1791 Tullie Circle NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 Tel 678 ...
32
[email protected] 1791 Tullie Circle NE • Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 • Tel 678.539.1211 • Fax 678.539.2211 • http://www.ashrae.org Michael R. Vaughn, P.E. Manager Research & Technical Services TO: Mark McLinden, Chair TC 3.1, [email protected] Stephen Kujak, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 3.1, [email protected] Mark Spatz, Research Liaison Section 3.0, [email protected] FROM: Michael Vaughn, MORTS, [email protected] DATE: February 15, 2016 SUBJECT: Work Statement (1773-WS), “Ignition Potential from Electrical Devices in Commercial and Residential Applications using 2L Refrigerants” During their recent winter meeting, the Research Administration Committee (RAC) reviewed the subject Work Statement (WS) and voted to return with comments. Below are the issues, concerns, and questions that must be addressed in your next submission of the WS if you choose to resubmit. 1. The authors must submit a complete package before consideration by RAS – Completed WS coversheet required. 2. Work statement must address comments made by the TC member that voted against. Please coordinate changes to this Work Statement with your Research Liaison, Mark Spatz, [email protected] or [email protected] 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 ([email protected] ) by May 15, 2016. The next opportunity for consideration after this deadline is August 15, 2016.
Transcript of 1791 Tullie Circle NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 Tel 678 ...
[Type text]
1791 Tullie Circle NE • Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 • Tel 678.539.1211 • Fax 678.539.2211 • http://www.ashrae.org
Michael R. Vaughn, P.E. Manager Research & Technical Services
TO: Mark McLinden, Chair TC 3.1, [email protected]
Stephen Kujak, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 3.1, [email protected] Mark Spatz, Research Liaison Section 3.0, [email protected] FROM: Michael Vaughn, MORTS, [email protected] DATE: February 15, 2016 SUBJECT: Work Statement (1773-WS), “Ignition Potential from Electrical Devices in Commercial
and Residential Applications using 2L Refrigerants” During their recent winter meeting, the Research Administration Committee (RAC) reviewed the subject Work Statement (WS) and voted to return with comments. Below are the issues, concerns, and questions that must be addressed in your next submission of the WS if you choose to resubmit.
1. The authors must submit a complete package before consideration by RAS – Completed WS coversheet required.
2. Work statement must address comments made by the TC member that voted against. Please coordinate changes to this Work Statement with your Research Liaison, Mark Spatz, [email protected] or [email protected] 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 ([email protected] ) by May 15, 2016. The next opportunity for consideration after this deadline is August 15, 2016.
Project ID
Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost / Duration
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer
RAC 2016 Winter Meeting Review
Check List Criteria Voted NO Comments & Suggestions
Detailed Bidders List Provided? The contact information in the bidder list should
be complete so that each potential bidder can be contacted without difficulty.
#11, #10,
#6, #12, #5,
#14#11 - Incomplete WS Cover sheet: no bidders list, PES, WS authors, etc. #6 - Cover sheet only partially filled out, no bidders listed. #5 - Aside from TC vote, Cover
Sheet is essentially blank. Reject out of hand? #14 - No bidders list. No WS authors. No PES. No reason for negative vote. Other cover sheet omissions.
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.
#10
#5- Minimal detail, but seems correct and worthwhile research. #14 - Objectives section should not just summarize the tasks
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.
#10
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.
#11, #10,
#6, #5 #11 - I'm uncomfortable when each significant task is not accompanied by an intermediate (or the final) deliverable. These are critical for tracking progress by the PMS,
and minimize the effort to compile the final report when all tasks are done. #6 - None noted on the WS. #5- Needs intermediate milestones
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.
#10
#5 - Project likely doable though a bit more detail in the task descriptions would be desirable.
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.
#10, #6, #5#11 - IS AHRI doing complimentary or duplicative work? This cries out to be a joint ASHRAE AHRTI project. #6- Not enough details included. #5 - I don't see a time
estimate.
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.
#10, #6, #5
#11 - Biddable, but not manageable (see comment above on intermediate deliverables). #6 - Need more info on number of tests to determine costs by bidder. #5 -
No time estimate. #14 - Supply missing cover sheet information. Rewrite Objectives.
