i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 5 e1 4 0 1

available at www.sciencedirect.com

w w w . i i fi i r . o r g

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig

Optimum thermodynamic conditions for upper pressure

limits of transcritical carbon dioxide refrigeration cycle

K. Srinivasan a,*,1, P. Sheahen b, C.S.P. Sarathy b

a
Kandadai Intitiative for Sustainable Solutions, 2 Nepean Place, Willetton, WA 6155, Australia
b
City Building Engineering Services (Aus) Pty. Ltd., Level 2, 350 Wellington Road, Mulgrave VIC 3170, Australia

article info abstract

Article history: It is well known that the choice of upper pressure limit in a transcritical CO2 refrigeration
Received 13 July 2009 cycle is independent of the gas cooler approach temperature. This is in contrast to sub-
Received in revised form critical cycles, where the condensing pressure is invariably governed by the ambient
5 June 2010 conditions. The criteria used for limiting the upper pressure limit in a transcritical cycle are
Accepted 7 June 2010 the state of maximum COP for a given set of evaporating and gas cooler exit temperatures.
Available online 12 June 2010 The latter is governed by the local ambient conditions and the possible approach. This
paper provides a thermodynamic basis for the evaluation of this pressure for the case of
Keywords: ideal compression and with some compressors available in the market. In addition, it also
Thermodynamic cycle provides an additional criterion that minimizes the cycle irreversibility which is predom-
Carbon dioxide inantly due to gas throttling. This paper evaluates the pressure limits for these two criteria
Transcritical cycle for some typical evaporating temperatures and ambient conditions. The possible
Optimization compressor discharge temperatures in each case are calculated and criteria for two-stage
High pressure compression are identified.
COP ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Les conditions thermodynamiques optimales des limites

supérieures de la pression dans les cycles frigorifiques au
dioxyde de carbone transcritique
Mots clés : Cycle thermodynamique ; Dioxyde de carbone ; Cycle transcritique ; Optimisation ; Haute pression ; COP

1. Introduction refrigerants such as carbon dioxide and ammonia. While it is

appreciated that the indirect global warming emissions arising
Environmental concerns associated with providing refrigera- from usage of electrical energy for compression are larger for
tion with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have been in the centre CO2 than HFCs, the direct emissions arising out of leakage of
stage of debate. There is a strong impetus to use natural HFC refrigeration systems leverage their global warming

* Corresponding author. Fax: þ61 8 9457 2265.

1
Private Associate Member IIR, also with Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne.
E-mail address: ksri@unimelb.edu.au (K. Srinivasan).
0140-7007/$ e see front matter ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2010.06.009
1396 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 5 e1 4 0 1

Nomenclature 1 start of compression

2 end of compression
COP coefficient of performance
3 after of gas cooling
h enthalpy (kJ kg 1)
4 inlet to evaporator
p pressure (bar)
COP maximum COP condition
s entropy (kJ kg 1 K 1)
f saturated liquid
T temperature (K)
gc gas cooling
t temperature ( C)
id ideal
v specific volume (m3 kg 1)
max maximum
x liquid fraction after throttling
min minimum
b coefficient of volumetric expansion (K 1)
real non-ideal compression
h efficiency
s isentropic
Subscripts th throttling
0 reference Dsth minimum throttling loss condition

