Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Cost comparison of printed circuit heat exchanger to low cost periodic flow T
regenerator for use as recuperator in a s-CO2 Brayton cycle
⁎
Jacob F. Hinzea, , Gregory F. Nellisb, Mark H. Andersonc
a
University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1500 Engineering Drive, 1335 Engineering Research Building, Madison, WI, USA
b
University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1500 Engineering Drive, 1303 Engineering Research Building, Madison, WI, USA
c
University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1500 Engineering Drive, 737 Engineering Research Building, Madison, WI, USA

H I G H L I G H T S

• AThecostregenerator
comparison between periodic regenerators and conventional heat exchangers is conducted.
• The cycle model model is integrated with a supercritical CO Brayton cycle model.
2

• A high order costisestimate

used to optimize the design of the regenerator.
• The LCoE shows is improvedof byregenerator and recuperator is conducted.
• switching to periodic flow regenerators.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Supercritical Carbon Dioxide (sCO2) power cycles have the potential to deliver high efficiency at low cost.
Supercritical CO2 However, in order for an sCO2 cycle to reach high efficiency, highly effective recuperators are needed. These
Brayton recuperative heat exchangers must transfer heat at a rate that is substantially larger than the heat transfer to the
Regenerator cycle itself and can therefore represent a significant portion of the power block costs. Regenerators are proposed
Recuperator
as a cost saving alternative to high cost printed circuit recuperators for this application. A regenerator is an
indirect heat exchanger which periodically stores and releases heat to the working fluid. The simple design of a
regenerator can be made more inexpensively compared to current options.
The objective of this paper is a detailed evaluation of regenerators as a competing technology for recuperators
within an sCO2 Brayton cycle. The level of the analysis presented here is sufficient to identify issues with the
regenerator system in order to direct future work and also to clarify the potential advantage of pursuing this
technology. A reduced order model of a regenerator is implemented into a cycle model of an sCO2 Brayton cycle.
An economic analysis investigates the cost savings that is possible by switching from recuperative heat ex-
changers to switched-bed regenerators. The cost of the regenerators was estimated using the amount of material
required if the pressure vessel is sized using ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) requirements. The cost of
the associated valves is found to be substantial for the regenerator system and is estimated in collaboration with
an industrial valve supplier. The result of this analysis suggests that a 21.2% reduction in the contribution to the
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCoE) from the power block can be realized by switching to a regenerator-based
system.

1. Introduction efficiency at elevated turbine inlet temperature. Supercritical and su-

Supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) power cycles are closed Brayton
cycles operating with CO2 as the working fluid. The main advantage to
an sCO2 cycle is the increase in thermal efficiency over a typical
Rankine cycle, as shown in Fig. 1.
It is clear from Fig. 1 that the sCO2 cycle provides the highest
perheated steam cycles operate at higher efficiencies than the sCO2 -
cycle at low temperatures; however, once the turbine inlet temperature
is above 550 °C the sCO2 cycle becomes the most efficient alternative.
There is an ongoing push in the power industry to operate at these high
temperatures in order to realize the associated higher efficiency. Ad-
ditionally, an sCO2 turbine with an equal work output to a steam

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jfhinze@wisc.edu (J.F. Hinze).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.037
Received 15 May 2017; Received in revised form 30 August 2017; Accepted 9 September 2017
Available online 21 September 2017
0306-2619/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.F. Hinze et al. Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161

Nomenclature LCoE Levelized Cost of Electricity

NTU Number of Transfer Units
As surface area of packed bed ṁ mass flow rate
BPVC Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code mb mass of packed bed
Ċ capacity rate mc carryover mass
cb specific heat capacity of packed bed ṁ c carryover mass flow rate
Cm matrix capacity ratio P0 switching period
̇
Cmin minimum capacity rate PCHE Printed Circuit Heat Exchanger
cp,avg averages specific heat capacity PH high pressure in regenerator
CtHB Cold to Hot Blow PL low pressure in regenerator
D diameter of regenerator RCBC Recompression Brayton cycle
DFM Design For Manufacture SCBC Supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle
ev void volume fraction sCO2 Supercritical carbon dioxide
FCC Fluidized Catalytic Cracker T(x) temperature of CO2 at position x
hcC heat transfer coefficient on cold side of regenerator UA conductance
hcH heat transfer coefficient on hot side of regenerator ρ density
HtCB Hot to Cold Blow

