Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study and multi-objective optimization of the use of volumetric expanders in a series double cascade-evaporator organic Rankine cycle

  • Published:
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The choice of refrigerant and expander is always one of the main concerns of researchers using organic Rankine cycles. The problem of using the organic Rankine cycle becomes more complicated when there are two waste heat sources with different temperatures in a system, such as exhaust gas and jacket water heat sources in an internal combustion engine. Hence, in this paper, a thermoeconomic program is developed using four types of volumetric expanders, including piston, screw, scroll and root, and eight different organic fluids in the series double cascade-evaporator organic Rankine cycle. The studied organic fluids were selected to cover a wide range of pressure levels in the series double cascade-evaporator organic Rankine cycle, including R245 FA, R123, n-pentane, acetone, n-heptane, benzene, n-octane and toluene. In the present study, 16 different pairs of expanders were examined for a cohort of 8 dissimilar fluids, resulting in an aggregate of 128 distinctive cases. In each of the 128 different cases, the important parameters, including power production, exergetic efficiency, total investment cost, net present value and levelized cost of electricity generation, are calculated. Also, the Pareto method is used to select the best organic fluid and expander pair. The results show the fluids with lower critical temperatures performed better due to the pressure ratio limit. The lowest cost of the expander compared to the total cost was 4.98%, related to the pair of root–scroll expanders, and the highest cost of 48.21% was related to the piston–screw expander pair. The lowest total investment cost was 377,478$ for the n-pentane and the piston–scroll expander pair. The screw expander costs more than other expanders, especially when in the low-pressure cycle. According to the optimization results, the optimal pair of expanders for the series double cascade-evaporator organic Rankine cycle system is scroll–scroll with n-pentane as the working fluid. Additionally, the exergetic efficiency, payback period and total investment cost values in this case are 0.3945, 4.089 years and 385,786$, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

\(C\) :

Cost ($)

\(d\) :

Diameter (mm)

\({\dot{\text{E}}\text{x}}\) :

Exergy rate (kW)

\(f\) :

Friction factor

\(F\) :

Correction factor

\(h\) :

Specific enthalpy (kJ kg−1)

\(\dot{I}\) :

Irreversible loss (kW)

\(k\) :

Thermal conductivity (W m−1·K−1)

\(L\) :

Length of the tube (m)

\(\dot{m}\) :

Mass flow rate (kg s−1)

\({\text{Nu}}\) :

Nusselt number

\(\Pr\) :

Prandtl number

\(\dot{Q}\) :

Heat rate (kW)

\({\text{Re}}\) :

Reynolds number

\(\dot{s}\) :

Entropy (kJ kg−1·K−1)

\(U\) :

Total heat transfer coefficient (W m−2·K−1)

\(v\) :

Velocity (m s2−1)

\(\dot{W}\) :

Power (kW)

c :

Cold side

cond :

Condenser

Cr :

Critical

d :

Destruction

e :

Output

Eva :

Evaporator

ex :

Exergy

exh :

Exhaust heat source

exp :

Expander

FIX:

Fixed manufacturing costs

gen :

Generation

h :

Hot side

i :

Input

in :

Inlet

is :

Isentropic

jw :

Jacket water heat source

net :

Net

out :

Outlet

p :

Pump

PI:

Property taxes and liability insurance

s :

Shell side

t :

Tube side

th:

Thermal

\({\text{w}}\) :

Water

0:

Dead state

COM:

Cost of manufacture

DMS:

Direct manufacturing costs

DRORC:

Double-stage regenerative organic Rankine cycle

DORC:

Dual-loop organic Rankine cycle

EEDI:

Energy efficiency design index

GE:

General expenses

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

GWP:

Global warming potential

HX:

Heat exchanger

ICE:

Internal combustion engine

LCOE:

Levelized cost of electricity

MO:

Maintenance overhead

MS:

Materials and services

NPV:

Net present value

ODP:

Ozone depletion potential

ORC:

Organic Rankine cycle

PBP:

Payback period (year)

PDORC:

Parallel two-stage organic Rankine cycle

ROI:

Return on investment

RORC:

Regenerative organic Rankine cycle

SB:

Salaries and benefits

SIC:

Specific investment cost ($ kW−1)

SORC:

Solar organic Rankine cycle

SDCORC:

Series double cascade-evaporator organic Rankine cycle

STORC:

Series two-stage organic Rankine cycle

TIC:

Total investment cost ($)

TPC:

