Search Results

This paper reviews vehicular wind tunnel tests performed on a heavy truck air conditioning system utilizing refrigerants HFC-134a and CFC-12 with various condensers. Refrigerant type was found to have little effect on system temperatures but considerable effect on system pressures. Condenser design was able to compensate for the increased pressures induced by HFC-134a. Condenser design also affected refrigerant charge weights of both refrigerants. Refrigerant charge weights are important today because of limited supplies of CFCs, and will be important in the future when more costly HFC-134a becomes the standard refrigerant. Structural durability of the compact, lightweight PF® condenser was found to be acceptable for heavy truck applications. REVISIONS RECENTLY MADE to the Montreal Protocol by its signatory nations have shortened the timetable for phaseout of ozone-depleting compounds.

This paper reviews vehicular wind tunnel tests that were carried out on two automotive air conditioning systems. The test data compare the performance of the air conditioning systems utilizing refrigerants HFC-134a and CFC-12 with various heat exchangers. Heat exchanger selection was found to influence refrigerant charge levels. This will be important in the future when more costly HFC-134a becomes the refrigerant of choice. CFC-12 HAS LONG BEEN THE REFRIGERANT OF CHOICE for automotive air conditioning systems. Unfortunately, scientists have linked CFC-12 and other fully halogenated refrigerants to the destruction of the world's ozone layer. In addition, CFC-12 and other fully halogenated refrigerants are “greenhouse” gases, accounting for about 25% of the global warming that has taken place (1). The most promising environmentally safe refrigerant for replacement of CFC-12 appears to be HFC-134a.