turbine will be approximately 1/10th of the size [2], resulting in lower
capital costs. There are potential benefits associated with dry cooling
sCO2 systems as well, which becomes important in hot, dry climates
where CSP applications might be sited [3]. Because of these advantages
there has been renewed interest in sCO2 cycles.
The performance and cost of an sCO2 cycle can vary depending on
the configuration of the cycle. A Simple Closed Brayton Cycle (SCBC)
operates with only a compressor (1), turbine (2), primary heat ex-
changer (3), precooling heat exchanger (4), and recuperator (5) as
shown in Fig. 2(a). The efficiency of the simple cycle is limited because
the temperature pinch point in the unbalanced recuperator limits the
amount of internal heat transfer. When carbon dioxide is near its cri-
tical point, the specific heat capacity of the fluid increases dramatically
causing a local mismatch in the capacitance rates of the high and low
pressure flows. The Recompression Closed Brayton cycle (RCBC) adds a
second compressor (7) and recuperator (6) to balance the capacitance
rates as shown in Fig. 2 (b).
The recompressor takes warm fluid leaving the low pressure side of
the low temperature recuperator and compresses it to high pressure
before returning it to the cycle after the low temperature recuperator.
The recompressor reduces the limitation associated with the pinch
point in the recuperator, allowing more heat recovery and therefore a
higher thermal efficiency. Since the RCBC can achieve higher efficiency
than the SCBC for the same size recuperator, the RCBC cycle was used
for this analysis [4].
No matter the cycle configuration, a large amount of recuperation is
required in order for the sCO2 cycle to be competitive from a perfor-
mance point of view. Indeed, a key reason for the high performance
exhibited by the sCO2 cycle is that it combines the advantages of low
back-work ratio due to the high density fluid entering the compressor
with the potential for aggressive recuperation due to the high turbine
exit temperatures. The current best option for sCO2 recuperators is the
Printed Circuit Heat Exchanger (PCHE) [5]. PCHEs are made by etching
flow patterns in many plates, stacking the plates, diffusion bonding the
block together, and welding on headers. A PCHE is able to create very
small flow channels and achieve high effectiveness. Traditional heat
exchanger types such as shell and tube or plate heat exchangers either
have poor heat transfer, excessive costs, or are not able to withstand the
required pressure [6]. The cost of the PCHE required by an sCO2 cycle
can be up to 24% of the total power block costs [7]. Also, the mono-
lithic block that results from a PCHE design does a poor job of handling
thermal stresses which can be significant if the block is going through
rapid thermal cycling [8]. Finally, the small channel size means it can
be difficult to clean or maintain a PCHE. Significant work has been done
to design PCHEs that have the optimal performance for sCO2 cycles
[9,10]. Additionally, several organizations are working on testing
PCHEs under prototypic conditions [11–13]. This work is advancing the
state of the art of PCHE technology, but also pointing out potential

60 Fig. 1. Cycle efficiency as a function of the turbine inlet temperature

for various working fluids, .
adapted from [1]

50
Cycle Efficiency (%)

40

30
Helium Brayton cycle
Supercritical CO2 cycle
Supercritical steam cycle
Superheated steam cycle
20

10
350 450 550 650 750 850 950
Turbine Inlet Temperature (°C)