Total production cost

TSORC:

Two-stage organic Rankine cycle

WB:

Wages and benefits

WHRS:

Waste heat recovery system

\(\eta\) :

Efficiency (%)

\(\lambda\) :

Convective coefficient

\(\mu\) :

Dynamic viscosity (Pa.s)

References

  1. Capuano L. International energy outlook 2018 (IEO2018), vol. 2018. Washington: US Energy Information Administration (EIA); 2018. p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Khodadadi F, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Lakzian E. Parametric analysis of combined power and freshwater producing system for natural gas engine heat recovery. Energy Convers Manag. 2020;225: 113464.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Rezapour M, Farahnak M. Modeling of a novel nanofluid-based concentrated photovoltaic thermal system coupled with a heat pump cycle (CPVT-HP). Appl Therm Eng. 2022;201: 117765.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Maddah S, Goodarzi M. Investigation of the effect of using various HFC refrigerants in geothermal heat pump with residential heating applications. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2020;141:361–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Dadpour D, Khadem J. Using the potential of energy losses in gas pressure reduction stations for producing power and fresh water. Desalination. 2021;497: 114763.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Asadi M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Alavi S. Emergy and eco-exergy analysis of different scenarios in waste heat recovery applications for electricity and fresh water generation. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2022;147:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Catapano F, et al. Development and experimental testing of an integrated prototype based on stirling, ORC and a latent thermal energy storage system for waste heat recovery in naval application. Appl Energy. 2022;311: 118673.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zhai H, Shi L, An Q. Influence of working fluid properties on system performance and screen evaluation indicators for geothermal ORC (organic Rankine cycle) system. Energy. 2014;74:2–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rodríguez CEC, et al. Exergetic and economic comparison of ORC and Kalina cycle for low temperature enhanced geothermal system in Brazil. Appl Therm Eng. 2013;52(1):109–19.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sui H, Wu J, He L, Li X. Conversion of low-grade heat from FCC absorption-stabilization system to electricity by organic Rankine cycles: simulation and optimization. J Eng Thermophys. 2017;26(2):216–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gao H, Liu C, He C, Xu X, Wu S, Li Y. Performance analysis and working fluid selection of a supercritical organic Rankine cycle for low grade waste heat recovery. Energies. 2012;5(9):3233–47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang M-H, Yeh R-H. Economic performances optimization of an organic Rankine cycle system with lower global warming potential working fluids in geothermal application. Renew Energy. 2016;85:1201–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang M-H, Yeh R-H. Thermodynamic and economic performances optimization of an organic Rankine cycle system utilizing exhaust gas of a large marine diesel engine. Appl Energy. 2015;149:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang X, et al. Multi-objective optimisation and fast decision-making method for working fluid selection in organic Rankine cycle with low-temperature waste heat source in industry. Energy Convers Manag. 2018;172:200–11.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Feng Y, Hung T, Zhang Y, Li B, Yang J, Shi Y. Performance comparison of low-grade ORCs (organic Rankine cycles) using R245fa, pentane and their mixtures based on the thermoeconomic multi-objective optimization and decision makings. Energy. 2015;93:2018–29.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yang F, Zhang H, Song S, Bei C, Wang H, Wang E. Thermoeconomic multi-objective optimization of an organic Rankine cycle for exhaust waste heat recovery of a diesel engine. Energy. 2015;93:2208–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Özahi E, Tozlu A, Abuşoğlu A. Thermoeconomic multi-objective optimization of an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) adapted to an existing solid waste power plant. Energy Convers Manag. 2018;168:308–19.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Asadi M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Amiri-Rad E. Comparing the profitability of waste heat electricity generation of internal combustion engines: an exergoeconomic analysis through optimization of two different organic Rankine cycle scenarios. Appl Therm Eng. 2022;211:118443.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mago PJ, Chamra LM, Srinivasan K, Somayaji C. An examination of regenerative organic Rankine cycles using dry fluids. Appl Therm Eng. 2008;28(8–9):998–1007.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pei G, Li J, Ji J. Analysis of low temperature solar thermal electric generation using regenerative organic Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng. 2010;30(8–9):998–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Xi H, Li M-J, Xu C, He Y-L. Parametric optimization of regenerative organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery using genetic algorithm. Energy. 2013;58:473–82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Li T, Zhu J, Hu K, Kang Z, Zhang W. Implementation of PDORC (parallel double-evaporator organic Rankine cycle) to enhance power output in oilfield. Energy. 2014;68:680–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roy JP, Misra A. Parametric optimization and performance analysis of a regenerative organic Rankine cycle using R-123 for waste heat recovery. Energy. 2012;39(1):227–35.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Karimi S, Mansouri S. A comparative profitability study of geothermal electricity production in developed and developing countries: exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of different ORC configurations. Renew Energy. 2018;115:600–19.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Franco A. Power production from a moderate temperature geothermal resource with regenerative organic Rankine cycles. Energy Sustain Dev. 2011;15(4):411–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang Z, Hu Y, Xia X, Zuo Q, Zhao B, Li Z. Thermo-economic selection criteria of working fluid used in dual-loop ORC for engine waste heat recovery by multi-objective optimization. Energy. 2020;197: 117053.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang SK, Hung TC. Renewable energy from the sea-organic Rankine cycle using ocean thermal energy conversion. In: Proceedings of the international conference on energy and sustainable development: issues and strategies (ESD 2010). 2010. pp. 1–8.

