uids.
Pump Power Comparison
It has been shown that the mass ow required to obtain certain cooling effect is
substantially larger when using Ethylene Glycol compared to CO
2
. The next step
would be to estimate the pumping power required.
The following example illustrates the difference in pumping power for a hypothetical
plant.
Assumptions:
Plant Capacity: Qo = 500kW (142 TR)
CO
2
re-circulation rate: 1.5: 1
Differential Head: 25 m (82 ft)
T = glycol temperature difference, inlet/outlet = 4K
co2
= 75%
A basic equation to calculate power consumption at the pump:
P
pump
= q g h / (c
p
10
6
)/
P
pump
= (h Q
0
9.81) / (T c
p
) /
2
Pump effciency is an empiric equation and calculated for a specifc pump type. It is a
function of the volumetric ow and the temperature:
= 12,333*ln(V) + 14,144
V = 3600 / m
m =mass ow, kg / s
m = (Q
0
/ c
p
)/ (t
out
t
in
)
P
s CO2
= (h Q
0
9.81 n) / r /
The calculations show the power required to pump CO
2
could be about 15 times
lower than the power used in pumping Ethylene glycol.
The results of pumping power required for various brines are shown on Table 1
under the same conditions. Two different temperature scenarios were considered,
10C (+14F) and 20C ( 4F )
It is interesting to see how the power consumption increases for all other brines as
the temperature decreases.
Nomenclature:
M: [mass ow in kg/h]
Q: [Load of the cooler unit. kW ]
C: [Specic Heat of glycol in kJ/(kg*K). ]
T: [Temperature difference between glycol inlet and outlet in K]
h: [Enthalpy of vaporization ]
P
pump
= pump shaft power (kW)
q = ow capacity (m
3
/h). Calculated
= density of uid (kg/m
3
). Depends on the glycol
g = gravity (9.81 m/s
2
)
h = differential head (m).
= pump efciency. Estimated
c
p
= Glycol Specifc Heat, kJ/(kg*K). Depends on glycol
V = volumetric ow, m3/h
r = heat of evaporation, CO
2
, depends on the temperature and pressure
Total Energy Consumption
A simplied assessment of the energy consumption of a refrigeration plant will be
used to compare CO
2
vs. glycol systems. It is deemed simplied as some variables
such as energy required for defrost sequences etc. are not included.
Instead, the total power would be based on compressors and pump consumption.
P
required
= P
compr
+ P
pumps
P
pumps
Calculation procedure as shown on previous section.
P
compr
= Q
0 adjusted
/ COP
COP of the compressor depends on the temperature level. For calculation purposes,
it was assumed that the COP would be equal to 1.9 for 20C air and 3.8 for 0C air.
Compressor data was taken from calculation software of one of the major industrial
refrigeration manufacturers.
Q
0 adjusted
= Q
0
+ Q
additional heat gains
+ Q
pump
2
Q
additional heat gains
= radiation heat gains, 5% for CO
2
and 7% for glycols due to larger
pipe dimensions.
Q
pump
= heat from pumps.
Another example of a 750kW plant will be reviewed with room air temperature of
5C (39F)
Table 2 shows the variables and assumptions made to calculate the total daily energy
consumption. A hefty 21 percent energy savings gure provides a promising result to
consider CO
2
as an alternative to glycol.
Simulation tools (Pack Calculation II and CO
2
Brine Calculator 3.91) have been
crucial to compare CO
2
and brine systems performance. Following various results, it
can be argued that depending on the system conguration, CO
2
brine systems run at
15 percent to 25 percent lower energy consumption than water based systems in a
temperature range of 40F to +32F (40C to 0C).
Those gures are conrmed by some other studies (Natural Working Fluids in
Artifcial Skating Rinks, E. Berends).
The actual percentage depends on a number of variables such as:
CO
2
brine systems offer a lower reaction time making adjustments to suction
temperature when needed. Instead glycol systems require longer times to obtain
desired temperatures due to the high inertia of the system
Load pattern
Type of Defrost
Control Strategy
Use of variable frequency converters (VFDs)
Geometry and dimensions of evaporators/coolers
Actual Power Consumption Comparison
In order to validate the theoretical calculations, data extracted from two refrigeration
plants were analyzed. It is worth mentioning that the comparison of energy
consumption of industrial refrigeration plants presents some challenges as the exact
cooling load is typically unknown and needs to be estimated. Two sites running on
similar load proles and temperature levels were chosen to conduct the analysis.
The approach taken to analyze the data was made by obtaining the gross energy
consumption measured at distribution centers for fruits located in two different
climates in Europe. Both plants run ammonia as the primary refrigerant equipped
with evaporative condensers and oating head pressure control. As one plant is
running glycol and the other CO
2
as brine, it can be contended that the comparison
offers valuable ndings and insights. Table 3 provides a side to side comparison for
both plants.
Some calculation adjustments had to be made to offset the climate inuence.
Otherwise, the comparison would favor the system located in the North.
The total consumed power in kW h is a measured gure that corresponds to 1.3mW
h for the glycol plant and 2.7mW h for the CO
2
. Though the values are different, the
purpose is to compare the consumption in kW / kW h.
The total difference in per unit consumption amounts to about 32 percent. That is
