2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)
Thermo-economic Assessment and Multi-Objective
Optimization of Vapour Compression Refrigeration
System using Low GWP Refrigerants
Ranendra Roy
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology Shibpur
Howrah – 711103, West Bengal, India
Email: ranendraroy2009@gmail.com
Abstract—This paper deals with the thermo-economic
analysis and multi-objective optimization of simple vapour
compression refrigeration system using three low GWP
refrigerants namely, R152a, R600a and R1234ze. A model has
been developed in EES to analyze the system thermo-
economically. Effect of evaporator and condenser temperature
on COP, exergetic efficiency and annual plant cost rate has
been evaluated. Predicted results show that refrigerant R152a
shows the best performances among the investigated
refrigerants. Results obtained with R600a and R1234ze are
slightly lower than those with R152a. Multi-objective
optimization has been carried out using the toolbox available in
matlab to obtain the optimum solutions and TOPSIS decision
making has been employed to get the optimum result.
Optimum results also have pointed R152a to be the best
refrigerant from thermodynamic and economic point of view.
Keywords— VCRS; Low GWP refrigerant; Exergetic
efficiency; Cost; Multi-objective optimization.
I. INTRODUCTION
The recent Kigali amendment [1] initiated the gradual
reduction in production and use of HFCs which are used as
an alternative to CFCs and HCFCs. This has encouraged
researchers to find new refrigerants having zero ODP and
very low GWP values without compromising its
performances in the system. Few researchers [2-4] reported
that some natural and HFO substances may be used as low
GWP refrigerants due to their similar thermo-physical
properties and those can be used in the existing systems.
Bolaji [5] found an improvement in performance with
R152a as refrigerant instead of R134a. Ahamed et al. [6]
reported that the energetic and exergetic performances of
refrigerant R600a were much better than those of R134a.
Mohanraj et al. [7] found higher COP and exergetic
efficiency using refrigerants R152a and R600a compared to
that of R134a. Joybari et al. [8] reported a 66% reduction in
charge amount and almost 45% reduction in exergy loss in
optimum condition with refrigerant R600a compared to
R134a. Roy et al. [9] also achieved higher COP while using
R152a and R600a as refrigerants. Mota-Babiloni et al. [10]
noted 30% reduction in cooling capacity and 6% reduction in
COP using R1234ze compared to R134a from their
experimental work on monitored vapour compression
system. Fukuda et al. [11] observed that R1234ze could be
used in high-temperature industrial heat pump systems as
potential alternative. Yataganbaba et al. [12] reported that
R1234ze could be the best alternative of R134a due to its 238
times lower GWP value in spite of achieving slightly smaller
performance value. They also commented that almost similar
performance could be achieved after slight modification in
the system. Jemma et al. [13] used R1234ze as a replacement
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
978-1-5386-7684-4/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Bijan Kumar Mandal
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology Shibpur
Howrah – 711103, West Bengal, India
Email: bkm375@yahoo.co.in
of R134a in vapour compression chiller and noted a slightly
higher COP and exergetic efficiency with R1234ze. Nawaz
et al. [14] used R1234yf and R1234ze as low GWP
alternative of R134a in residential heat pump water heaters.
They concluded that both low GWP refrigerants were
capable of replacing R134a without making any modification
in the system. Wu et al. [15] found 24.8% and 27.2%
improvement in COP and exergetic efficiency respectively
using a hybrid source heat pump system instead of single
source heat pump.
In this paper the authors simulated a vapour compression
refrigeration system from energy, exergy and economic
aspects using three low GWP refrigerants R152a, R600a and
R1234ze. A computer code has been modeled in engineering
equation solver (EES) [16] to analyze the system. Finally,
multi-objective decision making for each investigated
refrigerants have been carried out to find out the optimum
performances of the system with individual refrigerant.
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The schematic diagram of a simple vapour compression
refrigeration system of 10 kW cooling capacity has been
shown in Fig. 1. It is assumed that both evaporator and
condenser exchange heat with air. The evaporator absorbs

