Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Performance analysis of a combined power and refrigeration cycle T

a,⁎ a a a a b,⁎
Yongning Bian , Junxiu Pan , Yang Liu , Fengge Zhang , Yunjie Yang , Hirofumi Arima
a
State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, Panjin 124000, China
b
Institute of Ocean Energy, Saga University, Japan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper a novel combined power and refrigeration cycle is proposed based on the ocean thermal energy
Combined power and refrigeration cycle conversion (OTEC) system, i.e. the Kalina cycle. In this combined cycle, solar energy is employed to raise the
OTEC heat source temperature. Cooling capacity is generated concurrently by the ejector refrigeration cycle (ERC)
Kalina cycle which works on the exhaust heat extracted from the turbine in the Kalina cycle. Ammonia-water and isobutane
Ejector refrigeration
are selected as the working fluid of Kalina cycle and ERC respectively. To evaluate the performance of the
proposed cycle, the process is simulated in the commercial package ASPEN PLUS. It is found that, compared with
the Kalina cycle, the proposed cycle has a higher primary energy ratio (PER) of 29.2% though it has a lower
power output. Besides, the exergy efficiency and the primary energy saving ratio (PESR) in the proposed cycle
reach as high as 41.88% and 8.3% respectively. It is also demonstrated that when the inlet pressure of the
turbine exceeds 2.9 MPa and the outlet pressure of the turbine is between 1.3 and 1.6 MPa in the test range, the
proposed cycle is better than the stand-alone systems from the energy saving perspective. Furthermore, para-
metric analysis shows that the inlet and outlet pressure of the turbine, the inlet temperature of the turbine, the
basic concentration of ammonia-water, the generation pressure, ejector entrainment ratio and the outlet tem-
perature of the condenser II have significant effects on the output of the turbine, refrigeration output, exergy
efficiency, COP, PER as well as PESR.

1. Introduction
In recent years, refrigeration technology plays a pivotal role in both
household and various industrial applications. Air conditioners have
been widely used in daily life to improve room comfort. In perishable
food industry, the cold storage to keep food fresh has drawn much at-
tention [1]. This is especially true for the coastal food industries, where
colder storage environment appears to be more demanding and sig-
nificant. In the past decade, sustainable ocean resources, such as tidal
energy, wave energy and thermal energy, have also attracted much
attention in many coastal cities worldwide. Therefore, if ocean energy
and coastal refrigeration can be combined together, multi-generation
could be achieved and at the same time the pollution emission might be
minimized.
It is well-known ocean covers more than 70% of the earth's total
areas. Ocean possesses vast amount of renewable energy such as
thermal energy, kinetic energy and biological energy. The ocean
thermal sources have the potential of 87600TWh/year, which is well
above the global 16,000 TWh/year electricity demand [2]. OTEC is the
normal power generation system, which takes the advantage of the
temperature difference between sea surface (20–30 °C) and deep-sea
(3–10 °C) [3]. Also the Rankine cycle is deemed to be the most efficient
method to make use of low-grade heat source [4]. However, the typical
thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle is only 3–5% which is primarily
limited by the finite temperature difference [5]. It is apparent that the
refrigeration cycle cannot be driven by the OTEC with such a low
temperature difference. To obtain a higher temperature from the sea-
water, some methods have been suggested in the literature. Faming Sun
[6] proposed a Rankine solar system which combined solar energy and
warm seawater together. Hakan Aydin et al. [7] analyzed OTEC system
assisted with the solar energy. Two methods were considered, i.e. the
solar energy was directly utilized to preheat the surface seawater and to
superheat the working fluid before entering the turbine. Their results
showed that for either method, the relative net power generation could
increase by 20–25%. U.Sahoo et al. [8] adopted solar and biomass re-
sources in the combined power, cooling and desalination system to
improve the overall performance of the system. Energy efficiency and
exergy efficiency of the system increase to 49.35% and 20.94% re-
spectively.
Regarding the working fluid, the inexpensive ammonia-water has
been extensively employed. The binary mixture reduces heat irrever-
sibility in the evaporator and condenser. This is because the binary