quite substantial but a margin of error should be taken due to assumptions in power
consumption of fans, lights, defrost strategy etc. can account for a deviation. Both
systems could improve energy efciency by following several steps such as use of
frequency converters.
2
It must be noted that absolute conclusions of energy consumption cannot be derived
from energy data taken from only two sites as a number of assumptions have been
made compared to theoretical values.
CO
2
Brine System Control for High Temperature Rooms.
It was highlighted that handling high temperature rooms with traditional systems
such as NH
3
and pumped glycol bring some inefciencies. NH
3
re-circulated systems
would rely on standard pressure regulators to increase the refrigerant pressure and
temperature increasing pumping power.
Glycol systems with 3 way valves, typically used in fruit storage, provide good
temperature control but they are somewhat more complex, increasing the cost
compared to other available alternatives.
In the case of CO
2
pumped systems, the penalty for increasing refrigerant pressure to
reduce the TD of the coolers/evaporators is simply not an option. Having a regular
on/off control strategy works well for all medium temperature units but poses a
challenge to products that require a lower TD to reduce weight loss etc.
Fortunately, the advancement in ow control and algorithm control strategy makes
it possible to solve the issue avoiding power consumption penalties while keeping
system pressure within acceptable levels.
On/off Flow Control individual components
In traditional pump circulation systems, the liquid feed is controlled by a thermostat
or analog signal to a PLC which constantly measures the air temperature. The
solenoid valve is opened for a period of time (several minutes) until the air
temperature reaches the desired set point. The mass of the refrigerant ow is
constant while the liquid feed process takes place.
This method offers a very simple way to control air temperature. However, large
temperature uctuations caused by pre-dened differentials may cause undesired
effects in some applications where dehumidication and accurate temperature control
cannot be maintained.
Typical liquid valve groups include a solenoid valve and a hand regulating valve
(known as HEV in ammonia systems) which provide a xed amount of refrigerant
which cannot be changed remotely.
Valve stations with pulse width modulation technology in pump re-circulated coolers
Adjusting the liquid feed to the actual capacity needed offers multiple benets. The
air temperature is constantly measured and compared to the set point. When the
desired temperature is reached, a 754 psig pressure rated valve station capable of
pulse width modulation reduces the opening degree by reducing the time of liquid
injection based on a xed cycle. See Fig 6.
The liquid refrigerant circulation rate is reduced when a lower amount of liquid
refrigerant is needed. As a result, a certain amount of super heated gas is obtained
in the air cooler, which in turn, reduces the T between the refrigerant and the air.
Typical applications include fruit and vegetable storage where adjusting liquid feed is
required to match the actual load.
Figure 7 shows a graph of the temperature variations when using pulse modulation
technology.
In some large coolers, the use of motorized valves with a pressure rating of 754 psig
(52 bar) is also widely used.
2
Supporting Systems Overview
While major discussions have supported the viability of CO2 brines systems, it is
equally important to describe additional elements that provide increased efciency
and plant safety.
Pump Package
While suction and discharge pump pressure can be read via pressure transmitters,
the use of differential pressure switches could play an important role in protecting
CO
2
pumps. Mechanical pressure differential switches provide an augmented safety
consideration.
Regarding effciency, VFDs (variable frequency drives) have always played a vital role
in increasing system efciencies and they have become increasingly popular for two
reasons:
1. Energy savings.
2. Better liquid distribution in the evaporator coils. While energy savings cannot
typically justify the initial cost, liquid distribution cannot be overlooked. A
precondition for good distribution of refrigerant liquid is having a stable pressure
differential across the evaporators.
Pumps controlled by frequency converters can ensure that pressure is kept at stable
level under all load conditions.
Figure 8 depicts a comprehensive CO
2
pump package. Beside the higher pressure
rating desired for the package the layout is fairly similar to regular ammonia pump
packages.
Pressure Control
Design pressure is one of the key factors of CO
2
systems. CO
2
brine systems,
especially those with defrost strategies other than hot gas, could be easily designed
for a maximum working pressure of 580 psig (40 bar). Therefore, most of the
standard off-the-shelve components could be used to build a safe system.
It is important to observe and anticipate standstill pressure conditions. One of the
alternatives is the installation of a small back-up unit to cool the re-circulator package
while the main power is down. This is a technique also used in CO
2
cascade systems.
The capacity of such a unit is about 0.5 percent of the total plant capacity.
Another precautionary measure is to install check valves in parallel to all return
