ASHRAE

Technology for a Better Environment

1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211 Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org

Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services

email: mvaughn@ashrae.org

TO:

Donald Siller, Chair TC10.3, donsiller@aol.com

FROM:

Michael Vaughn, MORTS, mvaughn@ashrae.org

DATE:

February 22, 2011

CC:

Roberto Aguilo, Research Liaison 10.0, rraguilo@fibertel.com.ar

Todd Jekel, Research Subcommittee Chair 10.3, tbjekel@wisc.edu
Todd Jekel, Work Statement Author

SUBJECT:

Work Statement 1513-WS, Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial

Refrigeration Systems

During their recent winter meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Research Administration Committee
(RAC) reviewed the subject Work Statement (WS) and voted to return with comments.
See the attached WS review summary for the reasons why it was returned for revision.
Please coordinate changes to this Work Statement with your Research Liaison, Roberto Aguilo,
rraguilo@fibertel.com.ar or RL10@ashrae.org prior to resubmitting it to the Manager of Research
and Technical Services for further consideration by RAC.
Also, it is necessary that you provide a new TC vote on the revised Work Statement, and a letter
describing how each of the above items were addressed in the revision.
If you wish for this work statement to be reconsidered at the next RAC meeting, the revised Work
Statement must be sent (electronically) to Mike Vaughn, Manager of Research and Technical
Services (morts@ashrae.net ) by May 15, 2011. The next opportunity for consideration after this
deadline is August 15, 2011.
This topic will time expire from the Societys Research Implementation Plan on October 1, 2012
unless approved for bid by RAC prior to this date.

Project ID

1513

Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost / Duration
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer
Winter Meeting 2011 Review
Check List Criteria

Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial Refrigeration Systems

TC 10.3 - Refrigerant Piping
$100,000/ 18 Months
1st Submission as WS, RTAR approved TW08, Topic expires from plan Oct. 2012
Basic/Applied Research
WORK STATEMENT SUMMARY VOTES & COMMENTS - Version 1

Voted NO

Adequate Intermediate Deliverables? The project should include the review of

intermediate results by the PMS at logical milestone points during the project.
Before project work continues, the PMS must approve the intermediate results.

#3, #9, #8

Time and Cost Estimate Reasonable? The time duration and total cost of the
project should be reasonable so that the project can be as it is described in the
WS.

#9

Additional Comments & Suggestions

#3 - I think there should be intermediate reports after Task 3, Task 4 and Task 7. The work would proceed after the review and acceptance of the reports by the PMS. #2 - deliverables and task
breakdown sections need to combined and cleaned up. #9- Only one intermediate deliverable is stipulated. #8 - The task description should be more elaborate. Task 2 (literature review) should
state that weaknesses should be identified in the models developed previously. There should be some intermediate important deliverables listed wich the PMS should approve.One such
deliverable should be after the design of the setup, instrumentation and uncertainty analysis phase.
#9- I am concerned that the WS under prescribes the validation effort of the CFD code against laboratory experiment. This item takes just one line of the WS in the Scope section. The WS should
indicate the expectations of the TC as to the parameters/applications for which the validation effort should be carried out. For a meaningful validation effort, the current funding (100k) may be
insufficient.

Detailed Bidders List Provided? The contact information in the bidder list should
be complete so that each potential bidder can be contacted without difficulty.
Proposed Project Doable? Can the project as described in the WS be
accomplished? If difficulties exist in the project's WS that prevent a successful
conclusion of the project, then the project is not doable. In this situation, major
revision of the WS is needed to resolve the issues that cause the difficulty.

#9

Proposed Project Description Correct? Are there technical errors and/or

technical omissions that the WS has that prevents it from correctly describing the
project? If there are, than the WS needs major revision.

#9

Task Breakdown Reasonable? Is the project divided into tasks that make
technical and practical sense? Are the results of each task such that the results of
the former naturally flow into the latter? If not, then major revisions are needed to
the WS that would include: adding tasks, removing tasks, and re-structuring tasks
among others.

#2, #9, #8

Proposed Project Biddable? Examining the WS as a whole, is the project

described in the WS of sufficient clarity and detail such a potential bidder can
actually understand and develop a proposal for the project? This criterion
combines the previous three criteria into an overall question concerning the
usefulness of the WS. If the WS is considered to not be biddable, then either
major revisions are in order or the WS should be rejected.

Decision Options

#8 - In addition to the deficiencies in task list stated above, there should be explicit mention in the task list of: Uncertainty analysis of the measurement system, and a comprehensive list of the
experiments to be performed or design of experiments methodology . Also, need to add in the task list the need for specific details and methodology as to how to assess validation of the models
and the computer code should be specified?

#9 - The specs for the CFD code validation are insufficient. #8 - See comments above

#2 - Needs minor administrative clean-up

Initial
Decision

Additional Comments or Approval Conditions

ACCEPT
COND. ACCEPT
RETURN
REJECT

#7 - All points in the previous version appear to have been taken care of, but WS does not indicate that RL reviewed the WS. Also WS indicates 11 voting members but that only 6 voted -no one
was recorded voting negative or abstaining. #3- TC10.03 vote count is not correct. 6 for and the total voting members is 11 with no indication as to how the other 5 members voted. My condition
would be to comply with the above comments. #9 - (1) Cover Sheet: (a) Correct the entries for the TC vote. They show that 6+0+0+0=11 (b) Clarify the voting record for TC 10.1 (c ) Add info
regarding the Strategic Plan (2) State of the Art: Complete Weinke (2002) (3) Deliverables: Remove the italicized text at the beginning of the section and the three last paragraphs with
instructions for the WS authors taken for the Research Manual. #8 The WS is limited to ammonia only. Is is possible to evaluate other refrigerants in the same apparatus that is built to use
ammonia?