impact by several 1000s over CO2 systems. In particular, the COP is fairly well investigated (e.g. Neksa 2002, Rigola et al.,
supermarket refrigeration systems have become sensitive to 2005). In this paper we extend the previous approaches by
impacts of ratification of Kyoto Protocol by several countries. providing a thermodynamic basis for the selection of the upper
This is logical because this sector accounts for about 2.5% of pressure limit from two criteria, namely, the maximum COP
total greenhouse gas emissions in several developed countries and minimization of entropy generation in throttling. The first
(Garrett, 2007) of which nearly 40% is due to direct emissions criterion is translated to specific volumes and expansion
(Kruse, 2000) which are generally due to leakages of refrigerant coefficients at gas cooler inlet and outlet, for ideal compres-
during servicing and maintenance. The leakage rates tend to be sion. The analysis is also performed for real compressors
20e25% of refrigerant charge per year (Pedersen, 2003). At available in the market presently to see if the optimal upper
present there is a very limited choice of HFC blends (namely cycle pressure is affected due to non-isentropic compression.
R-507a and R-404a) for low temperature (e 30  C) which have
a global warming potential (GWP) in excess of 3500 relative to
CO2. In the case of medium temperature applications (e 10 to 2. Criteria of evaluation
2  C) the choice is again limited to HFC 134a or HFC mixture
407c, each of which has a GWP more than 1000 relative to CO2. Fig. 1 shows the possible vapour compression cycle limits. In the
The proposal for introduction of carbon trading schemes by first instance we will ascertain the boundaries of the gas cooler
several countries adds a sense of urgency to overcome the pressures. While minimum upper pressure ( p2min) is governed
problems associated with natural refrigerants. On the other by the saturated vapour enthalpy at the refrigeration tempera-
hand, use of ammonia or flammable refrigerants such as ture for a given gas cooler exit temperature, its maximum
hydrocarbons for commercial refrigeration is inhibited by ( p2max) is dictated by the inversion point on the isotherm cor-
societal, health and safety issues though they may be good responding to the exit state of the gas cooler. These are also the
from thermodynamic point of view. Thus, one would expect pressures at which the cooling capacity varies from zero to
that transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycles would be the logical
step forward that addresses the environmental, safety and
thermodynamic performance criteria. p2max
In the subcritical vapour compression cycles, the upper
cycle pressure is governed by the saturation pressure at
a temperature of 5e8  C above ambient temperature. In the p2COPmax 3 2
case of a transcritical CO2 cycle they are independent.
Srinivasan et al. (2003) have identified the minimum and p2min
maximum cycle pressure limits for a given set of evaporating
and gas cooler exit temperatures. Liao et al. (2000) developed an
empirical correlation for the optimum gas cooler pressure with
isentropic efficiencies of the compressor being accounted for.
They assumed a linear relation between the isentropic effi-
f 4 1
ciency and the cycle pressure ratio. Chen and Gu (2005) extend
similar studies by including the effectiveness of the internal
heat exchanger. A similar approach was adopted by Sawalha
(2008) bringing out the effect of upper operating pressure on
cycle coefficient of performance (COP). Since the gas cooler exit h
temperature and pressure therein are independent in a tran-
scritical cycle, the identification of the latter for maximizing Fig. 1 e Vapour compression cycle for CO2.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 5 e1 4 0 1 1397

maximum. It is apparent that neither of these conditions is dCOPid v3 ðb3 T3 1Þ v2 COPid

¼ (9)
practical and a real cycle must operate at a pressure between the dp3 h2 h1 h2 h1
two. It has been a convention to operate systems at their
maximum coefficient of performance (COP). Because of the 1 vv3
where b3 ¼ j (10)
nature of isotherms on the peh plane of CO2, any augmentation v3 vT p3
of cooling capacity is associated with an increase in pressure
Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (4) and using the criterion of Eq.
demands and consequent increase in compression work. The
(2), we get the qualifying condition for optimum gas cooler
inputs to the designer are the temperature at which refrigera-
discharge pressure as given below:
tion is required (t1) and the temperature after gas cooling (t3).
One needs to optimize the pressure p3 which is independent of v3 ðb3 T3 1Þ
COPid ¼ (11)
either of these two temperatures for a transcritical vapour dlnðhs Þ
v2 ðh2 h1 Þ
compression refrigeration cycle. dp3
The internal heat exchanger for cooling the refrigerant
The solution of Eq. (11) not only yields the maximum COP
emerging from the gas cooler using the suction vapour is
attainable but also identifies the state 3 and hence the value of
dispensed with because the augmentation in cooling is not
p3. State 2 is then automatically identified by the point of
commensurate with the increase in compressor work, the gas
intersection of isentrope (for ideal compression) through 1
cooler load and the discharge temperature of the compressor.
and the isobar through 3. However, Eq. (11) needs to be solved
The last factor is a major issue with transcritical cycles that
iteratively.
lead to immense lubricating oil management problems.
However, the presence of oil in the refrigerant stream and the
pressure drops in the refrigerant lines are neglected for 2.2. Minimization of throttling losses
further analysis.
Entropy generation due to throttling (s3 s4) is a major
source of irreversibility in the cycle. To minimize this we
2.1. Maximization of COP
require that
The ideal COP is defined in the conventional way as vðs3 s4 Þ
¼0 (12)
vp3
h1 h4
COPid ¼ (1)
h2 h1  
We have s4 ¼ sf þ h4 hf T1 (13)
Since the compression process in a real cycle is not isen-
tropic, the actual COP will be For the least loss during throttling and noting that h3 ¼ h4,