Decision Options
Initial
Decision Final Approval Conditions
ACCEPT
COND. ACCEPT
RETURN
REJECT
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
RTAR STAGE FOLLOWED
#11 - Align intermediate (substantive) deliverables with tasks. #10- The WS I received did not have a filled in cover sheet. Also WS needs to address comments made
by the TC member that voted against. Person made a reasonable argument that MIC method "I believe that recently there has been a change of understanding that
MIE is not the best measurement, but to MIC. #6 - Need more info, should address comments from negative vote, co-funding from AHRI? #12 - This WS is missing
most of the front material. The authors need to submit a complete package before consideration by RAS. #5 - Fill out cover sheet. Provide intermediate milestones.
Provide time estimate. Provide more detail in task descriptions.
1773Ignition Potential from Electrical Devices in Commercial and Residential Applications using 2L
TC 3.1 (Refrigerants and Secondary Coolants)
$150,000 / 18M
1st WS Submission, RTAR accepted July 2015
Basic/Applied Research
1
WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET Date:
(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )
A. Title 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 WS#
H. Objective (To be assigned by MORTS - Same as RTAR #)
I. Scope J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published K. Level of Effort Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters, Project Duration in Months Special Publications, etc.: Professional-Months: Principal Investigator Professional-Months: Total
Estimated $ Value
L Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
M. References
N. Other Information to Bidders ((optional)
(Optional)
Responsible TC/TG:
Date of Vote:
For This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
Against *
Abstaining *
Absent or not returning Ballot *
Total Voting Members Has RTAR been submitted? Strategic Plan Work Statement Authors: ** Theme/Goals
TC 0.0
Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee: Project Monitoring Subcommittee:
Chair: (If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee) Members:
Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number): ** **
Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.) Yes No How Long (weeks)
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
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder Use additional sheet if needed.
2
WORK STATEMENT#
Title:
Sponsoring TC/TG/MTG/SSPC:
Co-Sponsoring TC/TG/MTG/SSPCs (List only TC/TG/MTG/SSPCs that have voted formal support)
Executive Summary:
3
Applicability to the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
Application of Results:
State-of-the-Art (Background):
4
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
5
Objectives:
6
Scope/Technical Approach:
7
Scope/Technical Approach (Continued 2):
8
Scope/Technical Approach (Continued 3):
9
Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published:
10
Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published (Continued):
Level of Effort:
11
Proposal Evaluation Criteria:
No.
Proposal Review Criterion
Weighting
Factor
Project Milestones:
No.
Major Project Completion Milestone
Deadline
Month
Authors:
12
References:
13
Other Information for Bidders (Optional):
14
Feedback to RAC and Suggested Improvements to Work Statement Process
Now that you have completed the work statement process, RAC is interested in getting your
feedback and suggestions here on how we can improve the process.
Final November 13, 2015
1
WORK STATEMENT #1773 SPONSORING TC/TG/MTG/SSPC: TC 3.1 - Refrigerants and Secondary Coolants
Title: Ignition Potential from Electrical Devices in Commercial and Residential Applications using 2L Refrigerants Executive Summary: This work statement aims at understanding the potential for mildly flammable refrigerants to be ignited. There is very limited data on minimum ignition energy (MIE) of 2L refrigerants and large uncertainties. More research is needed to understand the intrinsically safe limits such as voltage/current thresholds for resistive circuits (or capacitance/voltage thresholds for circuits with capacitive loads) for which ignition of a particular refrigerant would be improbable. These intrinsically safe limits have been established for hydrocarbons and are required for safely using flammable refrigerants in HVAC applications. Applicability to the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan: The goal is to conduct controlled MIE studies that focus on untested refrigerants or data with large uncertainties paying attention to important parameters such as electrode size, gap, spark duration and moisture level. Conduct controlled laboratory-scale ignition studies with arcing electrical components and report important electrical characteristics needed to determine intrinsic safety limits for 2L refrigerants. Develop new intrinsic safety guidelines for use with 2L refrigerants. 2010-2015 ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan Goal 8: “Facilitate use of natural and low global warming potential (GWP) synthetic refrigerants and seek methods to reduce refrigerant charge” Technical challenge #8: Determination of risks associated with naturally occurring and low GWP synthetic refrigerants that have properties that make them “less safe” than the current refrigerants. What changes in equipment will need to be made? What changes will need to be made in codes and standards to allow safe usage of these refrigerants”? Application of Results: ASHRAE SSPC 34, “Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants” ASHRAE SSPC 15, “Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems” IEC 60335-2-40, “Household and similar electrical appliances-Safety” ISO 5149, “Refrigerating systems and heat pumps- Safety and environmental requirements” EN-378, "Refrigerating systems and heat pumps - Safety and environmental requirements" UL 1995, “Standard of Safety for Heating and Cooling Equipment” State-of-the-Art (Background): Compared to hydrocarbons, information on the minimum ignition energy (MIE) for flammable hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) is quite limited. Even when the MIE has been measured, the reported uncertainties are quite large in many cases [1,2]. For 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, for example, the reported MIE ranges from 5 to 10 J [1]. And Minor et [1] have shown that vessel size can affect MIE results as larger vessels can reduce wall quenching effects. They achieved more accurate data when increasing the vessel size of the ASTM E582 test from a 1 liter to 12 liter flask. In other cases, Kataoka [3] has shown that the MIE is highly sensitive to system parameters such as electrode diameter and spacing. For example, the MIE for R32 has been shown to decrease to less than 30mJ with decreasing electrode diameter [3]. For unsaturated HFC's where the hydrogen-to-fluorine ratio is less than one, humidity has been shown to enhance both the laminar flame speed and flammability