stop valves from the evaporators. In the event that the evaporators are shut down
for maintenance, all excessive pressure would be vented back to the main system
through the check valves.
Defrost Strategy
The most common ways of defrosting pumped CO
2
systems are:
Electric defrost.
It is the simplest but often the least efcient method for defrosting air units.
It could be considered when the working temperature of the uid is close to
freezing point. A thorough and complete analysis on defrost methods are available
illustrating that defrost efciency ratio for electric defrost of a 100 kW evaporator
is about 53.8 percent compared to 226 percent for hot gas defrost. (Pearson, 2006)
Hot Gas Defrost.
It can be carried out either via a capable compressor that handles high discharge
pressures or a separate smaller compressor dedicated to generate hot gas. Figure
2
9 provides a schematic of evaporators with hot gas defrost. A high pressure
regulator is used to control the defrost pressure. After the defrost sequence is
fnished, it is important to verify the MODP (maximum opening differential
pressure) of the suction valve. Depending on the sizes and the design, a small
solenoid can be used to help equalize the pressure.
As CO
2
brine systems are typically designed as oil-free, special care is required to
return the oil back to the defrost compressor.
Water Defrost.
In some cases (especially in rooms with temperatures above 32F) evaporators
can be defrosted using sprayed water. There have been some available
technologies used to defrost low temperature evaporators.
Hot Brine Defrost.
This method requires that evaporators have a double coil (CO
2
coil and brine coil)
which increases rst cost. However, the defrost strategy is quite simple. The brine
could be heated by the NH
3
condenser gas.
Valve Sizing Criteria
There are numerous papers included in the IIAR Carbon Dioxide Handbook that
addresses pipe sizing of liquid, wet return, compressor discharge, etc. The criteria
and methodology are consistent with best practices in terms of velocities and
pressure drop per 100ft of piping.
However, valves selection requires a slightly different approach to optimize ow and
achieve a desired temperature and/or pressure control.
The emergence of off-the-shelf evaporators, valve stations as well as motorized valves
with standard ratings of 52 bar (754 psig) simplies the design and selection of
components to be used in both ammonia and CO
2
sides.
As the pressure rating is no longer an obstacle in systems furnished with hot gas
defrost components, the next step is to select the appropriate port size to fulll the
requirements.
Wet Return Lines
Control valves in wet return lines are subject to operating pressures which may vary
from 9 bar (132 psig) for low temperature units up to 28 bar (408 psig) for medium
temperature units. Therefore, 40 bar (600 psig) ratings were enough when using
electric or water defrost.
As a number of designers look at hot gas defrost, the wet return valves may be
subject to 44 bar or 655 psig if completing a defrost sequence at +10C (50F).
At rst glance, a standard valve rated at 52 bar (754 psig) will be a great choice to
operate as a solenoid valve or control valve. However, the designer needs to look at
the maximum operating differential pressure of the valve (MOPD) as well. Typically,
smaller valves up to 1.1/4" are designed to operate at an MOPD of 52 bar as well.
Larger valves are normally rated to operate with lower differential pressures between
20 bar (290 psig) to 40 bar (600 psig).
This is important for a valve to be able to open after the defrost sequence is
completed and the evaporator returns to refrigeration mode. If the unit operates
at 40F, then the wet suction valve would need to be capable of opening with a
differential pressure of 500 psig.
2
Hence, a pressure equalization process would be preferred by using a small by-pass
solenoid valve.
In terms of the actual port size of the valve, the use of 0.25F to 0.5F temperature
drop may be acceptable. The difference is quite noticeable when compared to an NH3
re-circulated evaporator.
Software widely used in the industry can be used to make the selection and or
permutation to obtain the desired port size (Dircalc v 1.20).
For a 50 TR evaporator operating at 40F:
NH
3
suction valve with a recirculation rate 3:1: would require a 5" motorized valve to
keep a pressure drop of 0.25 psig (temp drop: 0.8F).
A CO
2
suction motorized valve with a re-circulation rate of 1.5:1 would require a 2"
motorized valve with a pressure drop of 2 psig and a temp drop of 0.7F.
As the CO
2
system runs a pressure of 132 psig at those conditions, 2 psig does not
seem to be a critical number to overcome.
Last but not least, safety consideration during a power failure is necessary to take
into account.
There are, however, motorized valves that can be programmed to fully open or to
position onto a specifc opening degree when connected to UPS systems. That would
ensure the system would not trap liquid should a power failure occurs.
Pumped Liquid Lines.
Once again the pressure rating plays an important role in the selection process. 52
bar (754 psig) would be the requirement for the valve station as the check valve and
hand regulating valve (HEV) would be under 655 psig during the defrost sequence.