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: ybian@dlut.edu.cn (Y. Bian), arima@ioes.saga-u.ac.jp (H. Arima).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.01.072
Received 20 September 2018; Accepted 14 January 2019
Available online 16 February 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Bian, et al.
Nomenclature
EX exergy, kJ
h specific enthalpy, kJ∙kg−1
m mass flow rate, kg∙s−1
P pressure, MPa
Q heat exchange, kW
s entropy, kJ∙kg−1⋅K−1
T temperature, K
W power, kW
x solution concentration
V specific volume
Subscripts
I,II apparatus number
i = 1,2… state points
0 reference state
c condenser
ex exergy efficiency
g generator
in input
out output
m mechanical
mixture is capable of working under variable temperature evaporation.
Therefore the temperature difference between the binary mixture and
heating source can be lower [9–10]. Nevertheless, simply replacing the
water with ammonia-water mixture in a Rankine cycle might enlarge
the temperature variation in the condensation process [11]. Hence, the
cycle has been improved gradually in the past decades. In 1983, Kalina
cycle using ammonia-water as the working fluid was first proposed by
Kalina [12]. Since then, performances of the Kalina cycle have been
studied extensively. Mounir B. Ibrahim et al. [13] pointed out that the
multi-component (NH3-H2O) Kalina cycle is 10–20% more efficient
than a standard Rankine cycle under the same working condition.
Compared with the triple-pressure Kalina cycle, Zilong Zhu et al. [14]
argued the dual-pressure Kalina cycle is more suitable for low-tem-
perature heat source which can match well with the heat source. The
performance of the KCS-34 is found to be superior to all other forms of
Kalina cycles regardless of the working fluid employed as reported by
M.Fallah,S. et al. [15]. Leading from this, combined cycles, i.e. the
Kalina cycle cooperates with another cycle, are increasingly in-
vestigated. Jiangfeng Wang et al. [16] proposed a cycle which com-
bined the Kalina cycle and ammonia-water absorption refrigeration
cycle to produce both power and refrigeration where the low-grade
energy was used as the heat source. Candeniz Seckin [17] integrated the
Kalina cycle with an ejector refrigeration cycle and adopted low-grade
hot water as heat source. The ejector refrigeration used R134a as the
working fluid and it was driven by the ammonia-water from the se-
parator of the Kalina cycle. At the same time, the effect of different
working conditions on the cycle performance had also been examined.
Jouan Rashidi et al. [18] described a novel cycle which combined the
Kalina cycle and the ejector absorption refrigeration cycle together.
Comparing the proposed cycle to the standard Kalina power and re-
frigeration cycle, it was shown that under the same power output, the
refrigeration output and thermal efficiency of the proposed cycle has
improved by 13.5% and 17% respectively.
It is also noticed from the literature review that ejector has become
more and more popular among refrigeration cycles due to its simple
structure, fewer moving parts and better utilization of low-grade heat
[19]. TieJun Zhang et al. [20] proposed a power and ejector re-
frigeration cooling cycle using low-grade solar energy as heat source
(less than 150 °C). The research demonstrated the possibility of using
260
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270
p pump
ref refrigeration
s separate systems
th thermal
T turbine
W output of the turbine
Greek symbols
η efficiency
κ adiabatic exponent
μ entrainment ratio
Abbreviations
COP coefficient of performance
ERC ejector refrigeration cycle
HHE high-temperature heat exchanger
LHE low-temperature heat exchanger
OTEC ocean thermal energy conversion
PER primary energy ratio
PESR primary energy saving ratio
IHP indicated horsepower
BHP brake horsepower
abundant and low-cost hydrocarbon as a replacement of the existing
high global-warming-potential refrigerants as the working fluid. What
is more, Giorgio Besagni et al. [21] found that when an ejector is used
as the expansion device instead of the expansion valve, both of the
expansion irreversibility and the compression work will decrease and a
higher coefficient of performance (COP) can be achieved. JiaPeng Liu
et al. [22] discussed the relationship between the design parameters
and the performance of the ejector. They suggested the crossing area of
the throat and mixing chamber affects the entrainment ratio the most.
Moreover, it is known that similar to the structural design of the ejector,
the choice of working fluid in the ejector refrigeration system is also
vital for the refrigeration system. Xingyang Yang et al. [23] introduced
a novel combined power and refrigeration cycle using isobutane/pen-
tane as working fluid. Thermodynamic performance of the cycle has
been analyzed by adjusting the mass fraction of isobutane. They found
that the maximum exergy efficiency and thermal efficiency can be
achieved when the mass fraction of isobutane is 0.4 and 0.7 respec-
tively. Jianyong Chen et al. [24] tested nine refrigerants (R134a,
R152a, R290, R430, R245fa, R600, R600a, R1234ze and R436B). The
research indicated that R600a is the best due to its relatively high COP
and low environmental impacts. The ejector refrigeration cycle pro-
posed by J.A. Expósito Carrillo et al. [25] employed R134a, R1234yf
and R600a as refrigerants. Among all the test runs carried out, R600a
showed a slightly better performance despite the fact that no noticeable
difference is seen in the COP results for the three refrigerants used.
In this paper, a novel combined Kalina cycle based on OTEC and
refrigeration cooling cycle is proposed. The ammonia-water is selected
as the working fluid in the Kalina cycle while R600a is chosen as the
working fluid in the ejector refrigeration cycle. The refrigeration cycle
works on the exhaust heat extracted from the turbine in the Kalina
cycle. Therefore, the combined system can produce power and re-
frigeration simultaneously on the base of energy cascaded utilization.
Further, different parameters will be examined to check their influences
on the performance of the combined cycle. As a reminder of this paper,
Section 2 depicts the schematic of the proposed cycle. The simulation
module and methods are described in Section 3, followed by the model
accuracy in Section 4. In Section 5, simulation results and thermo-
dynamic analysis are presented. Finally, the summary of the major re-
sults of this investigation are presented in Section 6.
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

2. Cycle description 3
turbine
2 separator
Fig. 1 illustrates the schematic of the proposed cycle which is an 15
4
appropriate combination of the Kalina cycle and ejector refrigeration
cycle (ERC) and this cycle generates power and refrigeration simulta- generator II
neously by utilizing OTEC technology. It is apparent that the re-
frigeration cycle operates by absorbing the heat released by the exhaust generator I HHE mixer 22
5 6 7
gas from the turbine in the Kalina cycle. The schematics of the Kalina
cycle and the refrigeration cycle are displayed in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 re-
13 14 12 8
spectively.
warm 1 LHE
As can be seen in Fig. 2, the Kalina cycle consists of a generator, a seawater
separator, a turbine, a mixer, a condenser, a pump, and two heat ex- back flow
changers (a high-temperature heat exchanger, and a low- temperature 9
11
heat exchanger). In this cycle, ammonia-water is selected as the liquid phase
working fluid. The temperature difference between the surface (warm) gas phase pump I
liquid-gas mixed phase 10
seawater and the deep (cold) seawater is low, resulting in a low ther- condenser I cold
seawater
modynamic efficiency of OTEC system. To get a higher thermodynamic
efficiency, solar energy is adopted as an auxiliary heat source to in-
crease the temperature of warm seawater entering the generator I. Fig. 2. Schematic of the Kalina cycle.
In order to simplify the simulation process, the temperature of warm
seawater (state point 13) heated by solar energy is set as 395 K. The ejector
17
basic solution of ammonia-water (state point 1) absorbs heat released
from the warm seawater in generator I and it becomes wet vapor (state- 4
point 2), and flows into the separator. Subsequently, the wet vapor is 16 evaporator
15
sub-branched to the saturated vapor of the rich ammonia-water mixture generator II cold
(state point 3) which drives the turbine and the saturated liquid of the
22 21 condenser II
weak ammonia-water (state point 5). The rich ammonia-water enters to
the turbine and expands to state-point 4 to generate power. The satu- 7
valve
rated weak solution releases heat (state point 6) in the high-tempera-
ture heat exchanger before mixing with the exhaust vapor discharging 20 18 seawater
from generator II (state point 7) in the mixer. The wet vapor leaving the 19
mixer (state point 8) passes heat to the low-temperature heat exchanger pump II
(process 8–9) and the condenser I (process 9–10) respectively. The sa- liquid phase
turated ammonia-water at the exit of the condenser I is boosted (state gas phase
point 11) by the pump I. Besides, the basic concentration solution liquid-gas mixed phase
which is pumped to a high pressure is first heated by the low-tem- Fig. 3. Schematic of the refrigeration cycle.
perature heat exchanger (process 11–12) and then by the high-tem-
perature heat exchanger (process 12–1). Finally, the heated basic so-
The working fluid (state point 22) absorbs heat extracted from the
lution goes back to the generator I and the cycle is closed.
Kalina cycle in generator II and the saturated vapor (state point 15) is
The configuration of the ERC is depicted in Fig. 3. The ERC consists
generated in this process. The high pressure vapor enters the ejector as
of a generator, a condenser, an evaporator, an ejector, a pump as well as
the primary fluid and draws lower pressure superheated vapor (state
a valve. In this cycle, isobutane (R600a) is selected as the working fluid.

3
turbine ejector
2 separator 17

4 15 16 evaporator
generator II cold

22 21 condenser II
generator I HHE mixer 7
5 6 valve
18
13 14 20 seawater
8 19
warm 12
seawater 1 LHE pump II
back flow

liquid phase
11 9
gas phase
liquid-gas mixed phase
pump I
10
condenser I

cold seawater
Fig. 1. Schematic of the combined cycle.