ACCEPT Vote - Work statement(WS) ready to bid as-is

CONDITIONAL ACCEPT Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve WS for bid without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s) to his/her satisfaction
RETURN Vote - WS requires major revision before it can bid
REJECT Vote - Topic is no longer considered acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program due to duplication of work by another project or because the work statement has a fatal flaw(s) that makes it unbiddable

06/29/2010

Date:

WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET

(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )

A. Title
B Executive Summary
C. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan
D. Application of the Results
E. State-of-the-Art (background)
F. Advancement to State-of-the-Art
G. Justification and Value to ASHRAE
H. Objective
I. Scope
J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published
K. Level of Effort
Project Duration in Months
Professional-Months: Principal
Investigator
Professional-Months: Total
Estimated $ Value
L. Other Information to Bidders (optional)
M. Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
N. References

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

TC 10.03

Responsible TC/TG:

For
Against
Abstaining
Absent or not returning Ballot
Total Voting Members
Work Statement Authors:
Todd Jekel

Title:

WS#

Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities

for Industrial Refrigeration Systems

1513
(To be assigned by MORTS - Same as RTAR #)

Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters,

Special Publications, etc.:
Chapter 1

Refrigeration Handbook

Date of Vote:
*
*
*

6
0
0
0
11

**

6/29/2010

This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
TC 10.01
7-0 CNV 12/14/2010
Has RTAR been submitted ?
Strategic Plan
Theme/Goals

Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee:

Don Siller
Chair:
Members:
John Topliss
Wayne Borrowman
Eric Smith

Project Monitoring Subcommittee:

(If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee)
Same

Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number): **

**
CREARE
PO Box 71, Hanover, NH 03755
fluids@creare.com (603) 643-3800

Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):

IIAR

Tom Kuehn (University of Minnesota)

Kuehn001@umn.edu (612) 625-4520
Claus Schn Poulsen (Danish Technological Institute)
csp@teknologisk.dk +45 72 20 25 14
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)
Is an extended bidding period needed?
Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS?
Will this project result in a special publication?
Has the Research Liaison reviewed work statement?
* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions
One voter who abstained simply did not feel familiar enough with this topic and issues.
One voter who abstained may bid on the project.
Negative voter felt project budget should be larger.
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder
Use additional sheet if needed.

Yes

No
x
x

How Long (weeks)

WORK STATEMENT#1513
TC 10.03 Refrigerant Piping
TC 10.01 Custom Engineered Refrigeration Systems
Title: Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial Refrigeration Systems
Executive Summary:
This project will provide the numerical analysis of the droplet separating performance of industrial refrigeration
sized vessels that rely solely on gravity for separating liquid droplets from a vapor stream. These separation vessels,
often called accumulators, recirculators or suction traps, are standard in all industrial refrigeration systems for
protecting compressors from damage from liquid droplet carryover resulting from load transients and liquid
overfeed evaporator configurations. These results will be used to help determine design guidelines for separation
velocities and focus future research needs including a larger experimental project. The results will be incorporated
in the ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration, Chapter 1.
Applicability to the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
The results of this project apply to Goal 9 in the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan 2010-2015. Increased design
guidance for liquid separation vessels will influence all aspects of improvements:
Increased efficiency in the protection of compressors, liquid refrigerant carryover can influence the both
the tolerances of the machine and the oil used to seal the mating surfaces
Increased affordability in the ability to more accurately size the vessel in response to the expected
refrigeration loads on the system
Increased reliability in the protection of the compressor
Increased safety in avoidance of potential compressor failure
Application of Results:
The results will be disseminated in Chapter 1 of the ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration. The most practical
benefit is that it will improve a perceived deficiency in design information in the ASHRAE suite of Handbooks with
respect to vessel design and specification. The results of this project will be used to provide insight on the issues
and help define a practical scope for a larger experimental project.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
The separation of liquid droplets from a vapor stream is critical to the reliable operation and compressor protection
within an industrial refrigeration system. Industrial refrigeration systems using anhydrous ammonia require
effective separation of liquid droplets for safe and reliable operation due to the use of liquid overfeed to the
evaporators and hot-gas defrosting of evaporators operating below 32F (0C, freezing point of water in the air
stream). Given the range of cooling and freezing processes within the food industry, the operating conditions for
gravity separation vessels range from -60 to +45F (-76 to +7C).
Examples of separation vessels in industrial refrigeration where the results may be applicable are:
1.

2.

3.