1151
J.F. Hinze et al.
barriers to its eventual adoption. One subtle issue with PCHEs is that
the effectiveness that can be achieved is limited to a number less than
100% (even at high conductance) due to the unavoidable cross-flow
that must be present in the header region [14].
A periodic flow regenerator provides a possible alternative to the
PCHE that could be constructed at lower cost, with a more conventional
construction, and without any limit on the effectiveness that can be
achieved. A regenerator can use low cost materials even at high oper-
ating temperatures and provides a design that is easy to clean. There is
no cross-flow region necessary in a regenerative system. The re-
generator is a packed bed of stainless steel spheres surrounded by a
pressure vessel. The bed is first exposed to hot fluid during the Hot to
Cold Blow (HtCB) where the bed stores energy. Next, the energy is
removed from the bed during the Cold to Hot Blow (CtHB). By oper-
ating two beds out of phase with each other a quasi-steady flow can be
achieved, as observed by the balance of the system. Regenerators are
currently used extensively for cryogenic applications in regenerative
cryocoolers in order to recover heat from the helium working fluid.
These systems can operate using either oscillatory flow driven by a
piston (as in a Stirling or pulse-tube type cycle) or by switching valves
(as in a Gifford-McMahon cycle) [15–17]. Although the temperature
range is very different (cryogenic vs. high temperature), these cryo-
genic regenerative systems are in many ways similar to the sCO2 re-
generators being considered here. The systems operate in the super-
critical range and experience relatively large pressure swings. A key
challenge associated with cryogenic regenerators is the identification of
materials that retain high heat capacity even at low temperatures. The
regenerator in a high temperature system does not suffer from this
degradation in heat capacity. However, the scale of a regenerator for
use in an sCO2 cycle is many orders of magnitude larger than what is
used in the cryogenic industry and the pressures are much larger. As a
1152
Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161
Fig. 2. (a) Simple Closed Brayton Cycle (SCBC) and (b) Recompression
Closed Brayton Cycle (RCBC).
result, the materials issues associated with the pressure vessel and
valves are relatively new. Further, the impact of the regenerator oper-
ating characteristics (e.g., carry over, switching time, and pressure/flow
fluctuations) on a power cycle have not been thoroughly studied pre-
viously. Regenerators have been used in the power industry but usually
for preheating air for burners or air Brayton cycles [18]. These devices
operate at low pressure differential, usually under 6 bar which means a
rotary regenerator can be used [19]. The high pressure differential as-
sociated with the high and low pressure sides of a sCO2 cycle (170 bar)
preclude the use of a rotary regenerator. Instead the bed examined in
this work must be located in pressure vessels and the flow is directed
using a series of valves.
The high temperature and high pressure regenerator examined in
this paper has not been used previously within a Brayton power cycle
and therefore it must be carefully considered in order to understand
whether the potential advantages outweigh its disadvantages. This
paper presents a detailed evaluation of regenerators as a competing
technology for recuperators within an sCO2 Brayton cycle. The level of
the analysis presented here is sufficient to identify the key issues with
the regenerator system in order to direct future work and also to clarify
the potential advantage of pursuing this technology. A reduced order
model of a regenerator is integrated with a cycle model of an sCO2
Brayton to allow design and optimization. An economic analysis in-
vestigates the cost savings that is possible by switching from re-
cuperative heat exchangers to switched-bed regenerators. The result of
this analysis suggests that a 21.2% reduction in the contribution to the
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCoE) from the power block can be rea-
lized by switching to a regenerator-based system.
J.F. Hinze et al.
2. Regenerator operation
A regenerator has been proposed as a replacement to the re-
cuperator in order to accomplish the internal heat transfer that is re-
quired by the cycle to achieve high efficiency. A regenerator operates
by alternatively passing a hot fluid and then a cold fluid over a matrix
that has both large surface area and high heat capacity. The four steps
involved in a simple, switched bed regenerator process are shown in
Fig. 3. During the HtCB process, hot fluid from the turbine is passed
over the cold bed and the thermal energy associated with the resulting
heat transfer is stored in the bed. Since the fluid returning from the
turbine is at low pressure and the fluid from the compressor is at high
pressure, the interstitial volume within the bed must be pressurized
after the HtCB process by opening only the valve linking the bed to the
compressor outlet. During the subsequent CtHB process, cold fluid from
the compressor is passed over the bed in the opposite direction as the
HtCB process. During this process, heat is transferred from the bed to
the fluid so that the fluid exits at an elevated temperature. In order to
return the system to its original state, the carbon dioxide trapped in the
bed volume must be reduced to a low pressure through a blowdown
process that occurs by opening only the valve connecting the bed to the
precooler and compressor inlet. If this cycle is repeated many times, the
1153
Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161
bed will reach a quasi-steady state. Since each regenerator bed can only
have hot fluid or cold fluid passing through it at any instant of time, at
least two regenerator beds operating out of phase with each other are
needed if the regenerator is to provide continuous flow to the rest of the
cycle.
Since there is no need to have common boundary between the high
pressure and low pressure streams in a regenerator, the construction of
the device is much simpler than a recuperator. A regenerator consists of
a vessel that is packed with a matrix material (for example, stainless
steel balls) with headers welded on and connected to a manifold of
valves. Since there is no complicated fabrication process required, there
is a potential for significant cost savings. Additionally, since the sphere
size in the bed can be made very small, the specific surface area (i.e.,
the surface area per unit volume) of a regenerator can be much higher
than the specific surface area of a recuperator. More surface area allows
the regenerator to have a higher conductance and therefore higher ef-