261
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

point 16) coming from the evaporator. Further, the fluid (state point Likewise, for the low temperature heat exchanger we have:
17) enters the condenser II after leaving the ejector and it then con-
m8 (h8 − h9) = m11 (h12 − h11) (5)
denses from vapor to liquid by emitting its heat to the seawater. At the
exit of the condenser II, the flow (state point 18) is divided into two The heat exchange in the condenser I can then be calculated by:
sub-branches: one passes through the throttling valve (state point 20) QcI = m10 (h 9 − h10) (6)
before it goes to the evaporator (state point 21) producing cooling ca-
pacity. In the meanwhile another stream (state point 19) is pumped The heat exchange in the condenser II can be given as:
back to the generator II by the pump II and the refrigeration cycle is QcII = m18 (h17 − h18) (7)
completed.
For the generator II which combines Kalina cycle and refrigeration
cycle together, the heat driving the refrigeration cycle can be calculated
3. Thermodynamic modeling of systems
by the following equation:
3.1. System assumptions QgII = m4 (h4 − h7) = m15 (h15 − h22) (8)
The Heater module of the ASPEN PLUS is employed to simulate the
In this paper, to investigate the combined cycle under different
flow in the evaporator, where the total heat exchange through it can be
operational conditions, the model of the combined cycle is calculated
given as:
by the commercial package ASPEN PLUS V8.0. The state parameters of
ammonia-water and isobutane are available in ASPEN PLUS database, Qref = m16 (h16 − h21) (9)
and their thermodynamic properties are determined by Peng-Robinson
The turbine and pumps are simulated by the Compr module and
cubic equation. The various components of the cycle are modeled based
Pump module respectively. The isentropic efficiencies of them are ex-
on mass and energy balance and some assumptions are given as below:
pressed as:
(1) The pressure drop in pipes and heat losses in this cycle are ne- ηs = (h3 − h4 )/(h3 − h4s ) (10)
glected.
(2) The flow through the valve is isentropic. ηpI = (h11s − h10)/(h11 − h10 ) (11)
(3) The isentropic efficiency of the pumps is 98%, meanwhile the
ηpII = (h22s − h19)/(h22 − h19) (12)
isentropic and mechanical efficiency of the turbine are 87% and
96% respectively. And the mechanical efficiency of the turbine can be written as:
(4) The consumption of warm seawater pump and cold seawater pump
ηm = IHP / BHP (13)
is neglected.
(5) The temperature of hot water reaches 395 K after heated by solar The IHP represents the indicated horsepower, which can be calcu-
energy. lated by IHP = F∙ Δh, where F is the mass flow rate, Δh is the enthalpy
(6) The rich and weak ammonia-water streams at the outlet of the se- change per unit mass. BHP represents the brake horsepower.
parator are saturated. So for the turbine, the output of the turbine can be calculated by the
(7) Working fluids at the exit of the generators are at the saturated following equation:
vapor state. Moreover, working fluids at the exit of the condensers
WT = m3 (h3 − h4 ) (14)
are at the saturated liquid state.
(8) In the mixing chamber of the ejector, both the primary and sec- For the isentropic expansion process, the temperature, pressure,
ondary flows are mixed at a constant pressure. specific volume, mass fraction of the ammonia and specific enthalpy
(9) The ambient temperature and pressure are 298 K and 0.101 MPa can be correlated by:
respectively.
(PV )κ = constant (15)

3.2. Mathematical model h4 = f (T4, P4, x 4 ) (16)

h3 = f (T3, P3, x3) (17)

3.2.1. Energy analysis
Based on the first and second law of thermodynamics, the mathe- where κ represents the adiabatic exponent.
matical model of the proposed cycle is expressed as follows. The input power of the pump I and pump II can be expressed as
The mass balance equations in the cycle follows:
out
Δin ∑ mi = 0 WpI = m11 (h11 − h10) (18)
(1)

out
WpII = m19 (h22 − h19) (19)
Δin ∑ x i · mi = 0 (2)
As for the ejector, the flow through the ejector can be divided into
The two generators, the high and low temperature heat exchangers, three stages. First, the primary fluid enters the nozzle of the ejector and
and the two condensers are simulated by the HeatX module in ASPEN it expands immediately. In the meanwhile the second stream enters the
PLUS. Meanwhile, to simplify the simulation process, the calculation ejector from another entry of the ejector. Then the two streams mix in
model of heat exchangers is selected as shortcut which means that the the mixing chamber at a constant pressure. Last the mixed fluid passes
value of the convective heat transfer coefficient of the heat exchanger is through the ejector diffuser [26] causing a raise in the pressure. In this
constant. The energy balance equations are expressed as follows. paper, Compr module, Mixer module and Compr module are employed
The heat exchange in the generator I can be calculated according to to simulate the nozzle, mixer and diffuser respectively [27]. The en-
Eq. (3) trainment ratio μ μ is defined as the ratio of the mass flow rate of the
QgI = m1 (h2 − h1) = m13 (h13 − h14 ) (3) secondary fluid to that of the primary fluid.
μ = m16/ m15 (20)
For the high temperature heat exchanger, we can write:
The performance of the separate Kalina cycle is evaluated in terms
m5 (h5 − h6) = m1 (h1 − h12) (4)
of its thermal efficiency which can be defined as:

262
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

ηth = (WT − WpI )/ QgI (21) Table 1

Input data for the Kalina cycle.
The Coefficient Of Performance (COP) is usually used to evaluate
the performance of the refrigeration cycle which is defined as: Parameter Value