The most common example of a vessel performing liquid/vapor separation is a low-pressure receiver (also
known as a suction trap, knock-out drum, accumulator, recirculator, etc.) which receives the mixture of
liquid and vapor from evaporator coils that occur from system transients or from expected overfed with
liquid in order to achieve high heat transfer. Depending on the system specifics, the vessel may also
receive liquid makeup from a high pressure vessel. This makeup liquid flow will also introduce liquid
droplets and flash gas that must be separated. The vapor leaving this vessel flows on to the compressor, so
it should be relatively free of liquid droplets.
Another example is an intercooler, which is an intermediate-pressure vessel in a refrigeration system with
two-stages of compression. This vessel potentially has all of the same inputs as the previously discussed
low pressure receiver, but may include a desuperheating function for the discharge vapor from the lowstage (or booster) compressors. Desuperheating is commonly done by bubbling the superheated discharge
vapor flow through the liquid. This develops an agitated mixture of liquid and vapor that may introduce
more entrained droplets into the vapor flow.
Finally, the surge vessel on a flooded evaporator is also relevant to this project. The surge vessel should

separate the liquid from the vapor generated in the evaporator so it can stay local to the evaporator and not
be transferred unnecessarily back to the machinery room. Maintaining the liquid in the surge vessel in a
large built-up refrigeration system influences both pressure drop back to the machinery room and liquid
makeup requirements that will result in increased efficiency of the system.
Much of the literature stems from Souders and Browns (1934) work on fractionating columns in the petroleum
industry. Fractionating columns are vertical vessels fitted with plates or trays that physically divide the vessel into
stages. Each tray is perforated with small holes through which the vapor and entrained liquid droplets pass. The jets
of vapor entrain liquid that has fallen by gravity onto the plate surface; the authors describe this as the throwing of
liquid particles by the dynamic action of vapor jets. This situation is quite different from both the vertical and
horizontal configuration of accumulators common in ammonia refrigeration today. In fact, Souders and Brown state
in their paper:
Although this discussion deals exclusively with plate fractionating columns, it is well to indicate that
much greater entrainment may be expected in other types of equipment which do not contain plates or
other types of entrainment separating devices. The actual entrainment in a flash chamber of a cracking
plant (chamber free of any entrainment separating device) is more than twice the entrainment
observed in a fractionating tower. The vapor-liquid mixture in this case entered the large chamber
through a single pipe at high velocity, and the large kinetic energy of the stream was an important
factor in increasing the entrainment over that of a plate column, although the stream was directed
against the lower end of the side of the chamber.
Since the analysis used in Souders and Browns paper is empirical, its applicability should be strictly limited to the
authors original intent. That is, vertical fractionating columns with perforated plate stages. Despite the authors
clear disclaimer, Miller (1971) developed recommendations for ammonia refrigeration accumulators and separators
that relied on the methodology in Souders and Brown. In turn, Miller is the foundation for ASHRAEs
recommendations in the Refrigeration Handbook.
Like Miller, Richards (1985) based his recommendations on Souders and Brown and added that the previously
defined methods resulted in preventing more than 1% of liquid by mass from carrying over. This statement may
have been derived from a reference to Montross (1953) which states that liquid droplets of 400-500 microns fall in
their own vapor at the separation velocities suggested by application of the Souders and Brown methodology.
However, no reference that quantified the mass distribution of liquid droplet sizes in vapor for separators could be
found. Secondly, the separating velocities recommended by Miller (1971) and Richards (1985) do not specify
whether they are applicable to vertical or horizontal separators. The upward vapor flow in vertical separators, with
its accompanying upward drag force, preclude the use of the same requirements. Smaller droplets will potentially
settle out in a horizontal separator due to an increased net downward force on the droplet. Separation criteria for
horizontal and vertical vessels are clearly not identical.
Wu (1984) developed fundamental methods of separator design that used a simple force balance and correlations for
drag force on a spherical droplet. Wu recommends that the design vapor velocity for a vertical separating vessel
should be 75% to 90% of the terminal velocity; however, a specific design droplet size never recommended. Wus
horizontal vessel analysis focuses on the use of nozzle angle and its effect on vessel design.
Gerunda (1981) refers to the fundamental methodology similar to Souders and Brown (1934) to determine the
terminal velocity. Gerunda recommends that the design vapor velocity not exceed 15% of the terminal velocity
calculated.
Svrcek and Monnery (1993) provide a fundamental approach similar to Wu (1984), but did the analysis as a function
of the desired droplet size, if applicable, or as a function of vapor pressure. The variation with pressure is
independent of substance. Svrcek and Monnery recommend a design vapor velocity of 75% of the calculated
terminal velocity; however, the droplet size necessary to calculate the terminal velocity is not recommended.
Weinke (2002)
Anecdotally, practitioners responsible for the design of industrial refrigeration systems have expressed concerns

