See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346589303

A NON-INVASIVE METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING THE OIL MASS FLOW

RATE IN REFRIGERATION CYCLES

Conference Paper · November 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 374

4 authors, including:

Rubén Ossorio Emilio Navarro

Universitat Politècnica de València Universitat Politècnica de València
18 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS 129 PUBLICATIONS 1,252 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rubén Ossorio on 03 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ID 108

A NON-INVASIVE METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING THE OIL MASS

FLOW RATE IN REFRIGERATION CYCLES
R.Ossorio*, E.Navarro, A.López and J.Gonzalvez

Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Ingeniería Energética (IUIIE),

Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, ed. 8E cubo F semisótano,
Valencia, 46022, Spain.
e-mail: r.ossorio@iie.upv.es

Abstract:

ASHRAE 41.4 standard [1] proposes a methodology to estimate the oil mass flow in a
refrigeration cycle. However, the procedure itself is tedious and invasive. In this study, another
method is analysed which offers an online, non-invasive and qualitative estimation of the oil mass
flow.

The performance of this method has been tested in the characterization of the oil circulation rate
(OCR) of a refrigeration system driven by a variable speed compressor in which the effect of the
speed of the compressor and the evaporating temperature (suction specific volume) on the OCR
is analysed over a set of 36 tests.

Keywords: Variable Speed Compressor, OCR, Oil Circulation Rate, Oil separator

CYTEF 2020 − X Congreso Ibérico | VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de las Ciencias y Técnicas del Frío
Pamplona, España, 1-3 julio, 2020
1
 ID 108

1. INTRODUCTION
Oil, although being necessary for lubrication in the compressor, it is considered as a contaminant in the rest of
the refrigeration system, especially when the oil circulation rate (OCR) [Eq.(1)] in the system is higher than
5%[2]. Oil changes thermodynamic properties of the refrigerant, reduces the heat transfer coefficient in the
heat exchangers and, in worst cases, it can block the expansion device[3]. In addition, an excess of oil migrating
to the system could led to not having enough oil inside the compressor for a correct lubrication.
ṁoil
OCR = (1)
ṁoil + ṁrefr

In a previous study [4], a variable speed compressor has been tested in different conditions using the Standard
EN13771 [5]. One of the most important results of testing a compressor is the circulating mass flow.
Consequently, to have validated results, the standard demands to calculate the mass flow using two
independent methods. In our case, the chosen methods had been; first, utilize a Coriolis mass flow meter in the
liquid line and second, estimate the mass flow using an energy balance in the evaporator (calorimetric method).
Finally, to accept the results, the discrepancy between the proposed methods must be below 4%.

In the middle of the experimental campaign a constant bias between methods was detected at high speeds. The
hypothesis to explain this fact was that the discrepancy between methods was motivated by oil mass flow
circulating in the system. Assuming that hypothesis, the measurement of the Coriolis provided an estimation
of the sum of the refrigerant mass flow and the mass flow of the oil. On the other hand, the result of the energy
balance in the evaporator only considered the refrigerant mass flow (as it is the only mass flow that has cooling
capacity). Consequently, the mass flow of oil can be calculated subtracting both estimations as in Eq.(2).

ṁ oil = 𝑚𝑚̇coriolis − 𝑚𝑚̇calorimeter = �ṁ oil + ṁ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 � − ṁ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (2)

This approach, presents an alternative method to the tedious and invasive weighting methodology described
in ASHRAE 41.4 standard [1] for estimating the OCR. Allowing online and non-invasive measurements. In
order to test this new method, a variable speed scroll compressor has been tested with and without oil separator
running at different speeds and evaporating temperatures in order to create a map of the OCR at different
conditions.

2. METHODOLOGY
The test bench that has been used is a calorimetric test bench (typically used in the characterization of
compressors) whose main diagram can be seen in Figure 1.

It has been designed to satisfy the Standard EN13771 [5] for compressor rating and can evaluate the typical
compression cycle conditions: Condensing and Evaporating temperature (Tcond and Tevap), Subcooling (SC)
and superheat (SH). Additionally, the test bench comprises a set of PID controllers that can keep any operating
condition within a range of 1kPa and 0.1ºC from its setting without manual adjustments.