COP = Qref /(QgII + WpII ) (22) Inlet temperature of the warm seawater (K) 395
Mass flow rate of the warm seawater (kg∙s−1) 89
To evaluate the overall performance of the combined cycle, some Mass flow rate of ammonia-water mixture to generator (kg∙s−1) 16.8
key evaluation indicators are defined as follows: Inlet temperature of the turbine(K) 389
Inlet pressure of the turbine (MPa) 3.23
the exergy efficiency is given as: Outlet pressure of the turbine (MPa) 0.66
ηex = (EX , W + EX , ref )/ EX , in Basic solution concentration of ammonia-water 0.82
(23)
Inlet temperature of the cold seawater (K) 278
where EX,W represents the power exergy, EX,ref denotes the refrigeration Outlet temperature of the cold seawater (K) 280
Isentropic efficiency of the turbine ηs 87%
exergy and EX,in stands for the exergy of the heat source fluid [17]. They Mechanical efficiency ηm 96%
are defined as follows: Isentropic efficiency of the pump ηp 98%
Pressure losses in heat exchangers (MPa) 0.1
EX , W = Wnet = WT − WpI − WpII (24) Minimum temperature differences
Generator (K) 6
EX , ref = EX ,16 − EX ,21 = m16 [(h16 − h21) − T0 (s16 − s21)] (25) Heat exchangers (K) 5
Condenser (K) 3
EX , in = EX ,13 − EX ,14 = m13 [(h13 − h14 ) − T0 (s13 − s14 )] (26)
It is not quite proper to use the thermal efficiency here to measure a
Tr = T / Tc (36)
combined cycle [28] since it is usually used to evaluate a single ther-
modynamic cycle. However, analog to its definition, a primary energy The subscript i, j and c represent component i, j and critical state
ratio and a primary energy saving ratio are proposed in the current respectively. kij is binary interaction coefficient between the component
study. PER is defined as the total energy output to the heat input and it i and j in a mixture, whose value is set to zero in this study. mi is a
represents the energy utilization ratio as: constant characteristic of each substance and it could be correlated
against acentric factors ω, resulting in:
PER = (WT + Qref )/ QgI (27)
mi = 0.37464 + 1.54226ωi − 0.26992ωi2 (37)
Primary energy saving ratio (PESR) [29] is an indicator of the
combined cooling and power production system. It reflects the energy where ω is the acentric factor, calculated according to:
saved in the combined system compared with the energy consumption
of the referred separate systems from the energy saving perspective. It is ωi = −lg(Pi∗/ Pci ) − 1.0 (38)
defined as: where Pi∗
is the vapor pressure calculated at a reduced temperature
PESR = (Q′ − QgI )/ QgI (28) T = TC × 0.7.
'
where, Q’ Q is the primary energy consumption in conventional sepa-
4. Model validation
rate systems, i.e. Kalina cycle and a conventional compression chiller
system, under the same energy output as the combined system. Take the
The proposed cycle is simulated by ASPEN PLUS in this paper where
calculation of Q’ in the compression chiller (COP = 3) of the re-
the Kalina and ejector refrigeration cycle are established using the data
frigeration cycle for example. It can be calculated by:
reported in [31] and [32]. The detailed input data of the two cycles are
Q′ = (WT + Qref /3)/ ηth (29) listed in Table 1 and Table 3 respectively. The corresponding compar-
isons are shown separately in Table 2 and Table 4. It is clearly de-
monstrated that relative error between the present results and the data
3.2.2. Standard Peng-Robinson cubic equation of state in the cited articles is below 5% indicating the current model is accu-
During the simulation, the built-in PENG-ROB method of ASPEN rate.
PLUS is employed to calculate the thermodynamic properties of
working fluids. The standard Peng-Robinson cubic equation of state
5. Results and discussion
[30] is expressed by:
P = RT /(V − b) − a/[V (V + b) + b (V − b)] (30) In order to understand the thermodynamic performance of the
proposed combined cycle, the combined cycle is simulated under the
where R is the gas constant, a and b can be calculated as follows:
same input parameters as listed in Table 1 and Table 3. The thermo-
a= ∑ ∑ xi xj (ai aj)0.5 (1 − kij) dynamic parameters at each point and energy evaluation results are
i j (31) given in Table 5 and 6 respectively. It is interesting to note from Table 2
and Table 6 that the output of the turbine in the proposed cycle is
b= ∑ xi bi 1262 kW, and it is actually lower than that of the Kalina cycle under the
i (32) same input parameters. This is because the ejector refrigeration cycle
In the above Eqs. (31) and (32), the ai, bi are: operates by extracting the heat discharged from the turbine in the
combined cycle. Therefore with the increase of the discharge pressure,
ai = αi (T )·0.45724R2Tci2/ Pci (33) the output of the turbine declines accordingly. Nevertheless, both of the
thermal efficiency and primary energy ratio of the proposed cycle are
bi = 0.0778RTci/ Pci (34)
raised compared with the Kalina cycle. Moreover, it is worthy pointing
where the αi is given by: out that, compared with the stand-alone reference systems, the pro-
posed combined system features with energy saving characteristics
αi (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tr0.5)]2 (35)
since the PESR is found to be positive.
where x is the mole fraction of component, Tr is the reduced tem- The purpose of the proposed cycle is to improve the performance of
perature which is defined as: the system. The key parameters of the combined cycle have been

263
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

Table 2
Results of the Kalina cycle calculation.
State Temperature(K) Pressure(MPa) Mass fraction of ammonia Dryness Mass flow rate (kg∙s−1)

Present Ref.[31] Present Ref.[31] Present Ref.[31] Present Ref.[31] Present Ref.[31]

1 334.5 336 3.33 3.33 0.83 0.82 0 0 17 16.8

2 389 389 3.23 3.23 0.83 0.82 0.69 0.68 17 16.8
3 389 389 3.23 3.23 0.97 0.97 1 1 11.6 11.4
5 389 389 3.23 3.23 0.51 0.5 0 0 5.4 5.4
6 319.5 319 3.13 3.13 0.51 0.5 0 0 5.4 5.4
7 314.7 316 0.66 0.66 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.94 11.6 11.4
8 317.7 319 0.66 0.66 0.83 0.82 0.65 0.64 17 16.8
9 303.1 303 0.56 0.56 0.83 0.82 0.58 0.56 17 16.8
10 281 281 0.46 0.46 0.83 0.82 0 0 17 16.8
11 281.3 281 3.63 3.53 0.83 0.82 0 0 17 16.8
12 312.5 314 3.53 3.43 0.83 0.82 0 0 17 16.8
Heat input(kW) Power output(kW) Thermal efficiency ηth PER
Present Present Ref.[31] error Present Present
16,245 2288 2195 4.6% 13.5% 14%

Table 3 Table 5
Input data for the ejector refrigeration cycle. Thermodynamic parameters of each point in the combined cycle.
Parameter Value State Temperature(K) Pressure Mass fraction Dryness Mass flow
(MPa) of ammonia rate (kg∙s−1)
Inlet pressure of condenser II PconⅡ (MPa) 0.3805
Inlet temperature of seawater (K) 293 1 333 3.33 0.83 0 17
Outlet temperature of seawater (K) 298 2 389 3.23 0.83 0.69 17
Outlet pressure of the evaporator (MPa) 0.21 3 389 3.23 0.97 1 11.6
Generation pressure P22 (MPa) 0.5428 4 341.4 1.4 0.97 0.96 11.6
Total mass flow rate (kg∙s−1) 52.5 5 389 3.23 0.51 0 5.4
Ejector mass entrainment 0.27 6 319.8 3.13 0.51 0 5.4
Isentropic efficiency of the pump ηpII 98% 7 305.8 0.66 0.97 0.95 11.6
Minimum temperature differences 8 312 0.66 0.83 0.65 17
Evaporator/Generator (K) 6 9 288.6 0.56 0.83 0.58 17
Condenser (K) 3 10 281 0.46 0.83 0 17
11 281.3 3.63 0.83 0 17
12 311 3.53 0.83 0 17
15 314.1 0.5428 — 1 41.3
Table 4
16 286 0.21 — 1 11.2
Results of the ERC calculation.
17 306.5 0.3805 — 1 52.5
State Temperature(K) Pressure(MPa) 18 301 0.3805 — 0 52.5
19 301 0.3805 — 0 41.3
Present Ref. [32] Present Ref. [32] 20 301.1 0.5428 — 0 11.2
21 281.8 0.21 — 0.13 11.2
15 314.1 314 0.5428 0.5428 22 301.1 0.5428 — 0 41.3
16 286 286 0.21 0.21
17 306.5 303 0.3805 0.2805
18 301 301 0.3805 0.3805 Table 6
19 301 301 0.3805 0.3805
Energy evaluation results in the combined
20 301.1 301.1 0.5428 0.5428
cycle.
21 281.8 281.7 0.21 0.21
22 301.1 301.1 0.5428 0.5428 Output Value