  28. Shu G, Liu L, Tian H, Wei H, Liang Y. Analysis of regenerative dual-loop organic Rankine cycles (DORCs) used in engine waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manag. 2013;76:234–43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang F, et al. Performance analysis of waste heat recovery with a dual loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system for diesel engine under various operating conditions. Energy Convers Manag. 2014;80:243–55.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Li T, Zhang Z, Lu J, Yang J, Hu Y. Two-stage evaporation strategy to improve system performance for organic Rankine cycle. Appl Energy. 2015;150:323–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Imran M, Usman M, Park B-S, Lee D-H. Volumetric expanders for low grade heat and waste heat recovery applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;57:1090–109.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dumont O, Parthoens A, Dickes R, Lemort V. Experimental investigation and optimal performance assessment of four volumetric expanders (scroll, screw, piston and roots) tested in a small-scale organic Rankine cycle system. Energy. 2018;165:1119–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pantaleo AM, et al. Thermoeconomic optimisation of small-scale organic Rankine cycle systems based on screw vs. piston expander maps in waste heat recovery applications. Energy Convers Manag. 2019;200: 112053.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lemort V, Guillaume L, Legros A, Declaye S, Quoilin S. A comparison of piston, screw and scroll expanders for small scale Rankine cycle systems. 2013.

  35. Qiu G, Liu H, Riffat S. Expanders for micro-CHP systems with organic Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng. 2011;31(16):3301–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lemmon, E. Thermophysical properties of fluids, CRC, CRC, CO; 2009. Accessed 20 Aug 2023.