Q heat at evaporator temperature, Teva from the
eva
refrigerated space and the condenser rejects Q cond heat at
condenser temperature, Tcond to the ambient at
temperature T0 . In the compressor, W  amount of work is
supplied to raise pressure of the refrigerant coming out of
evaporator to condenser pressure. Refrigerant R600a belongs
to the hydrocarbon category having zero ODP and low GWP
values. R152a, from the HFC category having ODP of zero,
have slightly higher GWP values compared to R600a. On the
other hand, refrigerants R1234ze belongs from the HFO
category having zero ODP and very low GWP. Some other
important thermo-physical properties of these investigated
refrigerants have been shown in table 1 [17].
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a vapour compression refrigeration system
 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)

TABLE 1. DIFFERENT PROPERTIES OF REFRIGERANTS [17] Total exergy destruction from the system is the sum of
Refrigerants R600a R152a R1234ze exergy destructions from individual component and is
Molecular weight (g/mole) 58.12 66.05 114.04 expressed as:
Critical temperature (°C) 134.7 113.3 109.5 δ total = δ eva + δ comp + δ cond + δ TV (4)
Normal boiling point (°C) -11.7 -24 -18.8
ODP 0 0 0 Exergetic efficiency of the system can be calculated
GWP 20 120 1 following Dincer et al. as [19]:
Vapour thermal
14.28 11.91 11.57
conductivity (W m-1 K-1)♣  −δ
W total
Liquid thermal ηex = (5)
98.69 109 83.27 W
conductivity (W m-1 K-1) ♣
Vapour CP (W m-1 K-1) ♣ 1.62 1.09 0.88
Liquid CP (kJ kg-1 K-1) ♣ 2.28 1.7 1.3 B. Economic model
Latent heat of vaporization Total plant cost rate is the main parameter while
354.5 307.3 184.2
(kJ/kg) at 0°C modelling any system economically. Total plant cost rate is
III. MATHEMATICAL MODEL estimated by summing three different cost rates namely, total
 ), operational cost
capital and maintenance cost rate (  C
A computer program in EES [16] has been developed to k

calculate the thermodynamic performances of the system.  

rate ( C ) and CO2 penalty cost rate ( C ) of the system.
op env
However, few assumptions have been taken into This can be written as:
consideration for the simplification of the analysis. Those
are: C total =  C
 +C
k
 +C
op

env
(6)
• All the components are operating at steady state
condition. Total capital and maintenance cost rate of the system is
again calculated by adding the capital and maintenance cost
• Refrigerant coming out of evaporator and condenser rate of the individual component which is given by
is at saturated condition.
C k = C k ⋅ φ ⋅ CRF (7)
• Pressure and heat loss from the components and the
pipe lines are neglected. where, C k is the capital cost of individual component
which can be estimated following the relations given by
• Condenser exchanges heat with the ambient air at Mosaffa et al. [18] as given in table 3. φ is the maintenance
25°C. factor and CRF is the capital recovery factor which can be
• Air enters the evaporator at temperature 0°C. calculated as [19]:
i (1 + i) n
A. Thermodynamic model CRF = (8)
(1 + i) n − 1
Mass, energy and exergy balance equations have been
applied to the individual component to analyze the complete Operational cost rate of the system is given by
system thermodynamically. Those equations for the
C op = W
 ⋅ N⋅C (9)
individual component are shown in table 2. elec

Now, COP of the system can be written as: The CO2 penalty cost rate of the system is calculated
following Wang et al. [20] as:

Q
COP = eva
(1) C env = m CO2e ⋅ C CO2 (10)
W
Heat transfer area of heat exchangers can be calculated where, C CO 2 is the cost of CO2 avoided and m CO 2e is the
following Mosaffa et al. [18] as: amount of annual CO2 emission from the system and that can
be estimated as:
Q
A= (2) m CO2e = μ CO 2e ⋅ E annual (11)
U × LMTD
Again, specific exergy at any point can be written as:
ex = (h − h 0 ) − T0 (s − s 0 ) (3)