WT (kW) 1262
obtained and given in Table 6, such as the power output, thermal ef- WPI (kW) 67.86
WPII (kW) 14.64
ficiency, primary energy ratio and the primary energy saving ratio.
Qref (kW) 3497
Several vital variables are selected to examine their impacts on power EX,ref (kW) 202.5
generation capacity, cooling capacity, power exergy, refrigeration ex- EX,in (kW) 3300
ergy, exergy efficiency, primary energy ratio and primary energy saving PER 29.2%
ratio in this section. PESR 8.3%
COP 0.24
Fig. 4 shows the output of the turbine WT, refrigeration output Qref, ηex 41.88%
primary energy ratio PER and primary energy saving ratio PESR versus
the output pressure of the turbine P4. The inlet pressure of the turbine
P3, the inlet temperature of the turbine T3, the outlet temperature of the 1.4 MPa and it increases mildly afterwards. This could be attributed to
condenser II T18 and entrainment ratio of ejector are set as 3.23 MPa, the following reasons: as aforementioned that with the increase of P4,
389 K, 281 K and 0.27 respectively. It is clearly demonstrated that the the ejector refrigeration cycle can extract more heat from the turbine
output of the turbine decreases with the outlet pressure of the turbine. exhaust gas. Hence, more working fluid in the ERC can be accom-
Based on Eq. (15), Eq. (16) and Eq. (30), it is easily deduced that as P4 modated to keep the thermodynamic parameters of each state point
increases, the outlet temperature of the turbine T4 as well as the specific unchanged. In this scenario, Qref ascends according to Eq. (9). However,
enthalpy at the turbine outlet h4 rise accordingly. So these result in a when P4 reaches a critical value (about 1.4 MPa), the specific enthalpy
lower turbine output according to Eq. (14). It is also found in Fig. 4 that difference of ammonia-water between the inlet and outlet of generator
the cooling capacity increases dramatically when P4 is lower than II changes slightly. In other words, when the same amount of heat

264
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

4000 40 50
WT
Qref
3500 30 40
PER
PESR
3000 20
30

PER, PESR (%)

2500 10
WT, Qref (kW)

PER, PESR (%)

Energy-saving zone
20
2000 0
10
1500 -10

0
1000 -20
PER
PESR
500 -30 -10
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Outlet pressure of the turbine P4 (MPa) -20
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Fig. 4. The output of the turbine, refrigeration output, primary energy ratio and
primary energy saving ratio versus outlet pressure of the turbine. Inlet pressure of the turbine P3 (MPa)
(P3 = 3.23 MPa, T3 = 389 K, T18 = 281 K, μ = 0.27).
Fig. 7. Effect of P3 on PER and PESR. (T3 = 389 K, T18 = 281 K, μ = 0.27,
P4 = 1.4 MPa).
5600

5600
4900
WT
4900 Qref
4200
Total output
4200
Output (kW)

3500
Output (kW)

3500
2800 WT
Qref
2800
2100 Total output

2100
1400

1400
700
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
700
Inlet pressure of the turbine P3 (MPa) 365 370 375 380 385 390 395

Fig. 5. Effect of P3 on energy output. (T3 = 389 K, T18 = 281 K, μ = 0.27, Inlet temperature of the turbine T3 (K)
P4 = 1.4 MPa).
Fig. 8. Effect of the inlet temperature of the turbine (T3) on energy output.
(P3 = 3.23 MPa, T18 = 281 K, μ = 0.27, P4 = 1.4 MPa).
1400 60

1400 51
1200 55

1200 48
1000 50

1000 45
EX,W, EX,ref (kW)

800 45
EX,W, EX,ref (kW)
(%)

EX,W 800 42
600 40
(%)
ex

EX,ref EX,W
600 39
ex

EX,ref
400 ex 35
ex
400 36
200 30

200 33
0 25
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 30
Inlet pressure of the turbine P3 (MPa) 365 370 375 380 385 390 395

Fig. 6. Effect of P3 on power exergy (EX,W), refrigeration exergy(EX,ref) and Inlet temperature of the turbine T3 (K)
exergy efficiency (ηex). (T3 = 389 K, T18 = 281 K, μ = 0.27, P4 = 1.4 MPa).
Fig. 9. Effect of T3 on EX,W, EX,ref and ηex. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, T18 = 281 K,
μ = 0.27, P4 = 1.4 MPa).

265
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

35 1400 46

1200 45
30

1000 44
25 EX,W
EX,ref

EX,W , EX,ref (kW)

800 43
PER, PESR (%)

(%)
20 PER ex

PESR 600 42

ex
15
400 41

10
200 40

5
0 39
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80

0 Generation pressure P22 (MPa)

365 370 375 380 385 390 395
Fig. 13. Effect of generation pressure (P22) on EX,W, EX,ref and ηex. (T3 = 389 K,
Inlet temperature of the turbine T3 (K)
T18 = 281 K, µ=0.27, P4 = 1.4 MPa, P3 = 3.23 MPa).
Fig. 10. Effect of T3 on PER and PESR. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, T18 = 281 K, μ = 0.27,
P4 = 1.4 MPa). 0.30 70
COP-R600a ex
-R600a
50 55 0.28 COP-R134a -R134a 65
ex
PER
COP-R152a ex
-R152a
PESR 0.26 60
40 50
ex

30 45 0.24 55

(%)
COP
PER, PESR (%)

0.22 50

ex
20 40
(%)

10 35 0.20 45
ex

Energy-saving zone
0 30 0.18 40

0.16 35
-10 25
0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90

Generation pressure P22 (MPa)

-20 20
0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84
Fig. 14. Results of COP and ηex against pressure with different refrigerants in
Basic solution concentration of ammonia-water x1 generator II (P22). (T3 = 389 K, T18 = 281 K, µ=0.27, P4 = 1.4 MPa,
P3 = 3.23 MPa).
Fig. 11. Effect of basic solution concentration of ammonia-water (x1) on PER,
PESR and ηex. (T3 = 389 K, T18 = 281 K, µ=0.27, P4 = 1.4 MPa,
8000
P3 = 3.23 MPa).
WT
6400 49 7000
Qref
WT PESR Total output
5600 Qref PER 42 6000
Total output
Output (kW)

4800 35 5000
PER, PESR (%)
Output (kW)

4000 28
4000

3200 21
3000

2400 14
2000
1600 7
1000
800 0 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80

Generation pressure P22 (MPa)

Fig. 15. Effect of the ejector mass entrainment ratio (μ) on energy output.
Fig. 12. Effect of generation pressure (P22) on PER, PESR and power output. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, T18 = 281 K, T3 = 389 K, P4 = 1.4 MPa).
(T3 = 389 K, T18 = 281 K, µ=0.27, P4 = 1.4 MPa, P3 = 3.23 MPa).