  37. Guillaume L. On the design of waste heat recovery organic Rankine cycle systems for engines of long-haul trucks. Liège: Université de Liège; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tayyeban E, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Gholizadeh M. Investigation of a new heat recovery system for simultaneously producing power, cooling and distillate water. Energy. 2021;229:120775.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Li T, Wang Q, Zhu J, Hu K, Fu W. Thermodynamic optimization of organic Rankine cycle using two-stage evaporation. Renew Energy. 2015;75:654–64.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Baccioli A, Antonelli M, Desideri U. Technical and economic analysis of organic flash regenerative cycles (OFRCs) for low temperature waste heat recovery. Appl Energy. 2017;199:69–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Tayyeban E. Multi objective optimization of using the surplus low pressure steam from natural gas refinery in the thermal desalination process. J Clean Prod. 2019;238: 117945.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shah RK, Sekulic DP. Fundamentals of heat exchanger design. Hoboken: Wiley; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bergman TL, Incropera FP, DeWitt DP, Lavine AS. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Barros JJC, Coira ML, de la Cruz López MP, del Caño Gochi A. Sustainability optimisation of shell and tube heat exchanger, using a new integrated methodology. J Clean Prod. 2018;200:552–67.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Caputo AC, Pelagagge PM, Salini P. Heat exchanger design based on economic optimisation. Appl Therm Eng. 2008;28(10):1151–9.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sinnott R. Chemical engineering design, vol. 6. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kern DQ. Process heat transfer. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Sulin A, Ryabova T, Sankina Y, Farahnak LM, Nazeri R. Energy, exergoeconomic and environmental optimization of a cascade refrigeration system using different low GWP refrigerants. J Environ Chem Eng. 2021;9:106473.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Kowsari S, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Karbasi K, Sheikhani H. Optimal working conditions of various city gate stations for power and hydrogen productio based on energy and eco-exergy analysis. Int J of Hydrogen Energy. 2020;45(43):22513–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA. Analysis, synthesis and design of chemical processes. London: Pearson Education; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bowman RA, Mueller AC, Nagle WM. Mean temperature difference in design. Trans ASME. 1940;62(4):283–94.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ghorbani S, Khoshgoftar-Manesh MH, Nourpour M, Blanco-Marigorta AM. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an integrated SOFC–GT–ORC hybrid system. Energy. 2020;206: 118151.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Norani M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic optimization of a proposed CCHP configuration under two different operating scenarios in a data center: case study. J Clean Prod. 2022;342: 130971.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kheiri A, Feidt M, Pelloux-Prayer S. Thermodynamic and economic optimizations of a waste heat to power plant driven by a subcritical ORC (organic Rankine cycle) using pure or zeotropic working fluid. Energy. 2014;78:622–38.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Seider WD, Seader JD, Lewin DR. Product and process design principles: synthesis, analysis and evaluation, (with CD). Hoboken: Wiley; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kost C, et al. Levelized cost of electricity renewable energy technologies. Fraunhofer Inst Sol Energy Syst ISE. 2013;144:1.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mainali B, Silveira S. Alternative pathways for providing access to electricity in developing countries. Renew energy. 2013;57:299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kiani-Moghaddam M, Shivaie M, Weinsier PD. Introduction to multi-objective optimization and decision-making analysis. In: Kiani-Moghaddam M, Shivaie M, Weinsier PD, editors. Modern music-inspired optimization algorithms for electric power systems. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 21–45.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kiani-Moghaddam M, Shivaie M, Weinsier PD. Introduction to multi-objective optimization and decision-making analysis. In: Kiani-Moghaddam M, Shivaie M, Weinsier PD, editors. Modern music-inspired optimization algorithms for electric power systems. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang X, Xu Z. Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst. 2014;29(12):1061–78.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications–two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(8):4126–48.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kiani-Moghaddam M, Shivaie M, Weinsier PD. Modern music-inspired optimization algorithms for electric power systems. Cham: Springer; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Saghlatoun S, Zhuge W, Zhang Y. Review of expander selection for small-scale organic Rankine cycle. In: Fluids engineering division summer meeting. vol. 46223; 2019, pp. V01BT10A041.

  64. Bao J, Zhao L. A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic Rankine cycle. Renew Sustain energy Rev. 2013;24:325–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Oudkerk J-F, Lemort V. Detailed experimental and model-based analysis of a swash-plate piston expander for ORC application. Front Energy Res. 2020;8:107.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Clemente S, Micheli D, Reini M, Taccani R. Energy efficiency analysis of organic Rankine cycles with scroll expanders for cogenerative applications. Appl Energy. 2012;97:792–801.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Krishna Avadhanula V, Lin C-S. Empirical models for a screw expander based on experimental data from organic Rankine cycle system testing. J Eng Gas Turbines Power. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bekiloğlu HE, Bedir H, Anlaş G. Multi-objective optimization of ORC parameters and selection of working fluid using preliminary radial inflow turbine design. Energy Convers Manag. 2019;183:833–47.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wang S, Liu C, Zhang S, Li Q, Huo E. Multi-objective optimization and fluid selection of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system based on economic-environmental-sustainable analysis. Energy Convers Manag. 2022;254: 115238.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Kosmadakis G, Manolakos D, Kyritsis S, Papadakis G. Economic assessment of a two-stage solar organic Rankine cycle for reverse osmosis desalination. Renew Energy. 2009;34(6):1579–86.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kosmadakis G, Manolakos D, Kyritsis S, Papadakis G. Simulation of an autonomous, two-stage solar organic Rankine cycle system for reverse osmosis desalination. Desalin Water Treat. 2009;1(1–3):114–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Namanlo SV. Potentiometric and economic analysis of using air and water-side economizers for data center cooling based on various weather conditions. Int J Refrig. 2019;99:213–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Computational Energy, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran

    Mostafa Asadi & Mahdi Deymi-Dashtebayaz

Authors
  1. Mostafa Asadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahdi Deymi-Dashtebayaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahdi Deymi-Dashtebayaz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asadi, M., Deymi-Dashtebayaz, M. Comparative study and multi-objective optimization of the use of volumetric expanders in a series double cascade-evaporator organic Rankine cycle. J Therm Anal Calorim 148, 11103–11130 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-023-12407-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-023-12407-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation