Successfully reported this slideshow.
XV EUROPEAN CONFERENCE MILANO 7th-8th JUNE 2013 CSGLatest Technology in Refrigeration and Air ConditioningUnder the Auspic...
Presentation Outline• Overview of MRB CRP– MAC Refrigerant Blend Cooperative Research Project• Key Differences in blend vs...
 CRP formed under rules of SAE in Feb 2011 OEM & Tier Ones involved Chaired by OEM representative with SAE support Eng...
MRB CRP SponsorsBOSCH
http://www.exponent.com/creativethermalsolutions.com/http://www.sceinc.com/http://www.haifire.com/http://www.ilkdresden.de...
R-445A [AC6 refrigerant]R-744 – 6%CO O
What’s different about aBlend??• Made up of three components rather than one– AC6 uses refrigerants currently in productio...
Toxicology of AC6 vs R134aProperty CO2 R-1234ze(E) R-134aAcute (LC50) (ppm) Approx. 400,000(1) >207,000(3) >500,000(4)Anes...
 INERIS result with Hot Body Ignition temperature for AC5/AC6 are similar and~100 C higher than 1234yf, and there is asi...
Flammability summary AC6 anticipated characteristics are as follows* :USA EUAC5/R-1234yf AC6 AC5/R-1234yf AC6MAC systemap...
 Permeation TestingTotal permeation results are similar to R1234yf Selective permeation not significant at 30-75C R744...
 Cooling capacity evaluation in vehicle tests Performance of AC6 nominal composition is similarto R134a LCCP calculatio...
Cool-down Performance [Drop-In]Performance of nominal concentration is similar to R134aAC6 PullDown Test Comparison to R13...
Life Cycle AnalysisLife Cycle Performance of AC5/AC6/R1234yf is similar, andall are better than R134a
 Technology identification Plan to add R-744 to vehicle charge just prior tocharging vehicle Prototype machine developm...
Service Equipment Technology identification Plan to add R-744 as needed to assure properconcentration in vehicle Protot...
Overall Risk Assessment Conclusions Use of AC6 in MAC systems poses an extremely lowlevel of risk for vehicle operators a...
Risk Comparison to Other Vehicle EventsEvent Probability per vehicleper operating hourProbability of being in a police rep...
 Further evaluations ongoing to complete AC6technical validation : Further FTA assessment based on the currentsituation...
Conclusions• Basic evaluation is completed for AC6– Materials– Compressor– Performance– Risk• Factory Fill and Service val...
MRB CRP SponsorsBOSCH
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