over the recommended separating velocities of liquid from vapor for ammonia currently listed in the 2010
Handbook of Refrigeration, Chapter 1. As outlined above, the recommendations in the ASHRAE Handbook of
Refrigeration were developed by Miller (1971) and were based on methodology for analysis of distillation columns
by Souders and Brown (1934). Collectively, practitioners commented that the design vapor velocities in the
handbook are too high. In addition, the velocities are higher than is the practice in commercially available vessels in
both the US and European markets. Problems of liquid carryover are often reported anecdotally, but not
documented and communicated back to the engineering community which limits our ability to effectively improve
or refine these important engineering guidelines.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
Current design guidelines in the area of liquid/vapor separation in gravity separators that exist within the ASHRAE
Handbook of Refrigeration and the industry are somewhat arbitrary and not based on a strong technical basis or data.
The scope of the proposed research will consider separation vessels in both vertical and horizontal orientations in a
size range typical to an industrial refrigeration system (3-12 ft [1-4 m] diameter). Because the forces and geometry
that impact separation in the two orientations are fundamentally different, each orientation will need to be
considered separately. The work proposed in this project constitutes the first part of an investigation of the
maximum safe gas velocities in vessels that will ensure that no harmful liquid carry over occurs to the compressor.
Commercially available software is available to perform Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis of multiphase fluid flow (Wintergerste, 2006; Frank, 2008; Morud, 2007; Liu, 2007). In addition, there have been studies
that have applied and validated CFD to oil-air separation (Eastwick, 2006), fuel-air injection for diesel engines
(Bergin, 2007), atomizers and spray systems (Spalding, 1985), two-phase flow through packed beds (Chen, 2007),
and waste-water treatment reactors (Le Moullec, 2008). The project will evaluate the impact of vapor velocity,
droplet size, vessel orientation, and operational conditions (refrigerant properties and vapor velocity) on the
separation performance of the vessel. While this project relies on assumptions for the droplet size range and
distribution that are generated in two-phase return and liquid makeup to the vessel, the results of this research will
highlight the effects of these parameters on liquid/vapor separation with refrigeration vessels and will provide
direction for future research.
The research will also include a smaller scale experiment using ammonia or other suitable liquid/vapor pair to
validate the CFD model.
Ultimately, the separation performance will be explored experimentally in a subsequent project; however, the size
range of the vessel, anhydrous ammonia, and the number of variables makes this a costly and risky project without
first attempting to focus the experimental plan. In addition, there is currently no method of test for determining the
performance of a gravity separation vessel. These two factors make the proposed research topic the first logical step
to an experimental evaluation of gravity separation vessels.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
Engineers throughout the world rely on the recommendations of the ASHRAE Handbooks. If the recommended
separating velocities in the Refrigeration Handbook are too high, compressors may be damaged when the system is
designed according to these recommendations. The justification of the project is that it aids in preserving the
authoritative standards of the Handbook.
For over 150 years, ammonia has been the primary refrigerant used throughout the world for industrial refrigeration
in the food and beverage industry. Ammonia is dominant in this sector because it is the most efficient refrigerant
and is readily available and cost effective. Events within the refrigeration and air-conditioning industry, such as the
Montreal Protocol, have further increased the use and interest in ammonia because it is a natural refrigerant and has
no global warming or ozone depletion effects on the atmosphere.
Every industrial refrigeration system includes a vessel that uses gravity as the separation force; therefore, results of
this research will benefit the entire international food and beverage industry.
Objectives:
The objective of this project is to provide computational fluid dynamics simulation of separating performance for
industrial refrigeration sized vessels that rely solely on gravity. A range of variables that affect the performance will

be investigated, including vessel size, orientation, and operating conditions that are typical to industrial refrigeration
systems. The refrigerant to be considered is anhydrous ammonia. Other refrigerants may include carbon dioxide
and other refrigerants used in an industrial refrigeration system. These results will be used to help determine design
guidelines for separation velocities and focus future research needs. The results will be included in the ASHRAE
Handbook of Refrigeration, Chapter 1.
Scope/Technical Approach:
The scope of the project is to investigate the gravity separation performance of refrigerant vessels, the following
parameters will be investigated:
Vessel Orientation:
Vessel diameter range:
Refrigerant:
Refrigerant operating conditions:
Inlet/outlets:
Liquid levels:
Vapor velocities:

Vertical and Horizontal

3-12 ft
Anhydrous ammonia (others considered)
-60 to +45F (or appropriate for other refrigerant)
Up to 3 different from polling current manufacturers standard designs
Horizontal from 0 to 60% of vessel diameter
Vertical from 0 to 24 of separating distance between the level and the outlet
Vertical: Five (5) velocities ranging from low (near zero) to the ASHRAE
recommended values
Horizontal: Five (5) velocities resulting in residence times ranging from 0.5 to 5
seconds

A small 1 ft diameter vessel will be bench tested to validate the numerical model proposed by the investigator.
Tasks:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Literature review of gravity separation fundaments.

Literature review of computational methodologies for multi-phase flows
Submission of annotated bibliography of literature reviews to PMS
Proposal and justification of computational methodology
Creation of dimensional parameters of the computer model of the vessel geometry
Proposal, review and creation of a physical model and appropriate liquid/vapor pair to validate computer
model and methodology
Validation of model
Extension of methodology to range of vessel sizes and orientations, and refrigerant temperatures.
Final report development

Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published:

Insert generic ASHRAE requirements (listed below) as well as and any project-specific requirements defined in the
Scope section. Each major task or phase of the research method outlined in the Scope should be linked to a
deliverable report, memorandum, or summary.
Items a through e below are generic ASHRAE requirements a contractor is required to provide on every ASHRAE
research project. These cover:
Quarterly progress and financial reports to MORTS (to be reviewed by the Project Monitoring
Subcommittee (PMS)).
A final report.
A technical paper, submitted for peer review and publication in ASHRAE Transactions or International
Journal of HVAC&R Research.
Any data obtained from the research.
A project summary.
Progress, Financial and Final Reports, Technical Paper(s), and Data shall constitute required deliverables
(Deliverables) under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a. Progress and Financial Reports

Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the Society through its
Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals; specifically on or before each January 1,
April 1, June 1, and October 1 of the contract period.
Furthermore, the Institutions Principal Investigator, subject to the Societys approval, shall, during the period
of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in person to the sponsoring Technical
Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and winter meetings, and be available to answer such questions
regarding the research as may arise.
b. Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, Final Report), in a form approved by the Society,
shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Societys Manager of Research and Technical
Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete details of all research carried out under this
Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, six copies of the final report shall be furnished for review by the
Societys Project Monitoring Subcommittee (PMS).
Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, in their sole discretion, final copies of the Final Report will
be furnished by the Institution as follows:
c.

An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public.
Two bound copies
One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction.
Two copies on CD-ROM; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word.

Technical Paper
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical Services
(MORTS) and then to the ASHRAE Manuscript Central website-based manuscript review system in a form
and containing such information as designated by the Society suitable for presentation at a Society meeting.
The Technical Paper(s) shall conform to the instructions posted in Manuscript Central for a technical paper.
The technical paper title shall contain the research project number (XXXX-RP) at the end of the title in
parentheses, e.g., (XXXX-RP).

d.

Data
The Institution agrees to maintain true and complete books and records, including but not limited to
notebooks, reports, charts, graphs, analyses, computer programs, visual representations etc., (collectively, the
Data), generated in connection with the Services. Society representatives shall have access to all such Data
for examination and review at reasonable times. The Data shall be held in strict confidence by the Institution
and shall not be released to third parties without prior authorization from the Society, except as provided by
GENERAL CONDITION VII, PUBLICATION. The original Data shall be kept on file by the Institution for
a period of two years after receipt of the final payment and upon request the Institution will make a copy
available to the Society upon the Societys request.

e. Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totaling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad technical audience,
which documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings are significant, and 3. How the
findings benefit ASHRAE membership and/or society in general shall be submitted to the Manager of
Research and Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term for publication in ASHRAE Insights
The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in the Societys
ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a Deliverable.
All Deliverables under this Agreement and voluntary technical articles shall be prepared using dual units; e.g.,

rational inch-pound with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI usage shall be in accordance with
IEEE/ASTM Standard SI-10.
The above deliverables are necessary, but not sufficient, to monitor a research project. The PMS and the sponsoring
TC have the responsibility to review the contractors on-going activities and intermediate results, to ensure that the
methods used and results obtained will be valid and well-enough substantiated to be labeled as ASHRAE-approved
findings. Proper oversight cannot wait until the final report, when most of the budget has already been expended.
Therefore, each major task or phase of the research method outlined in the Scope should also be linked to a
deliverable report, memorandum, or summary. These in-progress deliverables should not add to the cost of the
project, as they will most likely become chapters of the final report. However, they should help the TC avoid
unpleasant surprises due to the research not being conducted according to the TCs expectations. Examples of
deliverables that could be required during the project include:
If one task is a literature review, then the deliverable could be an annotated list of references and
conclusions/summary of the current state of the art.
If the contractor must propose specific sites (e.g., buildings), experiment topologies (e.g., duct
configurations), materials (e.g., refrigerants, appliances, insulation or building materials), experiment
protocols, and/or instrumentation, then short memos describing those proposed methods, materials, etc.
should be deliverables to be reviewed and approved by the PMS before moving on to the next research
task.
If analysis of preliminary data or results will decide how to proceed (e.g., CFD models of 12 duct
configurations will be used to select 2 duct configurations to be built and subjected to wind tunnel tests),
then the contractor should write up the results of the initial analysis, recommend the areas for further more
detailed investigation, and justify those recommendations.
If data from the research are expected to modify or update a Handbook table, then the procedure for
developing the updated table from the data should be specified and provided to the PMS as a deliverable.
(The final report may also require the contractor to prepare a proposed updated table based on the observed
data.)
In short, the technical approach for a research project should be broken down into tasks or phases, and where a task
will yield results of interest to the TC and the PMS, or where the results of a task will significantly define how
subsequent tasks will be carried out. The Work Statement should specify such deliverables for the PMS to review.
This approach will make it easier for the PMS and MORTS to gauge progress and technical merit of on-going
ASHRAE research projects, and will provide a framework for the cognizant TCs to provide technical oversight and
assistance to identify and correct problems as they occur.)
Level of Effort:
The project anticipates 3 professional-months for the principal investigator and 15 professional-months for a
research technician. The estimated cost is $100,000 and the project is expected to take 18 months.
Other Information for Bidders (Optional):
Proposal Evaluation Criteria:
This section includes the criteria the PES will use to evaluate proposals and select a contractor to recommend.
1.

2.

3.

Contractor's understanding of Work Statement as revealed in proposal.

a)
Logistical problems associated
b)
Technical problems associated
Quality of methodology proposed for conducting research.
a)
Organization of project
b)
Management plan
Contractor's capability in terms of facilities.
a)
Managerial support
b)
Data collection
c)
Technical expertise

15%

25%

15%

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

Qualifications of personnel for this project.

a)
Project team 'well rounded' in terms of qualifications
and experience in related work
b)
Project manager person directly responsible;
experience and corporate position
c)
Team members' qualifications and experience
d)
Time commitment of Principal Investigator
Student involvement
a)
Extent of student participation on contractor's team
b)
Likelihood that involvement in project will encourage entry
into HVAC&R industry
Probability of contractor's research plan meeting the objectives of the Work Statement.
a)
Detailed and logical work plan with major tasks and key milestones
b)
All technical and logistic factors considered
c)
Reasonableness of project schedule
Performance of contractor on prior ASHRAE or other projects.
(No penalty for new contractors.)
Other _________________________