CYTEF 2020 − X Congreso Ibérico | VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de las Ciencias y Técnicas del Frío
Pamplona, España, 1-3 julio, 2020
2
 ID 108

Figure 1: Calorimetric Test Bench

For this study the most important elements of the calorimetric test bench are: the evaporator, the oil separator
and the Coriolis mass flow sensor. The evaporator consists of 3 isolated vessels in which the refrigerant
exchange heat with an electric resistance. If the vessels are at constant temperature, the electrical power is
measured and the heat loss to the ambient is modelled then the mass flow of refrigerant in the system can be
calculated with Eq.3 (this method is also called calorimetric method):
𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 − 𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = 𝒎𝒎̇𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 (ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 − ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ) (3)

Regarding the oil separator, it has been used a Castel 5520/C oil separator at the discharge of the compressor
which returns the discharged oil to the suction line of the compressor. This device can be bypassed so that the
same condition can be tested with and without oil separator. And finally, the Coriolis mass flow sensor selected
was a Micromotion sensor CMF025M which is placed in the liquid line between the subcooler and the
expansion valves.

In addition to the mass flow meter, platinum RTDs and absolute pressure gauges have been installed all around
the test bench to have an accurate estimation of the compression condition. The basic declared uncertainties of
the used sensors are displayed in Table 1. Regarding derivate thermodynamic properties as enthalpies, they
have been calculated using the REFPROP database [6].

Uncertainty of the used sensors

Variable Equipment Uncertainty
T RTD-PT ±0,05ºC
P Fisher-Rosemount 3051 ±0,02%
Coriolis CMF025M ±0,025gs-1
Pelectr Sineax CAM ±20W

Table 1: Uncertainty of Sensors

CYTEF 2020 − X Congreso Ibérico | VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de las Ciencias y Técnicas del Frío
Pamplona, España, 1-3 julio, 2020
3
 ID 108

Once the experimental setup has been explained let’s focus on the experimental campaign. To study the
difference of the mass flow measurements between the calorimetric method and the mass flow sensor an
experimental campaign has be designed varying 3 parameters: speed, evaporation temperature and the
existence of an oil separator.

The used compressor was a Copeland YHV046 variable speed compressor. Its range of speed is from 15 to
120 Hz so, to cover the range; 30 (1800rpm), 60 (3600rpm) and 110 Hz (6600rpm) have been tested. Regarding
the envelope of the compressor, it can be seen in Figure 2 in which the tested points are also displayed.

Figure 2: Envelope of the compressor and tested conditions

In total there are a set of 6 different conditions of evaporating temperature for each of the 3 chosen speeds
and each condition tested with and without oil separator. Which sums in total 36 different tests.

The methodology for each test was the following: first set the compression condition and speed, let it stabilize
and log for 15 minutes with oil separator, then bypass the oil separator and let the system stabilize again before
logging along other 15 minutes without oil separator. The stabilization implied also waiting until the level of
oil inside the compressor was constant what could be controlled with the help of a micrometric valve installed
in the oil return path.

3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Once all tests have been carried out, the following results show up. In Figure 3, it is plotted the oil mass flow
(estimated with Eq.(1)) against the total mass flow registered with the Coriolis mass flow sensor. There are 6
different lines graphed, the dashed lines correspond with the use of the oil separator and the different colours
represent the different speeds. Remark that, if the rest of the compression conditions remain constant, an
increase of the evaporating temperature implies an increase of the total mass flow as the suction specific
volume increase also with the evaporating temperature. Consequently, moving to the right in the X axis implies
an increase of mass flow but also an increase of evaporating temperature.

Point out the presence of error bars, they represent the error interval with a 95% of confidence and have been
calculated considering the systematic errors of the sensors and data loggers along with the random error
intrinsic to the test.

CYTEF 2020 − X Congreso Ibérico | VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de las Ciencias y Técnicas del Frío
Pamplona, España, 1-3 julio, 2020
4
 ID 108

Oil Massflow g/s

5
1800 rpm

4
1800 rpm
without oil
3 separator
3600 rpm
2

3600 rpm
1 without oil
separator
0 6600 rpm
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-1 6600 rpm
without oil
separator
-2
Total Massflow g/s

Figure 3: Dependence of the oil mass flow with the speed, the presence of oil separator and the total mass flow

With the information in Figure 3 it can be concluded that at low rotating speeds the oil mass flow is highly
reduced and tends to zero, even without using oil separator. However, at 3600rpm the amount of oil flowing
starts being significant as there is no overlap between the error bars. Lastly, at high speeds (6600rpm) the oil
mass flow increases reaching values ranging from 2 to 4 g/s.