Final November 13, 2015
2
limits [4], however, the effect on MIE has not been quantified. In addition, other effects such as spark duration [5], which are important for hydrocarbons, have not been explored for HFC's. Finally, well-characterized spark ignition studies using practical devices (contactors, relays, motors, etc.) are needed, and presently do not exist or are limited [6] for flammable 2L refrigerants. Such studies for hydrocarbons have allowed for parameter guidelines to be generated to ensure intrinsic safety [7,8]. Different electrical apparatuses can generate electrical sparks that may cause ignition, so careful standardization (for example, through the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)) has been required for electrical apparatuses intended for use in flammable atmospheres. For resistive-type circuits, these standards place limits on voltage and current draw, whereas similar limits based on circuit parameters (max inductance, capacitance/voltage) have been formulated for capacitive or inductive electrical components. These ignition limit maps are required to determine which HVAC components may pose a high risk for ignition and therefore require mitigation measures such as isolation, containment or ventilation. Advancement to the State-of-the-Art: There are very limited studies that report the minimum ignition energy (MIE) or evaluate the ignition potential from electrical components with 2L refrigerants. Existing studies are plagued by large uncertainties or fail to report sensitive parameters such as electrode spacing and spark duration. Existing MIE studies have used ASTM E582 which utilizes capacitive sparks of relatively short duration. For unsaturated hydrofluorocarbons with a H-to-F ratio less than one, the effects of moisture (humidity) on MIE have not been quantified. Also, practical ignition studies have not been undertaken with electrical components to determine intrinsically safe limits such as voltage/current thresholds for resistive circuits (or capacitance/voltage thresholds for circuits with capacitive loads) for which ignition of a particular refrigerant would be improbable. These intrinsically safe limits have been established for hydrocarbons and are required for safely using flammable refrigerants in HVAC applications. Justification and Value to ASHRAE: The outcome of this research is to establish MIE and intrinsically safe limits for 2L refrigerants. This information will provide supporting data for the ASHRAE refrigerant and system safety standards. The experimental results and recommendations will result in previously unavailable guidelines for establishing intrinsic safety of electrical components used with 2L refrigerants. These ignition data will improve product safety by providing designers with a means of identifying problematic components that require further mitigation (e.g. containment, isolation, ventilation). High fidelity MIE studies are needed to reduce uncertainty and understand important sensitivities to greatly enhance product safety. This project will reinforce the value of ASHRAE safety guidelines being established for flammable 2L refrigerants by providing designers with needed data to insure safe product operation. This research would support Goal 8 of the 2010-2015 ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan which specifies conducting tests on practical equipment as well as developing basic data to support risk assessments. Objectives: The following objectives of this project are: Objective 1- Literature Review: Perform a literature review of existing ignition testing data for mildly flammable (2L) refrigerants. This review should include both fundamental and practical studies. Fundamental studies should include determinations of the minimum ignition energy (MIE) and report all important known test conditions such as vessel size,
Final November 13, 2015
3
spark duration and electrode size. Practical testing would include testing with electrical components (relays, contactors, inductive motors, electrostatic air cleaners, etc.) and report all important electrical characteristics and configurations. Objective 2- MIE Assessment: Conduct controlled MIE studies that focus on untested natural and synthetic refrigerants or data with large uncertainties (HFO’s, HFO blends, R717). These experiments should document sensitivity to important parameters such as vessel size, electrode size, gap, spark duration, and moisture level, if relevant. Objective 3- Electrical Component Testing: Conduct controlled laboratory-scale ignition studies with arcing electrical components, including both resistive and inductive/capacitive circuits (relays, contactors). These tests should report important electrical characteristics such as maximum voltage, current, etc. as needed to determine intrinsic safety limits for 2L refrigerants. Select refrigerants specified in Objective 2. Objective 4- Guidelines: Develop new intrinsic safety guidelines for use with 2L refrigerants. Scope/Technical Approach: Task A - Literature Review: The bidder will perform a literature review of existing ignition testing data for mildly flammable (2L) refrigerants. This review should include:
1. Fundamental studies which includes determinations of the minimum ignition energy (MIE) and report all important known test conditions such as spark duration and electrode size.