20%

5%

15%

5%

References:
ASHRAE, 2010, Refrigeration Handbook, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, GA.
Bergin, M.J., 2008, Optimization of injector spray configurations for an HSDI diesel engine at high load,
Proceedings of the 2007 Fall Technical Conference of the ASME Internal Combustion Engine
Division, p. 377-393.
Eastwick, C.N., 2006, Study of aero-engine oil-air separators, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, v. 220, n. 7, p. 707-717.
Frank, T., 2008, Validation of CFD models for moon- and poly-disperse air-water two-phase flows in pipes,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, v. 238, n. 3, p. 647-659.
Gerunda, A., 1981, How to size liquid-vapor separators, Chemical Engineering, May, v. 88, n. 9, pp. 81-84.
Jekel, T.B., D.T. Reindl, J.M. Fisher, 2001, Gravity Separator Fundamentals and Design, Proceedings
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration, Long Beach, California.
Le Moullec, Y., 2008, Flow field and residence time distribution simulation of a cross-flow gas-liquid
wastewater treatment reactor using CFD, Chemical Engineering Science, v. 63, n. 9, p. 2436-2449.
Liu, D., 2007, CFD simulation of gas-liquid performance in two direction vapour horn, Chemical Engineering
Research & Design, v. 85, n. 10, p. 1375-1383.
Miller, D.K., 1971, Design and Application Guide for Gravity Gas and Liquid Separators, Suction Traps and
Low Pressure Accumulator-Receivers Used in Refrigeration Systems, York Division, Borg-Warner
Corporation Engineering Department.
Miller, D.K., 1971, Recent Methods for Sizing Liquid Overfeed Piping and Suction Accumulator-receivers, IIR.
Montross, C.F., 1953, Entrainment Separation, Chemical Engineering, October.
Morud, J.C., 2007, Dilute gas-liquid flows with liquid films on walls, Progress in Computational Fluid
Dynamics, v. 7, n. 2-4, p. 170-175.
Souders, M. Jr., G.G. Brown, 1934, Design of Fractionating Columns: I. Entrainment and Capacity, Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, January.
Spalding, D.B., 1985, Computation fluid dynamics and its application to liquid-atomization and spray
systems, Institute of Energy.
Stoecker, W.F. 1998, Industrial Refrigeration Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Svrcek, W.Y., W.D. Monnery, 1993, Design Two-Phase Separators Within the Right Limits, Chemical
Engineering Progress, October.
Richards, W.V., 1985, A Critical Look at Old Habits in Ammonia Vessel Specifications, Proceedings
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration, San Antonio, Texas.
Weincke, B., 1993, Richtlinien fr die Dimensionierung von Schwerkraftflssigkeits-abscheidern in
Klteanlagen, DIE KLTE und Klimatechnik, v. 9, pp. 296-508.
Weincke, B., 2002, Sizing and Design of Gravity Liquid Separators in Industrial Refrigeration, Proceedings
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration, Kansas City, Missouri.

Wintergerste, T, 2006, Flow simulation supports product development, Sulzer Technical Review, v. 88, n. 2,
p. 4-7.
Wu, F.H., 1984, Drum Separator Design - A New Approach, Chemical Engineering, April.
Authors:
Todd Jekel,
Potential bidders
CREARE
University of Minnesota

ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211 Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org

Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services

email: mvaughn@ashrae.org

TO:

Todd Jekel, Chair, TC 10.3, tbjekel@wisc.edu

FROM:

Mike Vaughn, MORTS@ASHRAE.org

Manager of Research and Technical Services

CC:

Hugh Henderson, Research Liaison 10.0, RL10@ashrae.net

DATE:

October 15, 2008

SUBJECT:

RTAR #1513, Liquid Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial Refrigeration

Systems

At their recent tech weekend meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, the Research Administration Committee (RAC)
reviewed the subject Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted to accept it for further
development into a work statement. The following comments and questions need to be fully addressed in
the work statement submission:
1. The objectives ought to be expanded to state precisely what will be accomplished as a result of
the CFD analyses and whether the final deliverables of the project will lead to new design
requirements or standards or handbook chapter, etc.
2. Explain in WS why this supports D1 and D2 of the Research plan - don't just list goals. WS
should also include specification of the experiment as a result/deliverable.
3. Provide description of tasks, approach, intermediate deliverables. (previous RAC Comment)
4. Need to punch up WS to explain how experimental tests with analog fluids/geometry can be used
to justify CFD approach. How do we know the results are correct?
Please coordinate the work statement with the help of your Research Liaison, Hugh Henderson,
RL10@ASHRAE.net , prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for further
consideration by RAC. The first draft of the work statement should be submitted to RAC no later than
December 15, 2008.

1513-RTAR

RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST (RTAR) FORM 1513

Sponsoring TC/TG/SSPC:
TC 10.3 Refrigerant Piping
Title:

Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial

Refrigeration Systems

Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:

D1, D2
Research Classification:

Basic/Applied

TC/TG/SSPC Vote

Reasons for Negative Votes and Abstentions:

8-0-0 CNV
Estimated Cost:
$100,000

Estimated Duration:
18 months

Other Interested TC/TG/SSPCs and votes:

TC 10.1 Custom Engineered Refrigeration Systems

Possible Co-Funding Organization: Ammonia Refrigeration Foundation (ARF)
Application of Results:

REFRIGERATION, Chapter 35, 43, 46

State of the Art of Research Project (Background)