TABLE 2. MASS, ENERGY AND EXERGY BALANCE EQUATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM
Component Mass balance Energy balance Exergy balance

 1 − T0 
eva = m (h 1 − h 4 )
Evaporator 4 =m
m 1 =m
 
Q  Ex 4 + Q eva   = Ex1 + δ eva

 Teva 
Compressor 1 =m
m 2 =m
 W  (h 2 − h1 )
 =m 
Ex + W = Ex + δ
1 2 comp

  T0 
cond = m (h 2 − h 3 )
2 =m
3 =m
  Ex 2 = Ex 3 + Q cond   + δ cond
Condenser m Q  1 − T 
 cond 
Throttle valve 3 =m
m 4 =m
 h3 = h4 Ex 3 = Ex 4 + δ TV
 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)

TABLE 5. TUNING PARAMETERS FOR OPTIMIZATION

TABLE 3. CAPITAL COST FUNCTIONS OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS
Tuning parameters Values
Component Capital cost function Population size 200
Evaporator C eva = 1397 × A 0eva
.89
Selection Tournament
Mutation rate 0.01
Compressor  0.46
C comp = 10167.5 × W Crossover Intermediate
0.89 Crossover ratio 0.9
Condenser C cond = 1397 × A cond Generation 150
Throttle valve C TV = 114.5 × m Function tolerance 1e-5

IV. SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Objective function
In the present study, two parameters, exergetic efficiency
and annual plant cost rate, have been chosen as objective
function. The aim of the optimization is to maximize
exergetic efficiency and minimize annual plant cost rate.
B. Design parameters
Two design parameters, evaporator temperature ( Teva )
and condenser temperature ( Tcond ) have been selected for the
present optimization problem. These design parameters and
their ranges are shown in table 4.
C. Multi-objective optimization
Multi objective optimization is a method of optimizing a
problem having more than one objective function. These
objective functions may have conflicting nature such as
minimizing cost and maximizing efficiency at the same time.
In comparison to single objective optimization, multi-
objective optimization does not produce single solution
which can satisfy both the objective functions simultaneously
at a reasonable level. Multi-objective optimization results in
a set of optimum results (Pareto fonts) which can satisfy both
the objective functions simultaneously. Then the decision
maker employs any decision making technique to decide best
optimum solution among the Pareto solutions. In the present
study, multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) [21] is
employed for the optimization and TOPSIS [22] decision
making method is implemented to find the best optimal
solution. The multi-objective optimization problem can be
expressed mathematically as [23]:
Find
x = (x i ) ∀i = 1, 2, 3 .... N par (12)
Minimize or maximize
f i ( x ), ∀i = 1, 2, 3, ..... N obj (13)
g j ( x ) = 0, ∀j = 1, 2, 3, .... , m (14)
h k ( x ) = 0, ∀k = 1, 2, 3, .... , n (15)
where, x, Npar, fi(x), Nobj, gj(x) and hk(x) are the decision
variables vectors, number of decision variables, objectives,
number of objectives, equality and inequality constraints
respectively. Few tuning parameters have also been chosen
for the optimization and those are shown in table 5.
TABLE 4. RANGE OF DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design parameters Range
Evaporator temperature −25°C ≤ Teva ≤ −15°C
Condenser temperature 35°C ≤ Tcond ≤ 45°C
This section mainly focuses on the analysis and
comparison of thermodynamic and economic performances
of the vapour compression refrigeration system using the
aforementioned low GWP refrigerants. Two parameters,
namely COP and exergetic efficiency are chosen as decisive
parameters to describe thermodynamic performance of the
system. On the other hand, plant cost rate is taken as
economic performance parameter. However, assumptions of
some input parameters have been made for the simulation
and those are shown in table 6.
A. Effect of evaporator temperature
The variations of COP, exergetic efficiency and plant
cost rate with evaporator temperature have been shown in
Figs. 2 – 4. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show an increasing nature of
COP and exergetic efficiency with the increase in evaporator
temperature respectively when the condenser temperature is
kept constant at 45°C. As evaporator temperature increases
the pressure ratio in the system decreases which causes a
reduction in the compressor power. As a consequence, COP
and exergetic efficiency increase. On the other hand, plant
cost rate initially decreases to its minimum value and then
again increases with the increase in evaporator temperature.
This can be explained from the fact that as evaporator
temperature increases compressor power requirement
decreases which results in decrease in compressor cost rate
as well as the operational cost rate. Rate of penalty cost for
CO2 emission also decreases with evaporator temperature for
the same reason. In case of evaporator, the cost rate of the
evaporator increases when evaporator temperature increases
due to the increase in the overall heat exchanger area
requirement. This results in increase in the evaporator cost
rate. The rate of change of evaporator cost is less upto a
certain value of evaporator temperature. After that this cost
increases rapidly which results in increase in the capital and
maintenance cost rates as well as overall plant cost rate.
Similar trends for all three parameters have been noted with
all the investigated refrigerants. It can also be noted from
these figures that refrigerant R152a shows best
thermodynamic as well as economic performances among
the investigated refrigerants. Thermo-economic performance
of the system using refrigerant R1234ze is slightly degraded
as compared to refrigerant R152a. Results obtained using
refrigerant R600a at higher evaporator temperature is
comparable with those using refrigerant R1234ze. At -25°C
evaporator temperature, the COPs obtained using R152a,
R1234ze and R600a, are 2.07, 1.92 and 1.91, respectively.
The corresponding values of exergetic efficiencies at -25°C
evaporator temperature are 61.02%, 57% and 56.7%
respectively. The corresponding annual plant cost rate values
are 12890 USD, 13382 USD and 13414 USD respectively.
 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)