266
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

2100 65 1400 46

1800 60 1200 45

1500 55 1000 EX,W 44

EX,ref
EX,W, EX,ref (kW)

EX,W, EX,ref (kW)

1200 50 800 ex 43

(%)
(%)
900 45 600 42

ex

ex
EX,W
EX,ref
600 40 400 41
ex

300 35 200 40

0 30 0 39
0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 290 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306
Condensation temperature T18 (K)

Fig. 16. Effect of μ on EX,W, EX,ref and ηex. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, T18 = 281 K, Fig. 19. Effect of T18 on EX,W, EX,ref and ηex. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, μ = 0.27,
T3 = 389 K, P4 = 1.4 MPa). T3 = 389 K, P4 = 1.4 MPa).

49 0.265 11

COP
PER 0.260 PESR 10
42
PESR
0.255 9
35
0.250 8
PER, PESR (%)

PESR (%)
28
COP

0.245 7
21
0.240 6

14
0.235 5

7 0.230 4
290 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306

0 Condensation temperature T18 (K)

0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33
Fig. 20. Effect of T18 on COP and PESR. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, μ = 0.27, T3 = 389 K,
P4 = 1.4 MPa).
Fig. 17. Effect of μ on PER and PESR. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, T18 = 281 K, T3 = 389 K,
P4 = 1.4 MPa). exchange is involved, the temperature of the working fluid will be
lower. Therefore, the heat that the Kalina cycle gives to the ERC in-
5600 54 creases slightly accordingly and so does the mass flow rate of the
working fluid in ERC which together lead to a mildly increase in the
4900 48 cooling capacity as observed in Fig. 4. Moreover, compared with the
Kalina cycle, the PER in the combined cycle increases rapidly and
4200 42 reaches a peak value when P4 is about 1.4 MPa. The occurrence of the
critical point can be explained by the following reasons. When P4 is low,
Output (kW)

3500 36 Qref increases rapidly which leads to an augment in the total energy
PER (%)

output, though the WT decreases gradually. However, after the turning

2800 30 point, the decrease of WT surpasses the growth of Qref, resulting in the
WT decrease in the total energy output. The value of PESR is positive when
2100 Qref 24 P4 is about 1.3–1.6 MPa. It means the combined cycle is only optimal
Total output when P4 ranges from 1.3 to 1.6 MPa from an energy-saving point of
1400 PER 18 view. It is also clear that the performance of the proposed cycle is op-
timized when the outlet pressure of the turbine is at 1.4 MPa. Therefore,
700 12 P4 will be assumed to be a constant of 1.4 MPa in the following dis-
290 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306 cussion.
Condensation temperature T18 (K) According to Fig. 5, the output of the turbine peaks at 1345 kW. The
specific enthalpy difference between the inlet and outlet of the turbine
Fig. 18. Effect of T18 on energy output and PER. (P3 = 3.23 MPa, μ = 0.27,
T3 = 389 K, P4 = 1.4 MPa). (h3-h4) increases with P3. Nonetheless, a growth in P3 leads to an in-
crease in x5 and a decrease in solution concentration difference Δx,
which equals to x1-x5 [28]. According to Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), m3 will
decrease dramatically if Δx is close to zero which will in turn greatly

267
Y. Bian, et al.
affect WT. Therefore, WT begins to decrease after a critical value of P3.
Moreover, Qref decreases with the rise of P3. This can be explained by
the following reasons. The outlet temperature of the turbine T4 de-
creases as P3 increases which consequently leads to a decrease in the
specific enthalpy of the exhaust gas at the exit of the turbine, i.e. h4. It
indicates that the Kalina cycle can provide less heat for the ERC. Hence,
the cooling capacity decreases which is caused by a decrease in the
mass flow rate of the ERC. The behavior of the total output is similar
because Qref is the most important factor affecting the total output.
As can be seen in Fig. 6, the power exergy EX,W also reaches a peak
at 1243 kW which is almost identical to WT in spite of a slightly fluc-
tuation in Wp. The refrigeration exergy EX,ref decreases due to a drop in
m16 based on Eq. (25). What’s more, with the climb of P3, the exergy
efficiency increases gradually. This is caused by the following facts: the
heat exchange involved in the generator I decreases as P3 increases
under a constant inlet temperature of the turbine. Furthermore, the
total exergy output increases when P3 is low and it decreases subse-
quently after a critical point.
Fig. 7 illustrates the relationship between P3 and energy output. It is
seen that the PER is higher than that in the Kalina cycle. The decrease of
both the total energy output and the heat input will lead to a slight
increase in PER when P3 is low. Then, PER will decrease when P3 goes
beyond a critical value. Moreover, it is seen that the PESR consistently
increases with P3 suggesting that the performance of the combined
cycle improves. When the inlet pressure of the turbine exceeds 2.9 MPa,
the PESR turns positive indicating the energy consumption is less than
the stand-alone systems.
Fig. 8 shows that the output of the turbine, refrigeration output and
total output all increase with the inlet temperature of the turbine. The
increase in WT is caused by the increase in the enthalpy difference
between the inlet and outlet of the turbine as T3 gets higher. At the
same time, the specific enthalpy at the outlet of the turbine (h4) in-
creases with T4 as implied in Eq. (16). It suggests that the Kalina cycle
can provide more heat for the ERC. Hence the cooling capacity im-
proves due to an increase in the mass flow rate (m16) in the ERC.
Likewise, the total output has a same trend.
As illustrated in Fig. 9, EX,W increases as T3 increases. Similar de-
pendency has been observed for WT despite of a slight fluctuation in Wp.
The refrigeration exergy increases with T3 due to an increase in m16
according to Eq. (25). Therefore the total exergy output increases
causing a distinct increase in the exergy efficiency (ηex) even though the
heat input increases as T3 gets higher.
As seen in Fig. 10, PER increases mildly with T3, which means the
performance of the proposed cycle has been improved gradually. Ac-
cording to Eq. (27), the increase in PER is in fact primarily caused by
the significant augment of the total energy output though the heat input
increases slightly. Furthermore, it is clearly demonstrated that the PESR
is positive for all the inlet temperatures of the turbine considered in-
dicating the performance of the proposed cycle is optimized.
Fig. 11 illustrates the effect of the basic solution concentration of
ammonia-water on the PER, PESR and ηex. The results reveal that with
the increase of the basic solution concentration of ammonia-water, PER
increases slightly and ηex increases dramatically. The following reasons
can be used to explain this behavior. When x1 rises, the amount of the
rich ammonia-water vapor split from the separator goes up, and the
specific enthalpy difference between the inlet and outlet of the turbine
grows, which together lead to an increase in the output of the turbine.
Simultaneously the enthalpy of the ammonia-water at the exit of the
turbine climbs as x1 rises, leading to an increase in the mass flow rate of
the isobutane. Therefore the refrigeration output and the total output
increase significantly. On the other hand, the increase of the basic so-
lution concentration of ammonia-water also gives rise to a steady in-
crease in the total heat input. Moreover, it is seen that PESR increases as
x1 increases and a critical solution concentration, x1 = 0.746, can be
identified in Fig. 11. An energy-saving cycle can be achieved when the
solution concentration is higher than this critical value.
268
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270
As can be seen in Fig. 12, the PER, PSER, refrigeration output and
total output all decrease with P22, whilst the output of the turbine keeps
approximately constant in this scenario. This could be attributed to the
following reasons. More heat needs to be extracted from the Kalina
cycle for per unit mass isobutane when P22 gets higher. This will result
in a decrease in the mass flow rate of isobutane. Therefore the re-
frigeration output drops steadily under the condition that the specific
enthalpy difference between the inlet and outlet of the evaporator
stabilizes. However, the effect of the generation pressure on the Kalina
cycle is from slim to none, and the output of the turbine stays constant.
As a result, the output of the turbine decreases and the PER also de-
clines under a constant heat input. In addition, the cycle shows an ideal
energy-saving characteristic for the pressures investigated.
Fig. 13 describes the effect of the generation pressure P22 on EX,W,
EX,ref and ηex. It is noted that as P22 increases the refrigeration and
power exergy decline gradually and ηex declines significantly. Actually,
WPII rises as P22 climbs regardless of a small drop in the mass flow rate
of isobutane. Therefore EX,W reduces slightly under a steady output of
the turbine. Other variables, such as EX,ref and ηex, exhibit similar fea-
tures to the refrigeration output and PER respectively.
To evaluate the effect of different refrigerants on the performance of
the proposed cycle, R134a and R152a have been examined. Considering
their condensation temperatures at the current condensation pressure
are much lower than R600a, the inlet and outlet temperature of the
seawater needs to be dropped to 279 K and 281 K respectively. The
results are shown in Fig. 14. The COP reduces gradually as P22 in-
creases. In fact, as mentioned above, higher P22 can lead to a lower
refrigeration output, and as P22 increases, the work consumption of the
pump also sees an increment whilst the heat extracted from the Kalina
cycle almost remains constant. Therefore higher P22 can result in a
decrease in COP. Further, it is worth mentioning that the highest COP
and ηex are attained when R134a is used as the refrigerant which is
consistent with the results reported by Candeniz Seckin [17]. Overall,
the COP and ηex for other two refrigerants show slightly higher values
than R600a. But on the other hand, the temperature of the seawater
used in the ejector refrigeration cycle is slightly higher when R600a is
employed as the working fluid. This can reduce the consumption of the
seawater pump. Therefore R600a is a good choice from the energy
saving perspective.
According to Fig. 15, it is clearly identified that the WT does not
depend on μ owing to the constant inlet temperature, inlet and outlet
pressure of the turbine. Both the refrigeration output and total output
increase with μ. It can be explained by that, the mass flow rate of the
secondary fluid passing through the ejector m16 goes up with the rise of
μ if the heat input to ERC is unchanged. Therefore, the cooling capacity
is enhanced with the increase of μ, and so is the total output. On ac-
count of a constant value of heat put into the combined cycle, PER also
climbs as can be reflected in Eq. (27).
As revealed in Fig. 16, EX,W is independent on μ. Actually, both WT
and Wp do not depend on μ. Likewise, EX,ref increases with μ because
m16 increases with the rise of μ according to Eq. (20). Furthermore, ηex
increases slightly with the increase of μ. This can be explained by the
fact that the total exergy output increases while the heat input into the
cycle is constant.
As seen in Fig. 17, PER increases with the growth of μ, which means
that the performance of the proposed cycle has been enhanced gradu-
ally. With the increase of μ, the total energy output increases rapidly
while the heat input remains constant and according to Eq. (27) these
would lead to an increase in PER. Furthermore, it can be seen that the
PESR is positive for the working condition studied. In another word, the
proposed cycle shows a good energy-saving characteristic which is in-
dependent on μ.
As can be seen in Fig. 18, no relationship is noticed between WT and
the condensation temperature (T18). This is because the change of T18
has no effect on the inlet temperature of the turbine, inlet and outlet
pressure of the turbine. Nevertheless Qref decrease gradually as T18 lifts.
Y. Bian, et al.
These can be explained as follows. The specific enthalpy difference
between the exit and entrance of the evaporator, i.e. h16-h21, decreases