Regarding the oil separator, it can be checked that it keeps a low circulating mass flow of oil close to zero in
all the speeds. Note that negative values of oil mass flow does not have any physical sense, they could be
explained by the uncertainty of the sensors and the uncertainty of the coefficient of heat transfer to the ambient
(Ploss) that appears intrinsically in Ploss in Eq.3. Nevertheless, the existing negative bias does not impede to
extract qualitative conclusions from the data analysed.

In general, the amount of oil mass flow can’t be compared between compressors of different sizes.
Consequently, typically the oil circulation ratio (OCR) is considered Eq.(1). In Figure 4, the evolution of the
OCR is plotted similarly as in Figure 3.

CYTEF 2020 − X Congreso Ibérico | VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de las Ciencias y Técnicas del Frío
Pamplona, España, 1-3 julio, 2020
5
 ID 108

OCR = moil / mtot

0,20 1800 rpm

0,15
1800 rpm
without oil
separator
0,10
3600 rpm

0,05
3600 rpm
without oil
0,00 separator
0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 80,00 100,00 120,00
6600 rpm

-0,05

6600 rpm
without oil
-0,10 separator
Total Massflow g/s

Figure 4: Dependence of the OCR with different variables

From this approach, the same conclusions from Figure 3 can be extracted. The higher the speed, the higher the
OCR and the use of oil separator reduces it drastically to values close to zero.

As regards evaporating temperature, OCR seems to reduce as evaporating temperature increase. This could be
explained as the main responsible of the increase of oil mass flow is the rotational speed of the shaft. In this
way, at a certain speed, an increase of total mass flow due to an increment of evaporating temperature won’t
necessary increase the amount of oil circulation which in turn explains the decrease in the mass flows ratio.

Regarding the values of OCR the maximum rate measured was around 8% at high speeds, low evaporating
temperature and without oil separator.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

A new methodology for estimating the oil circulating in a heat pump has been presented. It seems to give
reasonable results with an accuracy which is acceptable for a low-cost, online and non-invasive procedure.
However, these results should be verified with the standard method ASHRAE 41.4 [1] to ensure its validity.
This calibration, in turn, could also correct the negative bias of the current method which shows negative
measurements for oil mass flow.

The results show a correlation of the OCR with speed, evaporating temperature and the presence of oil
separator. With all that, OCR finds its maximum at high speeds, with low evaporating temperatures and when
no oil separator is used. When these conditions are satisfied OCR reaches values close to 8%. This value is
significantly high and would led to an underperformance of a heat pump as values of OCR of 5% has been
proven that decreases the heat exchanged in the evaporator a 5-13% [2]. Consequently, the use of an oil
separator must be considered when installing this compressor in a real heat pump.

CYTEF 2020 − X Congreso Ibérico | VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de las Ciencias y Técnicas del Frío
Pamplona, España, 1-3 julio, 2020
6
 ID 108

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the Spanish “MINISTERIO DE ECONOMIA Y
COMPETITIVIDAD”, through the project ref- ENE2017-83665-C2-1-P “Maximización de la eficiencia y
minimización del impacto ambiental de bombas de calor para la descarbonización de la calefacción/acs en los
edificios de consumo casi nulo” for the given support.

REFERENCES
[1] ASHRAE, “Standard Method for Measuring the Proportion of Lubricant in Liquid Refrigerant,”
ASHRAE J., vol. 2015, 2015.

[2] O. Lottin, P. Guillemet, and J. M. Lebreton, “Effects of synthetic oil in a compression refrigeration
system using R410A. Part I: Modelling of the whole system and analysis of its response to an increase
in the amount of circulating oil,” Int. J. Refrig., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 772–782, 2003.

[3] H. H. Kruse and M. Schroeder, “Fundamentals of lubrication in refrigerating systems and heat pumps,”
Int. J. Refrig., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 347–355, 1985.

[4] R. Ossorio, E. Navarro, J. Gonzalvez, P. Albadalejo, and A. López, “Efficiency Characterization of a

Variable Speed Compressor,” in CNIT, 2018, pp. 265–275.

[5] “EN 13771,” CEN, 2016.

[6] E. W. Lemmon and O. M. McLinden, “NIST Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties
— REFPROP,” Maryland, 2002.

CYTEF 2020 − X Congreso Ibérico | VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de las Ciencias y Técnicas del Frío
Pamplona, España, 1-3 julio, 2020
7
View publication stats