COPreal ¼ COPid hs (2) vh3

j
vs3 vp3 T3
For maximizing the COP with respect to p3, the requirement j ¼0 (14)
vp3 T3 T1
is that
Again applying Maxwell’s relations and using Eq. (7)
dCOPreal
¼0 (3)
dp3 vv3 v3 ð1 b3 T3 Þ
j ¼ (15)
vT p3 T1
dCOPreal dCOPid dh which can be rewritten as
¼ hs þ COPid s (4)
dp3 dp3 dp3
b3 T1 ¼ 1 b3 T3 (16)
From Eq. (1), for a given evaporating temperature (i.e., fixed
h1), noting that p2 ¼ p3 and that h3 ¼ h4
1
or b3 ¼ (17)
vh3 vh2 T3 T1
j ðh2 h1 Þ j ðh1 h4 Þ
dCOPid vp3 T3 vp2 s1 One of the solutions of Eq. (17) identifies state 3 for the
¼ 2
(5)
dp3 ðh2 h1 Þ minimum entropy generation due to throttling. However, the
Using the thermodynamic relations solution of Eqs. (11) and (17) need not yield the same state 3,
but narrows down the range of p3s in which the refrigeration
vh2 plant can be operated.
j ¼ v2 (6)
vp2 s1 All the calculations were performed using the REFPROP
(Version 7.0) (REFPROP, 2002).
vh3 vs3
and j ¼ T3 j þ v3 (7)
vp3 T3 vp3 T3

and the following Maxwell’s relation 3. Results and discussion

vs3 vv3
j ¼ j (8) The results will be presented for the cases of ideal compres-
vp3 T3 vT p3
sion and practical compressors with an isentropic efficiency of
in Eq. (5) we get less than 1.
1398 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 5 e1 4 0 1

4 1.25
L&RHSs of eq. (18)

3
1.00

1/COP
2
0.75

1
70 80 90 100 110 120
0.50
Gas cooler pressure (bar)

Fig. 2 e Dependence of ideal COP and right-hand side of Eq.

(18) on high side pressure for refrigeration at L10  C.
0.25
Legend: Filled symbols: RHS of Eq. (18), open symbols:
0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
COPid , e t3 [ 30  C, D L t3[35  C, O L t3 [ 40  C.
-1
1/Cooling Capacity (kg kJ )

Fig. 3 e Refrigeration characteristic curve at L10  C

3.1. Compression with constant isentropic efficiency evaporation temperature. Legend: , e t3 [ 30  C, 6 e
t3 [ 35  C, B e t3 [ 40  C, > e t3 [ 45  C.
Ideal compression (hs ¼ 1) is a special case of constant isen-
tropic efficiency for which Eq. (11) transforms to

v3 ðb3 T3 1Þ towards maximizing the COPconst h or minimizing the throt-

COPid ¼ (18) tling losses.
v2
Fig. 3 shows a plot of 1/COPid vs 1/Cooling capacity at an
Fig. 2 shows a plot of pressure dependence of COPid and RHS
evaporating temperature of 10  C which is an instructive
of Eq. (18) for an evaporating temperature of 10  C and gas
method of characterizing refrigeration systems in general
cooler exit temperatures of 30, 35 and 40  C. While the COPid is
(Gordon and Ng, 2000). The trace of maximum COPid is virtu-
nearly uniform in the pressure range chosen, the RHS of Eq.
ally linear and can be represented by the following fit.
(18) declines sharply with an increase of pressure indicating
diminishing returns of cooling capacity. Further, the point of 1 A
¼  þB (19)
intersection gives the maximum possible COPid for hs ¼ 1. If COPid max Cooling capacity kJ kg 1
hs < 1, COP will be (hs COPid). Table 1 summarises the gas
cooler pressures for a range of typical operating conditions. In The traces of the maximum COPid points for all evaporating
this table, p2min is the minimum pressure required for deriving temperatures considered here are shown in Fig. 4. A and B will
any cooling effect (Srinivasan et al., 2003). The maximum be functions of evaporating temperatures and are correlated
pressure in Table 1 is the value at the inversion point for each by the following empirical equations.
gas cooler exit temperature and will be independent of the
A¼ 4:5838 t4 þ 145:66 (20)
evaporating temperature. This will be the pressure where the
cooling capacity will be the maximum. In the case of CO2
and B ¼ 0:0166 t4 0:8617 (21)
cycles, it is apparent that such a high gas cooler pressure is an
unviable proposition and hence efforts are well diverted where temperatures are in  C.

Table 1 e Summary of high side pressures for maximum COP ( p2COP) and minimum throttling loss ( p2Dsth) for various
evaporating and gas cooler exit temperatures.
t3 ¼ 30  C t3 ¼ 35  C t3 ¼ 40  C t3 ¼ 45  C

p2max ¼ 388 bar p2max ¼ 413 bar p2max ¼ 436 bar p2max ¼ 459 bar

t1(¼t4) p2min(bar) p2COP COid p2Dsth(bar) p2min(bar) p2COP COPid p2Dsth p2min p2COP COPid p2Dsth p2min p2COP COPid p2Dsth
( C) (bar) (bar) (bar) (bar) (bar) (bar) (bar) (bar) (bar)
10 62.9 73.5 7.4 75.3 68.1 86.2 5.0 88.0 73.8 99.8 3.8 100.0 79.8 114.4 3.0 114.4
0 59.9 74.4 4.7 78.3 65.1 87.9 3.5 91.9 75.1 102.2 2.8 104.9 76.4 117.5 2.3 117.3
10 58.2 75.4 3.3 81.9 63.2 89.7 2.6 96.4 68.7 104.8 2.1 110.2 74.4 120.9 1.8 123.5
20 57.4 76.6 2.5 86.2 62.5 91.7 2.1 101.4 67.8 107.7 1.7 116.0 73.6 124.8 1.5 130.0
30 57.4 78.0 1.9 91.2 62.5 93.9 1.6 107.1 67.8 111.0 1.4 122.3 73.6 129.1 1.2 136.9
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 5 e1 4 0 1 1399

   2
1 Manufacturer B hs ¼ 0:414 þ 0:1501 p2 =p1 0:0235 p2 =p1
(23)

0.8    2
Manufacturer C hs ¼ 0:567 þ 0:0931 p2 =p1 0:0164 p2 =p1
(24)
1/ CO P id

0.6
   2
Manufacturer D hs ¼ 0:198 þ 0:3041 p2 =p1 0:0505 p2 =p1
0.4 (25)

It is generally observed that the isentropic efficiency

0.2
0 used by Liao et al. (2000), Sawalha (2008) and Chen and Gu
0.006 0.007 0.008
-1
1/Cooling capapcity (kg kJ )
Fig. 4 e Trace of maximum COPid at various evaporating
temperatures. Legend: , e t4 [ 0  C, 6 e t4 [ L10  C, B e
t4 [ L20  C, > e t4 [ L30  C.
The special feature of CO2 cycles is that 20 and 30  C
evaporation temperatures happen to be on either side of the
temperature at which the saturated vapour enthalpy is
maximum ( 24.5  C) and hence p2min (shown in Table 1) tends
to be nearly the same. This is in contrast to refrigeration with
other conventional refrigerants where generally operating
conditions are below the temperature of the state of
maximum saturated vapour enthalpy, that is, in the region of
dp/dh > 0 for saturated vapour. (Srinivasan et al., 2003)
3.2. Non-ideal compression
Constancy of isentropic efficiency does not occur in practical
compressors and it is invariably a function of the gas cooler
pressure. Typical efficiency plots generated for one of the
manufacturers are given in Fig. 5. We have generated
empirical correlations from the data of four CO2 transcritical
semi-hermetic compressor manufacturers. The empirical
correlations are given below:
 
Manufacturer A hs ¼ 0:760 0:0335 p2 =p1
exhibits a maximum at a pressure ratio of about 3 (except
Manufacturer A). The above equations are similar to those
0.009 (2005) but result in values that are generally lower than
those used by Chen and Gu (2005). The second term in the
denominator of Eq. (11) can now be evaluated.
With the above data incorporated into Eq. (11), its left and
right-hand sides are plotted in Fig. 6. Recalling that the LHS
and the numerator of Eq. (11) remain the same, the pressure at
which the criterion is satisfied will be lower than when hs ¼ 1,
because the derivative of the isentropic efficiency is negative
for pressure ratio of compression greater than 3. From Fig. 6 it
is seen that except for Manufacturer D and the equation
proposed by Liao et al. (2000) there is very little difference in
the optimal pressures which is 101.5e102 bar as against
104.8 bar for the case of ideal compression. However, at
evaporating temperatures greater than 0  C, the optimal
pressures for non-ideal compression could be marginally
higher than those for ideal case, because of lower pressure
ratios and operation in the positive slope region of isentropic
efficiency vs pressure ratio relation for some compressors
(Fig. 5).
In Fig. 7, we show that optimal gas cooler pressures are
more or less independent of the evaporating temperatures
between 20 and 10  C for gas cooler exit temperatures of 40
and 35  C for all real compressors. The scatter is due to
different values of isentropic efficiency for compressors from
various manufacturers. This scatter becomes even smaller as
the gas cooler exit temperature is lowered further. Thus, we
3.0
(22)
COPid and RHS of eq. (11)

2.5
0.71

0.70 2.0

0.69
1.5
ηs

0.68

0.67
1.0
0.66 95 100 105 110

0.65 Gas cooler pressure (bar)

1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 6 e Gas cooler pressure dependence of ideal COP and
p2/p1
RHS of Eq. (11) for various compressors. - - - - -: Ideal COP,
Fig. 5 e Typical pressure ratio vs isentropic efficiency plot D L hs [ 1; B e Manufacturer A; e Manufacturer B; 3 e
of a semi-hermetic CO2 compressor. B e manufacturer’s Manufacturer C; , e Manufacturer D; D e Sawalha (2008);
data, line e best fit. > e Liao et al. (2000).
1400 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 5 e1 4 0 1

105 0.06 0.1

Gas cooler pressure (bar)

100

Δ sth(kJ kg K )
-1
-1

β (K )
95

-1
0.05 0.05
90

85
0.55 0.60
Isentropic efficiency
Fig. 7 e Gas cooler pressure dependence on isentropic
efficiencies. Legend: Filled symbols t3 [ 40  C; open
symbols e t3 [ 35  C. B e t4 [ L20  C, , e t4 [ L10  C, 6
e t4 [ 0  C, > e t4 [ 10  C.
observe that a pressure of about 101 bar when the gas cooler
exit temperature is 40  C and about 88 bar for 35  C are
adequate for optimal performance. The independence of
evaporating temperature on the optimal upper cycle pressure
for a given gas cooler exit temperature arises out of the fact
that at low evaporating temperatures, the cycle pressure ratio
is so large that the slope of isentropic efficiency tends to be in
the steep negative slope part of the characteristic (Fig. 5). This
reduces the value of COPid. Hence the Eq. (11) is satisfied only
at lower gas cooler pressure (which is to the left of the optimal
pressure for hs ¼ 1). Consequence of the lowering of this
pressure is its shift into the range of optimal pressures for
a higher evaporating temperature where the isentropic effi-
ciencies will be less steep. In addition, the flatness of ideal COP
around this optimal value concludes that there is no great
sacrifice in the COPid despite the compression efficiency being
below the ideal. Indeed, this inference suggests that manu-
facturers could strive to produce compressors with a flatter
isentropic efficiency profile across compression ratios nor-
mally encountered in CO2 cycles. The other possibility is to
produce compressors of constant gradient of isentropic effi-
ciency with pressure ratios, which is generally the case with
hermetic compressors. However, COP for the case of non-ideal
compression will still be (hsCOPid).
It is evident that the difference in the optimum gas cooler
pressures between the ideal compression and actual
compression arises only due to the compression ratio
0.65 0.70 0.04 0
70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Pressure (bar)
Fig. 9 e Variation of entropy generation due to throttling
and the coefficient of expansion at state 3 for a 40  C
isotherm with t4 [ 10  C. Legend: Full line e Dsth (left
ordinate); dashed line e b3 (right ordinate); chain line e
right-hand side of Eq. (17) [ 0.0333 KL1(right ordinate).
dependence of isentropic efficiency (the second term in the
denominator of Eq. (11)), rather than the isentropic efficiency
itself.
3.3. Throttling losses
Fig. 8 shows entropy generation due to throttling for a 40  C
gas cooler exit temperature. Eq. (17) can yield the conditions
for either the maximum or the minimum entropy generation.
Fig. 9 shows a typical plot for a 40  C isotherm and an evapo-
ration temperature of 10  C, for which the right-hand side of
Eq. (17) will yield 0.0333 K 1(which is shown by a line parallel
to the abscissa). It can be seen that Eq. (17) is satisfied at two
values of gas cooler pressures with the lower pressure corre-
sponding to the state of maximum entropy generation and the
higher one to minimum entropy generation. Fig. 8 shows the
region of minimum entropy generation as this is relevant to
present discussion. The pressures at which the minimum
entropy generation occurs are identified with respective
markers. The loci of these minimum entropy points are
shown in Fig. 10 for various gas cooler exit temperatures.
Since it is apparent that the loci depict a linear relation, each
of them was fitted with linear equations. The combined
empirical relationship between minimum entropy generated

0.12
0.12

0.10
Δ sthmin (kJ kg K )
-1

0.10
-1
Δ s th (kJ kg K )
-1

0.08
-1

0.08
0.06

0.06 0.04

0.04 0.02
90 100 110 120 130 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Gas cooler pressure (bar) Gas cooler pressure (bar)

Fig. 8 e Entropy generation due to throttling for 40  C gas Fig. 10 e Loci of minimum entropy generation due to
cooler exit temperature. Legend: B e t4 [ L20  C, , e throttling. Legend: , e t3 [ 30  C, 6 e t3 [ 35  C, BO e
t4 [ L10  C, 6 e t4 [ 0  C, > e t4 [ 10  C. t3 [ 40  C, > e t3 [ 45  C.

due to throttling and the gas cooler pressure at various gas
cooler exit temperature is given below valid for 30  t345  C
and 75 p3  130 bar:
  
Dsthmin ¼ 7:58  10 5 t23
 10 t3 þ 6:98  10 3 p3
5
It is appreciated that minimizing the throttling loss cannot
be sole aim of optimizing the compression cycle. Maximizing
COP taking into account the compressor efficiencies should
be prioritized. This discussion merely identifies that the
pressure at which the throttling loss is minimized is just
about in the ball park optimum pressure from COP
consideration.
3.4. Compressor discharge temperatures
Compressor discharge temperatures are shown in Fig. 11 for
optimal gas cooler pressures that are needed for ideal and
non-ideal compression with compressors of various manu-
facturers for two typical gas cooler exit temperatures. The
discharge temperatures were calculated from the enthalpy
and pressure data for discharge condition. The enthalpy at
discharge condition is taken as the sum of suction enthalpy
(h1) and the work of compression. It is seen that various
makes of compressors yield nearly the same compressor
discharge temperatures. High discharge temperatures are
associated with high gas cooler exit temperatures, and/or low
evaporating temperatures and low isentropic efficiencies. In
view of the limited scatter in the data with various
compressors, the loci of average discharge pressures and
temperatures are traced by the lines in Fig. 11. The inference
drawn from the point of maximum pressure on the trace is
that, perhaps, as a rule of thumb multistage compression
with interstage gas cooling should be considered wherever
discharge temperatures in real compressors are more than
100  C. This would be the case when the difference between
160
C ompressor discharge temperature ( C )
o
130
100
70
40
85 90
Optimal gas cooler pressure (bar)
Fig. 11 e Compressor discharge temperatures for real
compressors for gas cooler exit temperatures of 40  C (large
symbols) and 35  C (small symbols). Legend: C e
t4 [ L20  C, - e t4 [ L10  C, : e t4 [ 0  C, A e t4 [ 10  C.
Open symbols correspond to ideal compression for same
evaporation temperature. Full line e average trace for
t3 [ 40  C, broken line e average trace for t3 [ 35  C.
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n 3 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 5 e1 4 0 1 1401
typical gas cooler exit and evaporating temperatures is above
45  C. When this difference becomes too large, it would result
in lowering of upper cycle pressure and increase in the
compressor discharge temperature, both of which further
5:86  10 3 t3 0:217 þ 8:13 escalate the diminishing returns of reduced COP as well as

(26) cooling effect.
4. Conclusions
A thermodynamic basis for identification of a range of high
side operating pressures for transcritical carbon dioxide
refrigeration cycle has been provided. The cases of isentropic
compression and real compression with isentropic efficien-
cies of compressors in the market have been compared. The
strong discharge pressure dependence of the latter tends to
reduce the maximum operating pressure with a correspond-
ing reduction in the COP. The criteria of maximizing COP and
minimizing throttling losses are complementary. Most
compressors yield nearly the same optimal gas cooler pres-
sures and compressor discharge temperatures. The latter tend
to be high when the difference between gas cooler exit and
evaporating temperatures are over 45  C. Attenuating high
discharge temperatures warrant the use of multistage
compression.
references
Chen, Y., Gu, J., 2005. The optimum high pressure for CO2
transcritical refrigeration systems with internal heat
exchangers. Int. J. Refrigeration 28 (8), 1238e1249.
Garrett, T. 2007. Food refrigeration: what is the contribution to
greenhouse emissions and how might emissions be reduced.
Food Climate Research Network Working Paper, University of
Surrey.
Gordon, J.M., Ng, K.C., 2000. Cool Thermodynamics. Cambridge
International Scientific Publishing, p. 6.
Kruse, H., Sep. 2000. Refrigerant use in Europe. ASHRAE J., 16e24.
Liao, S.M., Zhao, T.S., Jakobsen, A., 2000. A correlation of optimal
heat rejection pressure in transcritical carbon dioxide cycles.
App. Thermal Eng. 20 (9), 831e841.
Neksa, P., 2002. CO2 heat pump systems. Int. J. Refrigeration 25 (4),
421e427.
Pedersen, H., 2003. Evaluation of the Possibilities of Substituting
Potent Greenhouse Gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6).
Environmental Project No. 771. Danish Environmental
Protection Agency.
REFPROP e Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport
Properties. Version 7.0, 2002. National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Boulder, Colorado.
Rigola, J., Raush, G., Pérez-Segarra, C.D., Oliva, A., 2005. Numerical
simulation and experimental validation of vapour
95 100 105 110
compression refrigeration systems. Special emphasis on CO2
trans-critical cycles. Int. J. Refrigeration 28 (8), 1225e1237.
Sawalha, S., 2008. Theoretical evaluation of trans-critical CO2
systems in supermarket refrigeration. Part I: modeling,
simulation and optimization of two system solutions. Int. J.
Refrigeration 31 (3), 516e524.
Srinivasan, K., Lim, Y.K., Ho, J.C., Wijeysundera, N.E., 2003.
Exergetic analysis of carbon dioxide vapour compression
refrigeration cycle using the new fundamental equation of
state. Energy Convers. Manag. 44, 3267e3278.