with T18. On the other hand, the temperature of the isobutane entering
generator II goes up, and the heat that the Kalina cycle provides for the
ERC decreases in order to meet the requirements of the minimum
temperature difference. This indicates there is a drop in the mass flow
rate of the working fluid (m16). Thus the cooling capacity drops con-
sequently based on Eq. (27). What’s more, the variation of the total
output is seen to be similar to that of the refrigeration output, hence
PER decreases accordingly.
Fig. 19 demonstrates the effect of T18 on EX,W, EX,ref and ηex. EX,W is
seen to increase mildly with T18. Actually, with the increase of the
condensation temperature, WT and WPI keep constant, and WPII reduces
due to the decrease in the mass flow rate of the refrigerant. In contrast,
it is also seen that EX,ref decreases slightly with T18 which is similar to
Qref based on Eq. (9) and Eq. (25). It is also seen in Fig. 19 that, ηex does
not change much for different condensation temperatures. However, a
peak can still be identified at 41.99% when T18 is 299 K under a con-
stant exergy input condition.
In Fig. 20, it is seen that the value of PESR keeps positive though it
decreases slightly with T18. Moreover, the COP also lowers as T18 rises.
This is because with the increase of T18, the refrigeration output de-
creases gradually, though the heat input reduces slightly. Therefore
COP decreases with T18 under a constant WPII as indicated by Eq. (22).
6. Conclusions
A simulation analysis of multi-generation based on solar-assisted
OTEC has been studied in this paper. The proposed cycle combines the
Kalina cycle and the ejector refrigeration cycle in an appropriate way.
The thermodynamic properties and key parameters of the cycle have
been calculated in ASPEN PLUS and the performance of the cycle under
different working conditions is explored. Some key parameters have
been examined to investigate the proposed cycle. The main conclusions
are obtained as follows:
• The proposed cycle achieves multi-generation though it has a lower
power output compared with that of the separate Kalina cycle.
Furthermore, there is a noticeable increase in the total output and
the primary energy ratio in the combined cycle. The PER in the
proposed cycle is almost twice of the Kalina cycle.
• The proposed cycle achieves the optimal performance when the
outlet pressure of the turbine is 1.4 MPa if all other parameters re-
main unchanged.
• PESR is positive when P3 exceeds 2.9 MPa and P4 is between 1.3 and
1.6 MPa for the flow parameters investigated. It means the proposed
cycle is better than the separate systems from the energy saving
perspective.
• Both the output of the turbine and the power exergy increase firstly
and then decrease as P3 increases, and they peak at 1345 kW and
1243 kW respectively. Moreover, both of them increase as T3 gets
higher and they do not depend on the ejector entrainment ratio and
the outlet temperature of condenser II.
•
Higher basic solution concentration of ammonia-water leads to a
higher exergy efficiency, PER as well as PESR.
• Higher generation pressure (P22) can result in a drop in refrigeration
output, exergy efficiency and COP.
Declaration of interest statement
The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this
work. We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative
interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the
work submitted
269
Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the financial support by the Research
Program of IOES. Japan (No.17A01).
References
[1] Kim WR, Aung MM, Chang YS, Makatsoris C. Freshness Gauge based cold storage
management: a method for adjusting temperature and humidity levels for food
quality. Food Control 2015;47:510–9.
[2] Khan N, Kalair A, Abas N, Haider A. Review of ocean tidal, wave and thermal energy
technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;72:590–604.
[3] Sun F, Ikegami Y, Jia B, Arima H. Optimization design and exergy analysis of or-
ganic rankine cycle in ocean thermal energy conversion. Appl Ocean Res
2012;35:38–46.
[4] Wang EH, Zhang HG, Fan BY, Ouyang MG, Yang FY, Yang K, et al. Parametric
analysis of a dual-loop ORC system for waste heat recovery of a diesel engine. Appl
Therm Eng 2014;67(1–2):168–78.
[5] Uehara H. Introduction to OTEC. OHM 1982.
[6] Sun F, Ikegami Y, Arima H, Zhou W. Performance analysis of the low-temperature
solar-boosted power generation system—Part i: comparison between kalina solar
system and rankine solar system. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135(1):011006.
[7] Aydin H, Lee HS, Kim HJ, Shin SK, Park K. Off-design performance analysis of a
closed-cycle ocean thermal energy conversion system with solar thermal preheating
and superheating. Renew Energ 2014;72:154–63.
[8] Sahoo U, Kumar R, Pant PC, Chaudhary R. Development of an innovative poly-
generation process in hybrid solar-biomass system for combined power, cooling and
desalination. Appl Therm Eng 2017;120:560–7.
[9] Yuan H, Mei N, Zhou PL. Performance analysis of an absorption power cycle for
ocean thermal energy conversion. Energ Convers Manage 2014;87:199–207.
[10] Wang EH, Yu ZB. A numerical analysis of a composition-adjustable Kalina cycle
power plant for power generation from low-temperature geothermal sources. Appl
Energ 2016;180:834–48.
[11] Chen YP, Guo ZW, Wu JF, Zhang Z, Hua JY. Energy and exergy analysis of in-
tegrated system of ammonia-water Kalina-Rankine cycle. Energy 2015;90:2028–37.
[12] Kalina AI. Combined cycle and waste heat recovery power systems based on a novel
thermodynamic energy cycle utilizing low-temperature heat for power generation.
Mech Eng 1983;105(11):104.
[13] Ibrahim MB, Kovach RM. A Kalina cycle application for power generation. Energy
1991;18(18):961–9.
[14] Zhu Z, Zhang Z, Chen Y, Wu J. Parameter optimization of dual-pressure vaporiza-
tion Kalina cycle with second evaporator parallel to economizer. Energy
2016;112:420–9.
[15] Fallah M, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M, Akbarpour Ghiasi R. Advanced exergy analysis of
the Kalina cycle applied for low temperature enhanced geothermal system. Energ
Convers Manage 2016;108:190–201.
[16] Wang J, Wang J, Zhao P, Dai Y. Thermodynamic analysis of a new combined
cooling and power system using ammonia–water mixture. Energ Convers Manage
2016;117:335–42.
[17] Seckin C. Thermodynamic analysis of a combined power/refrigeration cycle:
combination of Kalina cycle and ejector refrigeration cycle. Energ Convers Manage
2018;157:631–43.
[18] Rashidi J, Yoo CK. A novel Kalina power-cooling cycle with an ejector absorption
refrigeration cycle: thermodynamic modelling and pinch analysis. Energ Convers
Manage 2018;162:225–38.
[19] Hu W, Wang MY, Nie JZ, Gao Y, Zhang QL. The influence of ejector’s structure
parameters on the performance of ejector refrigeration system. Procedia Eng
2017;205:2683–90.
[20] Zhang T, Mohamed S. Conceptual design and analysis of hydrocarbon-based solar
thermal power and ejector cooling systems in hot climates. J Sol Energy Eng
2015;137(2):021001.
[21] Besagni G, Mereu R, Inzoli F. Ejector refrigeration: a comprehensive review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:373–407.
[22] Liu J, Wang L, Jia L, Wang X. Thermodynamic modeling and sensitivity analysis of
ejector in refrigeration system. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2018;126:485–92.
[23] Yang X, Zheng N, Zhao L, Deng S, Li H, Yu Z. Analysis of a novel combined power
and ejector-refrigeration cycle. Energ Convers Manage 2016;108:266–74.
[24] Chen J, Havtun H, Palm B. Screening of working fluids for the ejector refrigeration
system. Int J Refrig 2014;47:1–14.
[25] Expósito Carrillo JA, De La Sánchez. Flor FJ, Salmerón Lissén JM. Thermodynamic
comparison of ejector cooling cycles. Ejector characterisation by means of en-
trainment ratio and compression efficiency. Int J Refrig 2017;74:371–84.
[26] Dai Y, Wang J, Gao L. Exergy analysis, parametric analysis and optimization for a
novel combined power and ejector refrigeration cycle. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29(10):1983–90.
[27] Tan HB, Zhao QX, Sun NN, Li YZ. Enhancement of energy performance in a boil-off
gas re-liquefaction system of LNG carriers using ejectors. Energ Convers Manage
2016;126:875–88.
[28] Yuan H, Zhou PL, Mei N. Performance analysis of a solar-assisted OTEC cycle for
power generation and fishery cold storage refrigeration. Appl Therm Eng
2015;90:809–19.
[29] Alelyani SM, Sherbeck JA, Fette NW, Wang Y, Phelan PE. Assessment of a novel
heat-driven cycle to produce shaft power and refrigeration. Appl Energ
2018;215:751–64.
Y. Bian, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 185 (2019) 259–270

[30] Peng D-Y, Robinson DB. A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Ind Eng Chem [32] Rostamzadeh H, Ebadollahi M, Ghaebi H, Amidpour M, Kheiri R. Energy and exergy
Fundam 1976;15(1):59–64. analysis of novel combined cooling and power (CCP) cycles. Appl Therm Eng
[31] Ogriseck S. Integration of Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant, a case 2017;124:152–69.
study. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29(14–15):2843–8.

270