Fig. 2. Evaporator temperature on COP Fig. 3. Evaporator temperature on exergetic efficiency Fig. 4. Evaporator temperature on plant cost

TABLE 6. DIFFERENT ASSUMED INPUT PARAMETERS temperature leads to initial decrease and then increase in
annual plant cost rate of the system as illustrated in Fig. 7.
Parameters Value The increase in condenser temperature leads to increase in

Q 10 kW operational cost as well as CO2 penalty due to increase in
eva
T0 25 compressor power. Compressor cost rate also increases due
Isentropic efficiency of compressor, ηs 80%
to the same reason. But, the condenser cost rate decreases
Overall heat transfer co-efficient of evaporator, 0.03 kW m-2 K-1 rapidly due to increase in LMTD value of condenser. This
U eva finally results in initial decrease and then increase in annual
Overall heat transfer co-efficient of condenser, 0.04 kW m-2 K-1 plant cost rate of the system. It can be noted from Fig. 5 - 7
U cond that R152a shows best thermo-economic performance as
compared to the other investigated refrigerants followed by
Temperature difference of air in evaporator and 5K
condenser R1234ze and R600a. It is also observed that COP obtained
Temperature of the inlet air to the evaporator 0ºC with refrigerant R1234ze and R600a at condenser
Maintenance factor, φ 1.06 temperature of 45°C are 7.39% and 7.88% lower respectively
Interest rate, i 14% than that of R152a. Similarly, exergetic efficiency with
Plant life time, n 15 Years refrigerants R1234ze and R600a are 6.64% and 7.05% lower
Annual operational hour, N 4266 hours respectively. Corresponding rise in plant cost rate at 45°C
Electrical power cost, α el 0.09 USD/kWh condenser temperature are 3.82% and 4.07% respectively.
Emission factor, μ CO 2e 0.968 kg/ kWh

Cost of CO2 avoided, C CO 2 0.09 USD/kg of CO2 C. Optimization results

emission
B. Effect of condenser temperature
Fig. 5-7 show the effect of condenser temperature on the
COP, exergetic efficiency and annual plant cost rate of the
system respectively keeping evaporator temperature fixed at
-25°C. It is observed from Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 that with the
increase in condenser temperature COP as well as exergetic
efficiency of the system decreases. Rise in condenser
temperature leads to increase in the pressure ratio of the
system as the evaporator is kept fixed at -25°C. As pressure
ratio increases compressor power requirement increases
which causes a decrease in COP as well as exergetic
efficiency of the system. But, the rise in condenser
The results obtained from multi-objective optimization
using the three refrigerants have been presented in Figs. 8(a)-
(c). The conflict between the two objective functions is
clearly visible in all the Figs. It can be seen from all the Figs.
that as exergetic efficiency increases the annual plant cost
rate also increases. Fig. 8(a) shows that the annual plant cost
rate of the system using R600a increases from 12930 USD to
15593 USD (20.6%) for the increase of exergetic efficiency
from 64.7% to 69.9% (8%). Similar trends are also observed
in Fig. 8(b) and Fig. 8(c) for R152a and R1234ze
respectively. An increase in exergetic efficiency of 7.6%
using refrigerants R152a leads to an increase in annual plant
cost by 24.1%. The corresponding values for R1234ze are
and 8.4% and 19% respectively.

Fig. 5. Condenser temperature on COP Fig. 6. Condenser temperature on exergetic efficiency Fig. 7. Condenser temperature on plant cost
 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)
Fig. 8. Pareto front of (a) R600a, (b) R152a and (c) R1234ze
Though the any point on the Pareto font is an optimum
point, TOPSIS decision making method is employed to find
out the best optimum solution. The best solutions for
individual refrigerant obtained from this method are
highlighted on Figs 8(a)-(c) by an “Asterisk” symbol. Those
optimum values of exergetic efficiency, annual plant cost
rate and the corresponding operational conditions are also
presented in table 7.
TABLE 7. OPTIMUM SOLUTIONS OBTAINED FROM TOPSIS METHOD
R152a R1234ze R600a
Evaporator
-18.8 -18.5 -17.7
temperature (°C)
Condenser
42.4 42 41.7
temperature (°C)
Exergetic
70.2 66.8 66.7
efficiency (%)
Annual plant cost
12533 12668 13233
rate (USD/year)
VI. CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that COP and exergetic efficiency of
the system increases with the increase in evaporator
temperature but decreases with the increase in condenser
temperature. Annual plant cost rate initially decreases then
increases while increasing evaporator and condenser
temperature. Optimum results for refrigerants R1234ze and
R600a are very close to that of refrigerant R152a.
Refrigerant R152a shows best performance among the
investigated refrigerants. However, results obtained using
R1234ze and R600a are also attractive and those two
refrigerants may be used in the system due to their very low
GWP values as compared to R152a.
REFERENCES
[1] E. A. Heath, “Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Kigali Amendment)”, Int Legal Materials,
vol. 56, pp. 193-205, 2017.
[2] J. M. Calm, “The next generation of refrigerants–Historical review,
considerations, and outlook”, Int. J. Refrig, vol. 31, pp. 1123-1133,
2008.
[3] V. W. Bhatkar, V. M. Kriplani and G. K. Awari, “Alternative
refrigerants in vapour compression refrigeration cycle for sustainable
environment: a review of recent research”, Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol., vol. 10, pp. 871-880, 2013.
[4] M. S. Emani, R. Roy and B. K. Mandal, “Development of Refrigerants:
A Brief Review”, Indian J. Sci. Res, vol. 14, pp. 175-181, 2017.
[5] B. O. Bolaji, “Experimental study of R152a and R32 to replace R134a
in a domestic refrigerator”, Energy, vol. 35(9), pp. 3793-3798, 2010.
[6] J. U. Ahamed, R. Saidur, H. H. Masjuki and M. A. Sattar, “An analysis
of energy, exergy, and sustainable development of a vapor
compression refrigeration system using hydrocarbon”, Int. J. Green
Energy, vol. 9, pp. 702-717, 2012.
[7] M. Mohanraj, S. Jayaraj and C. Muraleedharan, “Comparative
assessment of environment-friendly alternatives to R134a in domestic
refrigerators”, Energy Effic., vol. 1, pp. 189-198, 2008.
[8] M. M. Joybari, M. S. Hatamipour, A. Rahimi and F. G. Modarres,
“Exergy analysis and optimization of R600a as a replacement of
R134a in a domestic refrigerator system”, Int. J. Refrig, vol. 36, pp.
1233-1242, 2013.
[9] R. Roy, M. S. Emani and B. K. Mandal, “Numerical Simulation of
Vapour Compression Refrigeration System Using Refrigerant R152a,
R404A and R600a”, Indian J. Sci. Res, vol. 15, pp. 62-68, 2017.
[10] A. Mota-Babiloni, J. Navarro-Esbrí, Á. Barragán, F. Molés and B. Peris,
“Drop-in energy performance evaluation of R1234yf and R1234ze (E)
in a vapor compression system as R134a replacements”, Appl. Therm.
Eng., vol. 71(1), pp. 259-265, 2014.
[11] S. Fukuda, C. Kondou, N. Takata and S. Koyama, “Low GWP
refrigerants R1234ze (E) and R1234ze (Z) for high temperature heat
pumps”, Int. J. Refrig, vol. 40, pp. 161-173, 2014.
[12] A. Yataganbaba, A. Kilicarslan and İ. Kurtbaş, “Exergy analysis of
R1234yf and R1234ze as R134a replacements in a two evaporator
vapour compression refrigeration system”, Int. J. Refrig, vol. 60, pp.
26-37, 2015.
[13] R. B. Jemaa, R. Mansouri, I. Boukholda and A. Bellagi, “Energy and
exergy investigation of R1234ze as R134a replacement in vapor
compression chillers”, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, pp. 12877-
12887, 2017.
[14] K. Nawaz, B. Shen, A. Elatar, V. Baxter and O. Abdelaziz, “R1234yf
and R1234ze (E) as low-GWP refrigerants for residential heat pump
water heaters”, Int. J. Refrig, vol. 82, pp. 348-365, 2017.
[15] D. Wu, B. Hu and R. Z. Wang, “Performance simulation and exergy
analysis of a hybrid source heat pump system with low GWP
refrigerants”, Renewable Energy, vol. 116, 775-785, 2018.
[16] S. A. Klein and F. L. Alvarado, “EES: Engineering equation solver for
the Microsoft Windows operating system”. F-Chart software, 1992.
[17] J. M. Calm and G. C. Hourahan, “Refrigerant data summary”,
Engineered Systems, vol. 18, pp. 74-88, 2001.
[18] A. H. Mosaffa, L. G. Farshi, C. I. Ferreira and M. A. Rosen,
“Exergoeconomic and environmental analyses of CO2/NH3 cascade
refrigeration systems equipped with different types of flash tank
intercoolers”, Energy Convers. Manage., vol. 117, pp. 442-453, 2016.
[19] I., Dincer, M. A. Rosen and P. Ahmadi, “Optimization of Energy
Systems”, John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
[20] J. Wang, Z. J. Zhai, Y. Jing and C. Zhang, “Particle swarm optimization
for redundant building cooling heating and power system”, Appl.
Energy, vol. 87, pp. 3668-3679, 2010.
[21] Srinivas, N., & Deb, K. (1994). “Muiltiobjective optimization using
nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms”, Evolutionary
computation, vol. 2(3), 221-248.
[22] S. Diyaley, P. Shilal, I. Shivakoti, R. K. Ghadai and K. Kalita, “PSI and
TOPSIS Based Selection of Process Parameters in WEDM”, Periodica
Polytechnica. Engineering. Mechanical Engineering, vol. 61, pp. 255,
2017.
[23] S. Sanaye and A. Shirazi, “Four E analysis and multi-objective
optimization of an ice thermal energy storage for air-conditioning
applications”, Int. J. Refrig, vol. 36, pp. 828-841, 2013.