2. Practical testing would include testing of electrical components (relays, contactors, inductive motors, electrostatic air cleaners, etc.) and report all important electrical characteristics and configuration.
Task B - MIE Assessment: Conduct MIE and ignition studies for representative refrigerants covering the full 2L burning velocity range up to 10 cm/sec. R1234yf (~1.5cm/sec), R1234yf/R32 blend (3-4cm/sec), R32 (6.7cm/sec), R717 (7.2cm/sec), HC/R1234yf blend (9-10cm/sec), which have laminar flame speeds both higher and lower than 5 cm/s. The MIE experiments should document sensitivity and variation to important parameters- vessel size, electrode size, electrode gap, and spark duration. ASTM E582, “Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy and Quenching Distance in Gaseous Mixtures can be used as a guide for establishing the testing parameters. Not knowing what the potential contractors have for testing apparatus, the PMS will decide parameters after review of the proposals (Desirable for vessel sizes > 1 liter). For unsaturated HFCs (R1234yf) with H/F<1, the sensitivity to 3 different moisture levels (dry, 50% and 100% RH @ 23C) should be quantified. To avoid condensation the apparatus and lines will need to be heated to at least 30°C. Task C- Electrical Component Testing: Conduct laboratory-scale ignition studies with arcing electrical components, including both resistive and inductive/capacitive circuits. These tests should report important electrical characteristics such as maximum voltage, current, power, energy, etc. In addition test should report mechanical characteristics such as electrode maximum gap, diameter, temperature, number of repeats, time between arcs, etc.
Final November 13, 2015
4
to determine intrinsic safety limits for 2L refrigerants. Ignition sources for consideration to be tested will include relays, contactors 5-90A, switching horsepower, terminal pins, power switches, etc. The PMS will work with the selected contractor to finalize the exact components to be tested. Estimating 6-10 components to be tested. Task D- Guidelines: Analyze the test results and develop new intrinsic safety guidelines for use with the tested 2L refrigerants. Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published: Progress, Financial and Final Reports, Research or 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 10, and October 1 of the contract period.
Furthermore, the Institution’s Principal Investigator, subject to the Society’s 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 Society’s 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 Society’s 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:
- An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the
public. - One Bound Copy - Two copies on CD-ROM; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word.
c. Science & Technology for the Built Environment or ASHRAE Transactions Technical Papers
or ASHRAE Transactions 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 publication. Papers specified as deliverables should be submitted as either Research Papers for HVAC&R Research or Technical Paper(s) for ASHRAE Transactions. Research papers contain generalized results of long-term archival value, whereas technical papers are appropriate for applied research of shorter-term value, ASHRAE Conference papers are not acceptable as deliverables from ASHRAE research projects. The paper(s) shall conform
Final November 13, 2015
5
to the instructions posted in “Manuscript Central” for an ASHRAE Transactions Technical or HVAC&R Research paper. The paper title shall contain the research project number at the end of the title in parentheses, e.g., (1773-RP).
Note: A research or technical paper describing the research project must be submitted after the TC has approved the Final Report. Research or technical papers may also be prepared before the project’s completion, if it is desired to disseminate interim results of the project. Contractor shall submit any interim papers to MORTS and the PMS for review and approval before the papers are submitted to ASHRAE Manuscript Central for review.
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 Society’s 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 Society’s 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. Level of Effort:
The project anticipates 6 professional-months for the principal investigator and 12 professional-months for a research technician. The estimated cost is $150,000 and the project is expected to take 18 months.)
Other Information for Bidders (Optional): The projected milestones for this project are summarized below:
Payment# Month Deliverable/Milestone Payment Amount
% of Contract Plain
1 2 Literature Review $15K 10% 2 2 Apparatus testing verification $20K 13% 3 5 MIE Assessment $40K 27% 4 6 Component Testing $40K 27% 5 3 Final Report/Safety Guidelines $35K 23%
Final November 13, 2015
6
Proposal Evaluation Criteria: Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. Contractor's understanding of Work Statement as revealed in proposal. 15% a) Logistical problems associated b) Technical problems associated 2. Quality of methodology proposed for conducting research. 25% a) Organization of project b) Management plan 3. Contractor's capability in terms of facilities. 15% a) Managerial support b) Data collection c) Technical expertise 4. Qualifications of personnel for this project. 20% 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 5. Student involvement 5% a) Extent of student participation on contractor's team b) Likelihood that involvement in project will encourage entry
into HVAC&R industry 6. Probability of contractor's research plan meeting the objectives of the Work Statement. 15% a) Detailed and logical work plan with major tasks and key milestones b) All technical and logistic factors considered c) Reasonableness of project schedule 7. Performance of contractor on prior ASHRAE or other projects. 5%
(No penalty for new contractors.) 8. Other _________________________
References: [1] Minor, B., D. Herrmann and R. Gravell. 2009. Flammability Characteristics of HFO-1234yf. Process Safety Progress, Vol 9, No.2, pp 150-154. [2] Lewandowski, T.A. 2012. Risk Assessment of Residential Heat Pump Systems using 2L Flammable Refrigerants. ASHRAE, AHRI Project 8004 Final Report, Aug. 27, 2012. [3] Kataoka, O. 2013. Flammability of 2L Class Refrigerants. IEC SC16D WG 9 Doc. 2013-073, JRAIA, Jan. 16, 2013. [4] Kondo, S., Takizawa, K., and Tokuhashi, K. 2012. Effects of temperature and humidity on the flammability limits of several 2L refrigerants. JFC, Vol. 144. [5] Lee and Shepherd, J. 2000. Spark Ignition Measurements in Jet A: Part II, NTSB12-98-CB-0413, Jan 22, 2000. [6] Goetzler, W., Bendixen, L., Bartholomew, P., Risk Assessment of HFC-32 and HFC-32/134a (30/70 wt. %) in Split System Residential Heat Pumps, Arthur Little, Inc., Final report, The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Technology Inst., ARTI MCLR Project no. 665-52402, April (1998). [7] IEC (1999). Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres — Part 11: Intrinsic safety “i”, International standard IEC 60079- 11. International Electrotechnical Commission, Central Office, rue de Varembe, Geneva, Switzerland.
Final November 13, 2015
7
[8] CENELEC (2000). Electrical apparatus for potentially explosive atmospheres — Intrinsic safety “i”. European Standard EN 50020, CENELEC, Central Secretariat, rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. [9] “Combustion, Flames and Explosions of gases” 3nd ed, Lewis and Elbe (1987) pg.333-361 [10] “Minimum Ignition energy and quenching Distance in Gaseous Mixtures” Litchfield, Hay, Kubala and Monroe, Bureau of Mines report 7009 [11] “On flame kernel formation and propagation in premixed gases” Eisizadeh-Far, Parsinejad, Metghalchi, Keck, Combustion and Flame 157 (2010) 2211-2221 [12] NEDO Research Project on risk assessment of 2L refrigerants (http://www.jsrae.or.jp/jsrae/committee/binensei/risk_e.html) Authors: Warren Clough, Building & Industrial Systems, Carrier Barbara Minor, Chemours Marc Scancarello, Emerson Eric Smith, IIAR Bob Richard, Honeywell Kenji Takizawa, AIST
1
WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET—BALLOT RESULTS WORK STATEMENT #1773 SPONSORING TC/TG/MTG/SSPC: TC 3.1 - Refrigerants and Secondary Coolants
Title: Ignition Potential from Electrical Devices in Commercial and Residential Applications using 2L Refrigerants Authors: Warren Clough, Building & Industrial Systems, Carrier Barbara Minor, Chemours Marc Scancarello, Emerson Eric Smith, IIAR Bob Richard, Honeywell Kenji Takizawa, AIST Ballot Results (letter ballot, concluded December 9, 2015): for 9 against 1 abstain 0 not returned 0 total voting members 10 comments from member voting against:
I believe AHRI is working on a similar objective more recently with the formation of a flammability subcommittee. I believe this is being coordinated together but not sure. I believe that recently there has been a change of understanding that MIE is not the best measurement, but to MIC Minimum Ignition Current. Work statement should consider these comments to use MIC instead. Also there is a curve already developed by IEC 2-40 that is proposed to be used in this situation but uses burning velocity as a function of KVA. See below
For A2L refrigerants, switching devices in compliance with all of the following are not considered as ignition source for A2L refrigerants;
─the device is capable of 100,000 cycles per Clause 24;
─the switched electrical load (Le) in kVA is less than or equal to:
o Le = 5 x (6.7/Su)4 when breaking all phases;
o Le = 2.5 x (6.7/Su)4 when breaking two legs of a three phase load, or when breaking one or two legs of a single phase load.
Not sure this RTAR takes this work into account? Maybe this work should validate these relationships? Also we don’t need to test ammonia in these situation since ammonia has been well studied and applied today in applications and is controlled by toxicity in
2
applications and not flammability. Controls are many orders of magnitude lower than ammonia LFL. Maybe this work should be qualify the above equations with and without humidity or some other parameter.
Also I was told by that there has been a study in the 90’s looking at electrical contractors with some 2L refrigerants already. Might need to reference that study. I am not sure of the reference.
I think we need better MIE data for 2L’s, but I am not sure what research we need? A better testing method maybe should be the objective of this work and should be modeled after the work underway for ASTM E681 variation study with development of a standard method for determining either MIE or MIC for 2L refrigerants?
[Type text]
1791 Tullie Circle NE • Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 • Tel 678.539.1211 • Fax 678.539.2211 • http://www.ashrae.org
Michael R. Vaughn, P.E. Manager Research & Technical Services
TO: Mark McLinden, Chair TC 3.1, [email protected] Stephen Kujak, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 3.1, [email protected]
CC: Mark Spatz, Research Liaison Section 3.0, [email protected] FROM: Michael Vaughn, MORTS, [email protected] DATE: July 29, 2015 SUBJECT: Research Topic Acceptance Request (1773-RTAR), “Ignition Potential from Electrical
Devices in Commercial and Residential Applications using 2L Refrigerants” At their annual meeting, 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 (WS). An RTAR evaluation sheet is attached as additional information and it provides a breakdown of comments and questions from individual RAC members based on a specific review criteria used for review. This should give you an idea of how your RTAR is being interpreted and understood by others. Some of these comments may indicate areas of the RTAR and subsequent WS where readers require additional information or rewording for clarification. Please review the RAC feedback on this RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison (Mark Spatz – [email protected] or [email protected]) and try to incorporate the key feedback points into the work statement prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for further consideration by RAC. In addition, a separate document providing a point-by-point response to each of these comments and questions must be submitted with the work statement. The response to each item should explain how the work statement has been revised to address the comment, or a justification for why the Technical Committee feels a revision is unnecessary or inappropriate. The work statement and response to these comments and questions must be approved by the Research Liaison prior to submitting it to RAC. The first draft of the work statement should be submitted to RAC no later than May 15, 2017 or it will be dropped from display on the Society’s Research Implementation Plan. The next likely submission deadline for work statements is December 15, 2015 for consideration at RAC’s 2016 winter meeting. The submission deadline after that for work statements is May 15, 2016 for consideration at the RAC’s 2016 Annual meeting.
Project ID
Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost / Duration
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology TransferRAC 2015 Annual Meeting Review
Essential Criteria Voted NO Comments & SuggestionsBackground: The RTAR should describe current state of the art with some level of literature review that documents the importance/magnitude of a problem. References should be provided. If not, then note it in your comments.
Research Need: Based on the background provided is the need for additional research clearly identified? If not, then the RTAR should be rejected.
Relevance and Benefits to ASHRAE:Evaluate whether relevance and benefits are clearly explained in terms of: a. Leading to innovations in the field of HVAC & Refrigeration b. Valuable addition to the missing information which will lead to new design guidelines and valuable modifications to handbooks and standards.Is this research topic appropriate for ASHRAE funding? If not, Reject.