E. Peral Antunez - Renault Sa - REFRIGERANTI ZEOTROPICI A BASSO GWP PER APPLICAZIONI CONDIZIONAMENTO AUTO

1,070 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

E. Peral Antunez - Renault Sa - REFRIGERANTI ZEOTROPICI A BASSO GWP PER APPLICAZIONI CONDIZIONAMENTO AUTO

  1. 1. XV EUROPEAN CONFERENCE MILANO 7th-8th JUNE 2013 CSGLatest Technology in Refrigeration and Air ConditioningUnder the Auspices of the PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERSPROGRESS ON DEVELOPINGLOW GWP ZEOTROPICREFRIGERANTS FOR MACAPPLICATIONMr E Peral-Antunez, Renault S.A.Leader of the CRP project team and presenting authorDr R E Low Mexichem UK Ltd.Author for correspondence on properties of the refrigerantsMr W R Hill, MACRAE LLCConsultant MRB CRP
  2. 2. Presentation Outline• Overview of MRB CRP– MAC Refrigerant Blend Cooperative Research Project• Key Differences in blend vs pure refrigerant• Toxicology• Flammability• Material Compatibility• Performance• Risk Assessment• Service and Factory Fill• Phase III Scope
  3. 3.  CRP formed under rules of SAE in Feb 2011 OEM & Tier Ones involved Chaired by OEM representative with SAE support Engaged experts with refrigerant assessment experience CRP focused on technical assessment of multiple factors in parallel Risk Assessment Flammability Performance Materials Compatibility Hose material development Compressor Durability Service and Factory Fill Equipment Developed suggestions for future SAE standards MRB considered two fluids, AC5 and AC6, in phase I The team has agreed to moving with AC6 as the best optionduring Phase III evaluationCRP overview
  4. 4. MRB CRP SponsorsBOSCH
  5. 5. http://www.exponent.com/creativethermalsolutions.com/http://www.sceinc.com/http://www.haifire.com/http://www.ilkdresden.de/index.php?L=1http://www.gradientcorp.com/index.htmlScience and Strategies for SafeEnvironmentsIndependent Labs
  6. 6. R-445A [AC6 refrigerant]R-744 – 6%CO O
  7. 7. What’s different about aBlend??• Made up of three components rather than one– AC6 uses refrigerants currently in production• Has temperature glide in the evaporator andcondenser– Opportunity to improve performance with an optimized heatexchanger– Potential to use in heat pump system• Components of the blend may leak at different ratesfrom hoses and seals– Composition to be checked and if necessary corrected priorto recharging in service
  8. 8. Toxicology of AC6 vs R134aProperty CO2 R-1234ze(E) R-134aAcute (LC50) (ppm) Approx. 400,000(1) >207,000(3) >500,000(4)Anesthetic effects (ppm) 40,000 (30-minutes) >166,000 81,000Cardiac sensitization noeffect level (ppm)Not tested/notexpected120,000(3) 50,000(4)Worker exposure limit(ppm)5,000 ppm(8-hour TWA)40,000 (IDLH)800(3) 1,00028-day NOAEC (ppm) No data 5,000(3) 50,000(4)90-day NOAEL (ppm) No data 5,000(3) 50,000(4)Developmental toxicityNOAEL (ppm)No data 15,000(3)10,000 [rats](5)40,000[rabbits](5)Genotoxicity No data(2) Negative NegativeCarcinogenicity No data(2) No data NegativeASHRAE ATEL (ppm) 40,000 59,000 50,0001 Mitsuda et al., 19672 Not expected to be a significant concern given that CO2 is a normal constituent of the human environment.3 AIHA draft WEEL (2011)4 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/safety.html5 EPA IRIS file for R-134aATEL for AC6 is 54,000ppmOEL is 930ppmSimilar to R-134a
  9. 9.  INERIS result with Hot Body Ignition temperature for AC5/AC6 are similar and~100 C higher than 1234yf, and there is asignificant time delay in ignition with AC6 Ignition Sources Finalized table and assessed different blendconcentrations Tested 400 volt sparks Regional Codes Assessment region per region Transport & handling (MSDS) Service/Building/EquipmentFlammability
  10. 10. Flammability summary AC6 anticipated characteristics are as follows* :USA EUAC5/R-1234yf AC6 AC5/R-1234yf AC6MAC systemapplicationA2L A2L A2L A2LTransport &handling [MSDS]FlammableNon-flammableFlammableNon-flammableService Flammable Flammable Flammable FlammableBuilding codes Flammable Flammable FlammableReducedflammabilityMay benefit from non-flammabilitybelow 50C in implementation(interpretation of Seveso directive)Will be flammable by ATEX*based on test data generated to date
  11. 11.  Permeation TestingTotal permeation results are similar to R1234yf Selective permeation not significant at 30-75C R744 leakage increases more rapidly above 75C Oil testing Four different oils evaluated from sponsors Results similar to previous oils tested Miscibility of oils is better in AC5/AC6 than with R1234yf Compatibility testing Ten different hose configurations tested Certain PA materials had issues, similar to those with R1234yf Some current materials are acceptable for use Eight different O-ring materials were also evaluated Worst Case contaminant testing showed no significanteffectMaterial compatibility
  12. 12.  Cooling capacity evaluation in vehicle tests Performance of AC6 nominal composition is similarto R134a LCCP calculation AC5 and AC6 are similar to R1234yf All much better than R134aPerformance & Efficiency
  13. 13. Cool-down Performance [Drop-In]Performance of nominal concentration is similar to R134aAC6 PullDown Test Comparison to R134a010203040506070800 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Elapsed Time (Min)Temperature(C)R134a Interior Comparison AC6 performance R134a Discharge Comparison AC6 performanceAC6AC6Average InteriorAverage Vent Outlet50kph 4th Gear100kph 5th GearIdleShows R134a comparison data
  14. 14. Life Cycle AnalysisLife Cycle Performance of AC5/AC6/R1234yf is similar, andall are better than R134a
  15. 15.  Technology identification Plan to add R-744 to vehicle charge just prior tocharging vehicle Prototype machine development Working with CINETIC to validate process … Validation by physical testing Final validation part of Phase III First tests in June 2013 Equipment anticipated proven by October 2013Vehicle manufacturing Equipment
  16. 16. Service Equipment Technology identification Plan to add R-744 as needed to assure properconcentration in vehicle Prototype machine development Equipment Development is on-going Process likely to be similar to factory fill Validation by physical testing Planned in Summer 2013
  17. 17. Overall Risk Assessment Conclusions Use of AC6 in MAC systems poses an extremely lowlevel of risk for vehicle operators and repair workers The risks are lower than those estimated for R-1234yf Based on Risk Assessment to date, AC6 could bean appropriate alternative for R134a and R12 as MACrefrigerants Increased risk due to flammability is very small Hazard due to toxicity is equivalent or reduced Environmental benefits (i.e., GWP, ODP, LCCP) are enhanced ascompared to R-134a and R-12 Newly collected data are consistent with and supportthese prior conclusions
  18. 18. Risk Comparison to Other Vehicle EventsEvent Probability per vehicleper operating hourProbability of being in a police reported vehicle collision 5 x 10-5Probability of vehicle collision due to vehicle brake failure 3 x 10-7Probability of highway vehicle fire (any cause) 1 x 10-7Probability of an airbag-related fatality associated with a vehicle collision 2 x 10-10Probability of vehicle occupant/former occupant experiencing HF exposure abovehealth based limits associated with R-1234yf ignition/decomposition. 2 x 10-14Probability of vehicle occupant/former occupant experiencing HF exposure abovehealth based limits associated with AC6 ignition/decomposition. 1 x 10-14Probability of vehicle occupant being exposed to an open flame due to R-1234yfignition 4 x 10-15Probability of vehicle occupant being exposed to an open flame due to AC6ignition 5 x 10-17
  19. 19.  Further evaluations ongoing to complete AC6technical validation : Further FTA assessment based on the currentsituationFurther Flammability Studies Further heat exchanger evaluations New hose materials evaluation Validate Factory Fill and Service Equipment Support of SAE Standards development Support for USEPA SNAP submissionCRP Phase III
  20. 20. Conclusions• Basic evaluation is completed for AC6– Materials– Compressor– Performance– Risk• Factory Fill and Service validation to becompleted this Summer• Updated Risk Assessment to becomplete this Summer• Technical Issues complete in Fall, 2013
  21. 21. MRB CRP SponsorsBOSCH

×