The separation of liquid droplets from a vapor stream is critical to the reliable operation
and compressor protection within an industrial refrigeration system. Industrial
refrigeration systems using anhydrous ammonia require effective separation of liquid
droplets for safe and reliable operation due to the use of liquid overfeed to the
evaporators and hot-gas defrosting of evaporators operating below 32F (0C, freezing
point of water in the air stream). Given the range of cooling and freezing processes
within the food industry, the operating conditions for gravity separation vessels range
from -60 to +45F (-76 to +113C).
Practitioners responsible for the design of industrial refrigeration systems have expressed
concerns over the recommended separating velocities of liquid from vapor for ammonia
currently listed in the 2006 Handbook of Refrigeration, Chapter 1. The recommendations
in the ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration were developed by Miller (1971) and were
based on methodology for analysis of distillation columns by Souders and Brown (1934).
Collectively, they note that the design vapor velocities in the handbook are too high. In
addition, the velocities are higher than is the practice in commercially available vessels in
both the US and European markets. Problems of liquid carryover are often reported
anecdotally, but not documented and communicated back to the engineering community
which limits our ability to effectively improve or refine these important engineering
guidelines.
Advancement to the State of the Art (Justification)

1513-RTAR

Current design guidelines in the area of liquid/vapor separation in gravity separators that
exist within the ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration and the industry are outdated (or
misapplied) and questionable (or not technically grounded for the application to gravity
separators). The scope of the proposed research will consider separation vessels in both
vertical and horizontal orientations in a size range typical to an industrial refrigeration
system (3-12 ft [1-4 m] diameter). Because the forces and geometry that impact
separation in the two orientations are fundamentally different, each needs to be
considered separately. The work proposed in this project is the first part of investigation
of the maximum safe vapor velocities in vessels that will ensure that no harmful liquid
carry over occurs to the compressor.
Commercially available software is available to perform Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) analysis of multi-phase fluid flow (Wintergerste, 2006; Frank, 2008; Morud, 2007;
Liu, 2007)). In addition, there have been studies that have applied and validated CFD to
oil-air separation (Eastwick, 2006), fuel-air injection for diesel engines (Bergin, 2007),
atomizers and spray systems (Spalding, 1985), two-phase flow through packed beds
(Chen, 2007), and waste-water treatment reactors (Le Moullec, 2008). The project will
evaluate the impact of vapor velocity, droplet size, vessel orientation, and operational
conditions (refrigerant properties and vapor velocity) on the separation performance of
the vessel. While this project relies on assumptions for the droplet size range and
distribution that are generated in two-phase return and liquid makeup to the vessel, the
results of this research will highlight the effects of these parameters on liquid/vapor
separation with refrigeration vessels and will provide direction for future research.
The research will also include a smaller scale experiment using ammonia or other
suitable liquid/vapor pair to validate the CFD model.
Initially, a full-scale experimental project was considered and an RTAR/workstatement
was developed; however, the scope of the project and the probability of no qualified
bidders forced this approach. Ultimately, the performance will be explored
experimentally; however, the size range of the vessel, use of anhydrous ammonia, and the
number of variables makes this costly and risky without first attempting to focus the
experimental plan. In addition, there is no method of test for determining the
performance of a gravity separation vessel. These two factors make the proposed
research topic the first logical step to an experimental evaluation of gravity separation
vessels.
Objective
The objective of this project is to provide computational fluid dynamics simulation of
separating performance for industrial refrigeration sized vessels that rely solely on
gravity. A range of variables that affect the performance will be investigated, including
vessel size, orientation, and operating conditions that are typical to industrial refrigeration
systems. These results will be used to help determine design guidelines for separation
velocities and focus future research needs. The results will be included in the ASHRAE

1513-RTAR

Handbook of Refrigeration, Chapter 1.

Key References
Bergin, M.J., 2008, Optimization of injector spray configurations for an HSDI diesel
engine at high load, Proceedings of the 2007 Fall Technical Conference of the
ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division, p. 377-393.
Eastwick, C.N., 2006, Study of aero-engine oil-air separators, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, v.
220, n. 7, p. 707-717.
Frank, T., 2008, Validation of CFD models for moon- and poly-disperse air-water twophase flows in pipes, Nuclear Engineering and Design, v. 238, n. 3, p. 647-659.
Le Moullec, Y., 2008, Flow field and residence time distribution simulation of a crossflow gas-liquid wastewater treatment reactor using CFD, Chemical Engineering
Science, v. 63, n. 9, p. 2436-2449.
Liu, D., 2007, CFD simulation of gas-liquid performance in two direction vapour horn,
Chemical Engineering Research & Design, v. 85, n. 10, p. 1375-1383.
Morud, J.C., 2007, Dilute gas-liquid flows with liquid films on walls, Progress in
Computational Fluid Dynamics, v. 7, n. 2-4, p. 170-175.
Spalding, D.B., 1985, Computation fluid dynamics and its application to liquidatomization and spray systems, Institute of Energy.
Wintergerste, T, 2006, Flow simulation supports product development, Sulzer
Technical Review, v. 88, n. 2, p. 4-7.

ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211 Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org

Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services

email: mvaughn@ashrae.org

TO:

Todd Jekel, Chair TC, 10.3, tbjekel@wisc.edu

FROM:

Mike Vaughn
Manager of Research and Technical Services

CC:

Hugh Henderson, Research Liaison, 10.0, RL10@ashrae.org

Todd Jekel, Research Subcommittee Chair TC

DATE:

May 5, 2008

SUBJECT:

RTAR #1513, Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial Refrigeration Systems

At their recent spring teleconference meeting, the Research Planning Subcommittee (RPS) reviewed the subject
Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted 3-1-0, to return it. The following comments and questions need
to be fully addressed in the next submission for the RTAR:
1.

CFD modeling of two-phase flow is very difficult and the RTAR needs to provide references with evidence
that CFD has been successfully applied and validated for this type of problem

2.

Provide references and detailed description of tasks, approach, intermediate deliverables.