Other Criteria Voted NO Comments & SuggestionsProject Objectives: Based on the background and need, evaluate whether the project objectives are:1. Aligned with the need2. Specific3. Clear without ambiguity4. AchievableIf not, then appropriate feedback should be provided.
Expected Approach and Budget: Is there an adequate description of the approach in order for RAC to be able to evaluate the appropriateness of the budget? If not, then the RTAR should be returned for revision.Anticipated funding level and duration:
References: Are the references provided?
Decision Options
Initial Decision? Final Approval Conditions
ACCEPT AS-IS
ACCEPT W/COMMENTS
REJECT
ACCEPT Vote - Topic is ready for development into a work statement (WS). ACCEPT W/COMMENTS Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve RTAR for development into WS without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s) REJECT Vote - Topic is not acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program
IF ABOVE THREE CRITERION ARE NOT ALL SATISFIED - MARK "REJECT" BELOW & CONTINUE REVIEW BELOW
#9 - RTAR is well written. Would recommend that the TC moves to writing WS. #7 - Authors are encouraged to strongly pursue co-funding with AHRI. #4- this work must be done; my only question is who should fund what fraction of the work. My sense is that completion of this work is one of the criteria required for EPA "SNAP" approval for 2L refrigerants in HVAC equipment that uses refrigerant-to-air HX. SNAP approval is required for legal sales in the US, so it is critical path for the phase-out of HFCs and their replacement with 2L low GWP alternatives. On the other hand, the responsibility for this work likes principally with the refrigerant manufacturers and their OEM customrs; it's not clear how much ASHRAE funds need to be involved. Or, even the extent to which ASHRAE credibility is essential for the SNAP process. To illustrate by example, I think ASHRAE has much more 'skin in the game' for studies of the potential efficiency and economic impact of A2L refrigerant in equipment classes than more basic studies (as suggested here) of minimum ignition energy. Of course, MIE is a key element in terms of selection (and design) of components such as contactors, but it is well down-stream.
1773
Ignition Potential from Electrical Devices in Commercial and Residential Applications using 2L Refrigerants
TC 3.1 (Refrigerants and Secondary Coolants)
$150k / 18M
1st Submission
Basic/Applied Research
Research Topic Acceptance Request Cover Sheet Date: (Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement ) A. Title Title: B. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan C. Application of the Results D. State-of-the-Art (background) E. Advancement to State-of-the-Art F. Justification and Value to ASHRAE RTAR# G. Objective (To be assigned by MORTS)
H. Estimated Duration I. References Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters, Special Publications, etc.: Responsible TC/TG:
Date of Vote: For Co-sponsoring TC/TG/MTG/SSPCs (give vote and date): Against *
Abstaining *
Absent or not returning Ballot *
Total Voting Members RTAR Lead Author: Expected Work Statement Lead Author:
Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information): Research Classification:
Basic/Applied Research
Advanced Concepts
Technology Transfer
Yes No Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS? Has the Research Liaison reviewed the RTAR? * Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions
DRAFT RTAR Template
Title: _________________________________________________________
Summary
Background
Provide the state of the art with key references (at the end of this document) substantiating it (300 words maximum)
Describe in summary form the proposed research topic, including what is proposed, why this research is important, how it will be conducted, and why ASHRAE should fund it (50 words maximum)
Research Need
250 words
Project Objectives
Use the state of the art described above as a basis to specify the need for the proposed effort (250 words maximum)
Based on the identified research need(s), specify the objectives of the solicited effort that will address all or part of these needs (150 words maximum)
Expected Approach
Relevance and Benefits to ASHRAE
Proposed Budget and Duration:
Describe in a manner that may be used for assessment of project viability, cost, and duration, the
approach that is expected to achieve the proposed objectives (200 words maximum).
Check all that apply: Lab testing ( ), Computations ( ), Surveys ( ), Field tests ( ), Analyses and modeling ( ), Validation efforts ( ), Other (specify) ( )
Describe why this effort is of specific interest to ASHRAE, its impact, and how it will benefit ASHRAE and the society. How does it align with ASHRAE Strategic Plans and Initiatives? How does it advance the state of the art in this area in general? Are there other stakeholders that should be approached to obtain relevant information or co-funding? (350 words maximum)
Anticipated Funding Level and Duration
References
List the key references cited in this RTAR
Funding Amount Range: $______
Duration in Months: ______