The liquid solenoid valve would probably determine the port size required and the
connection size would be determined by the velocity to match a recommended 3.28
ft/s (1 m/s).
Continuing with the example above, a 1.1/4" (DN32) connection size is good
choice. The port size of the solenoid valve is chosen to maintain the p-band of the
valve (pressure drop at which the valve is fully open). Though there are a number
of solenoid valves featuring zero pressure drop to open, it is important not to
exceed 2 psig or 3 psig as a general rule. A 1" (DN25) port solenoid valve would be
recommended.
Defrost Control Valve.
Port size selection of the valve is crucial to avoid undesired chattering in defrosting
CO
2
evaporators. A defrost regulator with a Kv value of 3.5 m
3
/h (Cv: 4.1 USgal/min)
or slightly higher would be enough to defrost a 50TR unit.
Conclusions
There are different considerations to make when selecting the best choice for new
plants and additions to existing plants. It is clear that the use of CO
2
in industrial
refrigeration has become a more viable option as current technologies make rst cost
stand comparable to traditional systems.
2
However, looking beyond the rst cost aspect and with an ever increasing focus on
plant safety, product quality and energy efciency in industrial refrigeration systems,
CO
2
brine systems make a serious case scoring high on each of those requirements
compared to water based solutions.
Dramatically reduced power consumption from the primary refrigerant and the
pumping power required can contribute to increasing the longevity of the equipment.
In turn, it brings another incentive to choose CO
2
brine for medium and high
temperature systems in sensitive process areas due to the simplicity to operate the
plant.
Nevertheless, it is important to build the right eco-system to substantiate the benets
of CO
2
vs. glycol systems. Implementation of appropriate control strategies, loading
prole, maintaining zero moisture in the system, adopting the right components and
setting up safety management systems can help realize the great potential of CO
2
to
end users throughout the industry.
References
Handschuh, R. 2008. Design Criteria for CO
2
Evaporators. Guntner, Paper for
Proklima Natural Refrigerants Sustainable Ozone and Climate Friendly
Alternatives to HCFCs.
Stenhede, C. 2007. Heat Exchangers in Carbon Dioxide Systems
Danfoss. Pack Calculation II and CO
2
Brine Calculator 3.91 (computation program)
Pearson, A. 2005. Evaporator Performance in Carbon Dioxide Systems. IIAR
conference and exhibition.
Vestergaard, N. 2004. CO
2
in Subcritical Refrigeration Systems. IIAR conference and
exhibition
Pearson, A. 2006. Defrost Options for Carbon Dioxide Systems. IIAR conference and
exhibition.
Danfoss. Dircalc v1.20 (computational program)
Hinde, D. Zha, S. and Lan, Lin. 2009. Carbon Dioxide in North American
Supermarkets. Ashrae Journal
Mikhailov, A. Heiningen, K. and Kortstee, J. 2011. CO
2
Secondary Coolant Systems:
Energy Efciency and Control Strategy Considerations.
Berends, 2006. Natural Working Fluids in Artifcial Skating Rinks. 7th IIR Gustav
Lorentzen Conference on Natural Working FluidsNorway
2
Table 1: The results of pumping power required for various brines.
Temp. C 0 5 10 15
CO2/Ethylen Glycol 9.0% 8.0% 7.1% 6.7%
CO2/Propylene Glycol 9.2% 8.1% 7.4% 6.1%
CO2/CaCl2 7.5% 7.1% 6.3% 6.0%
Temp. C 0 -5 -10 -15
CO2/Ethylen Glycol 9.0% 8.0% 7.1% 6.7%
CO2/Propylene Glycol 9.2% 8.1% 7.4% 6.1%
CO2/CaCl2 7.5% 7.1% 6.3% 6.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
0 -5 -10 -15
deg. C
CO2/Ethylen Glycol CO2/Propylene Glycol CO2/CaCl2
Table 2: The variables and assumptions made to calculate the total
daily energy consumption.
CO2 Ethylene Glycol Units
Air temperature, tair 5 5 C
Cooling power, Qo 750 750 kW
Circulation rate, n 1.5 1
Temp. dif. in evap., dtevap 5 7 K
Temp. dif. in PHE, dtPHE 4 5 K
Brine temp. dif., tout - tin 0 4 K
Evaporating temp., to 4 7 C
Additional heat gains, kq 5% 7% %
Additional heat gains, Qadd 37.5 50.6 kW
Pump head pressure, Hpump 2.5 2.5 Bar
Pump power cons., Ppump 1.6 16.6 kW
Adjusted cooling power, Qo,ad 789.1 815.6 kW
Compr. power cons., Pcomp 170.8 196.2 kW
Working hours, daily 18.0 h
Total install energy cons. 172.4 212.8 kW
Total daily energy cons. 3,112.9 3,930.3 kW*h
Energy savings 21% %
2
Table 3: Side to side comparison for both plants.
Location North Italy The Netherlands
Storage type Fruit Fruit
Air temperature C 2 to +6 0,5
Suction temperature, C 13 10,5
Brine Glycol CO2
Media temperaturem C (for glycol in/out) 0.5 7,5 (not optimized)
temperature difference in cascade heat
exchanger difference, K
5 to 7 3 to 4
Cooler temperature difference, K 8 to 12 8
Lighting, estimated from the total load 10% 5%
Total fans installed, kW 74,1 453,3 (fans are
running only 20%
of the time)
Total consumed, kW h (measured gure) 1.300.000 2.700.000
Total compressors and pumps, kW h
(calculated, excluding lights and excluding fans)
576.607 1.245.025
Region corrected consumption, kW h, by
PackCalculation II software, according to the
assumptions above, everything adjusted to the
Netherlands climate
518.000 1.245.025
Average consumption, kW (calculated by
PackCalculation II software to ft the corrected
consumption)
188 660
Per unit of cooling consumption kW h/kW
cooling (corrected consumption / average
consumption)
2.755 1.886
Difference 32%
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
:

A

p
u
m
p
e
d

a
m
m
o
n
i
a

v
a
l
v
e

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

m
e
d
i
u
m

a
n
d
/
o
r

h
i
g
h

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

u
n
i
t
s
.
2
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
:

A

h
y
b
r
i
d

r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
n
t
/
g
l
y
c
o
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
.
Figure 3: A conventional CO
2
system showing the medium
temperature loop.
2
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
:

A

s
i
m
p
l
i
e
d

C
O
2

s
y
s
t
e
m

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

l
o
g

P
-
H

d
i
a
g
r
a
m
.
Figure 5: Dramatic reduction in pipe sizes for both supply and return
of medium and low temperature systems.
2
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
:

W
h
e
n

t
h
e

d
e
s
i
r
e
d

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

i
s

r
e
a
c
h
e
d
,

a

7
5
4

p
s
i
g

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
a
p
a
b
l
e

o
f

p
u
l
s
e

w
i
d
t
h

m
o
d
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
d
u
c
e
s

t
h
e

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

d
e
g
r
e
e

b
y

r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
i
m
e

o
f

l
i
q
u
i
d

i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

a

x
e
d

c
y
c
l
e
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

7
:

A

g
r
a
p
h

o
f

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
h
e
n

u
s
i
n
g

p
u
l
s
e

m
o
d
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
.
2
Figure 8: A comprehensive CO
2
pump package.
Figure 9: A schematic of evaporators with hot gas defrost.
2
Notes:
Notes:

Technical Papers: 34th Annual Meeting International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Papers: 34th Annual Meeting International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Papers

34th Annual Meeting

You might also like