Please incorporate the above information into the revised RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison, Hugh
Henderson, RL10@ashrae.org, prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for further
consideration by RAC.
If you wish this to be reconsidered at the fall meeting in Atlanta, a revised RTAR, together with a letter describing how
each of the above items was addressed, should be sent (electronically) to Mike Vaughn, Manager of Research and
Technical Services (morts@ashrae.net ) by August 15, 2008. The deadline submission following this meeting is
December 15, 2008 for consideration at the Societys 2009 winter meeting.

RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST

Title:

TC/TG:

1513-RTAR

Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial

Refrigeration Systems
11-0

TC 10.3 Refrigerant Piping

Research Category:

Refrigeration Systems

Research Classification:

Basic/Applied

TC/TG Priority:
TC/TG Vote:
Estimated Cost and Duration:

$60,000 and 12 months

Other Interested TC/TG:

TC 10.1 Custom Engineered Refrigeration Systems

Possible Co-Funding Organization: IIAR

Handbook Chapters Affected:

REFRIGERATION, Chapter 1

State of the Art of Research Project (Background)

The separation of liquid droplets from a vapor stream is critical to the reliable operation
and compressor protection within a refrigeration system. Industrial refrigeration systems
require effective separation of liquid droplets for safe and reliable operation due to the
use of liquid overfeed to the evaporators and hot-gas defrosting of evaporators operating
below freezing.
Practitioners responsible for the design of industrial refrigeration systems have expressed
concerns over the recommended separating velocities of liquid from vapor for ammonia
currently listed in the 2006 Handbook of Refrigeration, Chapter 1. The recommendations
in the ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration were developed by Miller (1971) and were
based on methodology for analysis of distillation columns by Souders and Brown (1934).
Collectively, they note that the design vapor velocities in the handbook are too high. In
addition, the velocities are higher than is the practice in commercially available vessels in
both the US and European markets. Problems of liquid carryover are often reported
anecdotally, but not documented and communicated back to the engineering community
which limits our ability to effectively improve or refine these important engineering
guidelines.
Advancement to the State of the Art (Justification)
Current design guidelines in the area of liquid/vapor separation in gravity separators that
exist within the ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration and the industry are outdated (or

misapplied) and arbitrary (or not technically grounded). The scope of the proposed
research will consider separation vessels in both vertical and horizontal orientations.
Because the forces and geometry that impact separation in the two orientations are
fundamentally different, each needs to be considered separately. The work proposed in
this project is the first part of investigation of the maximum safe gas velocities in vessels
that will ensure that no harmful liquid carry over occurs to the compressor.
Commercially available software is available to perform Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) analysis of this multi-phase flow problem. The application of this software to
analyze gravity separation vessels will evaluate the impact of droplet size, vessel
orientation, and operational conditions (refrigerant properties and vapor velocity) on the
separation performance of the vessel. While this project relies on assumptions for the
droplet size range and distribution that are generated in two-phase return and liquid
makeup to the vessel, the results of this research will highlight the effects of these
parameters on liquid/vapor separation with refrigeration vessels and will provide
direction for future research.
Objective
The objective of this project is to provide computational fluid dynamics simulation of
separating performance for vessels that rely solely on gravity. These results will be used
to help determine design guidelines for separation velocities and focus future research
needs. The results will be included in the ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration, Chapter
1. The project will consider the effects of vertical separating distance, liquid level,
orientation, and a range of operating velocities and pressures for anhydrous ammonia.

ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211 Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org

Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services

email: mvaughn@ashrae.org

TO:

Todd Jekel, Chair TC 10.3, tbjekel@wisc.edu

FROM:

Mike Vaughn
Manager of Research and Technical Services

CC:

Hugh Henderson, Research Liaison10.0

DATE:

October 26, 2007

SUBJECT:

RTAR #1513, Liquid/Vapor Separating Velocities for Industrial Refrigeration Systems

At their recent Technology weekend meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, the Research Administration Committee (RAC)
reviewed the subject Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted to return it. The following comments and
questions need to be fully addressed in the next submission for the RTAR. The comments of RAC members on this
RTAR were as follows:
1.

No TC priority
No TC vote.
No mention of applicability to ASHRAE Strategic Plan.
Need a rationale for using CFD. Why not actually measure performance?
The state-of-the-art section needs to be strengthened and references added. Modeling of two-phase
separation using CFD is a difficult problem.
6. Is a physical experiment needed to validate or calibrate the CFD models?
7. The RTAR needs to provide references with evidence that CFD has been successfully applied for this type
of problem. What validations have been performed? CFD codes have different approaches for modeling
multiple phases (e.g., algebraic slip model). Which approaches will make the most sense for this type of
problem?
8. CFD projects are most useful if they either specifically identify existing datasets available to validate
modeling choices for the application, or include in scope the generation of such datasets. Need to get
beyond hoping a bidder will find a validation dataset, or that modeling with un-validated CFD codes is
useful.
9. Should the TC explore IIAR co-funding? Also, there is mention of freezing in here where it should be
liquefaction of the vapor?!
10. Good fundamental research to support design community.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Please incorporate the above information into the revised RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison, Hugh
Henderson, hugh@cdhenergy.com or RL10@ashrae.net, prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and
Technical Services for further consideration by RAC.
If you wish this to be reconsidered at the winter meeting in New York, a revised RTAR, together with a letter describing
how each of the above items was addressed, should be sent (electronically) to Mike Vaughn, Manager of Research and
Technical Services (morts@ashrae.net ) by December 17, 2007.