fectiveness, which results in a higher cycle efficiency. The headers in a
recuperator provide a significant challenge to their design. Due to the
overlaid plate geometry that is used for PCHE recuperators there is
inevitably some section of the header that provides a cross flow ar-
rangement even if the bulk of the device operates in counter flow. The
crossflow region can cause a reduction in effectiveness that is
Fig. 3. The four steps involved in a switched bed
regenerator operation.
J.F. Hinze et al.
significant at the performance levels that are appropriate for an sCO2
cycle. A regenerator does not have this issue and can be operated in true
counter flow fashion, which results in higher theoretical effectiveness.
However, the regenerator does suffer from carry over losses related to
the blow down and pressurization process and the associated valves are
complicated and expensive. Therefore, this paper provides a thorough
comparison of these two options in the context of the sCO2 cycle.
3. Regenerator design
Regenerators have found use in both power and HVAC applications
primarily using low pressure air as the working fluid in an energy re-
covery application. Previous work has been done to create an numeri-
cally validated model of a regenerator for regenerators operating with
gas flows [20]. In the sCO2 cycle, there is a significant unbalance in the
regenerator where one of the fluid stream is operating nearer to the
pseudocritical point. This is similar to the conditions that might be
encountered in cryogenic regenerators for the same reason. In [21] an
effectiveness-NTU-Cm method is presented for regenerators in cryogenic
cooling systems that remains analytic and therefore computationally
efficient but allows the consideration of the regenerator unbalance. This
design method is very similar to the effectiveness-NTU method that is
used for heat exchangers, but adds an additional parameter, the matrix
capacity ratio defined by Eq. (1.1).
mb cb
Cm =
̇
P0 Cmin (1.1)
where mb is the mass of the matrix material, cb is the specific heat ca-
pacity of the matrix material, P0 is the flow time (the time associated
with the HTCB and CTHB processes), and Cmin ̇ is the minimum capa-
citance rate of the fluid passing through the bed. The capacitance rate
of each stream is defined by Eq. (1.2).
Ċ = cp,avg ṁ (1.2)
where cp,avg is the average specific heat capacity of the fluid passing
through the regenerator and ṁ is the mass flow rate of the fluid. The
matrix capacity ratio is a dimensionless parameter that is important in
the design of the regenerator. A high matrix capacity ratio indicates
1154
Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161
that the bed can hold much more energy than the fluid can impart, and
therefore the temperature of the matrix will change very little with time
during each cycle. In the extreme case where the matric capacity ratio
approaches infinite, the regenerator will behave in exactly the same
way as a recuperator because, as in a recuperator, the bed (wall) tem-
perature will not change with time. As the matrix capacity ratio is re-
duced, the effectiveness of the regenerator also decreases because the
temperature of the bed changes more dramatically during each cycle as
it absorbs and releases energy. After the HtCB, the temperature at the
hot end of the regenerator will be approximately equal to the tem-
perature of the hot fluid entering from the turbine. During the CtHB,
cold fluid will start flowing through the bed in the opposite direction.
At the beginning of the CtHB, the exit temperature will be very close to
the temperature of the hot fluid. However, as the process continues the
temperature will decrease since the temperature of the bed is being
reduced by the cold fluid passing over it. The temperature of the fluid at
the hot end of the regenerator is shown in Fig. 4 for a typical operating
condition.
Since the temperature is not constant at the exit of the regenerator
in the way that it is for a recuperator, a different method is needed to
calculate effectiveness. However, the effectiveness must equivalently
represent the impact of the performance of the device on the overall
cycle efficiency. The mass-averaged enthalpy of the fluid at the hot end
is used to define the effectiveness so that the performance of the tran-
sient system can be used directly in the steady state cycle model.
The Number of Transfer Units (NTU) also factors heavily into the
effectiveness of the regenerator. Much like a recuperator, a higher NTU
will result in higher effectiveness. The NTU is a function of the
minimum capacitance rate and the conductance, defined by Eq. (1.3).
1
UA = 1 1
hcH As
+ hcC As (1.3)
where hcH is the average heat transfer coefficient during the HtCB, hcC
is the same quantity for the CtHB, and As is the surface area that is
exposed to the fluid. NTU is defined according to Eq. (1.4).
UA
NTU =
̇
Cmin (1.4)
Fig. 4. Temperature as a function of time of the fluid
streams into and out of regenerator at the hot and cold ends
during a complete cycle.
J.F. Hinze et al.
It is easier (i.e., less costly) to obtain a large NTU in a regenerator as
compared to a recuperator because the specific surface area of a bed of
spheres is much higher than the specific surface area associated with a
PCHE and the interstitial passages are quite small, leading to high heat
transfer coefficients. The typical balanced regenerator model described
by [20] must be corrected to reflect the unbalanced nature of the re-
generator operating in an sCO2 cycle that occurs because the capaci-
tance rate of the flow during the HtCB is different than the flow during
the CtHB. The correction calculates the capacitance ratio and uses it to
correct the NTU and Cm for the unbalanced flow situation. The model
takes the corrected NTU and Cm and determines the effectiveness [21].
The carryover mass is an unavoidable loss that is associated with the
operation of a regenerator that is not present when using a recuperator.
The carryover mass refers to the high pressure fluid that remains in the
regenerator when it is switched from the CtHB to the HtCB process.
Since the pressure difference is large between the CtHB and HtCB, the
specific volume of the fluid held up in the regenerator differs greatly.
As a result, the amount of mass that enters the regenerator at high
pressure and then returns to the compressor during the blowdown
process in Fig. 3 without going through the turbine can be significant.
This carryover mass is not captured in the corrected effectiveness-NTU-
Cm model and corresponds to a direct reduction to the cycle efficiency
since the compression work associated with that mass is not recovered
in the turbine. The carryover mass is estimated according to:
x=L πD 2
mc = ∫x=0 4
(1−e v )[ρ (T (x ),PH )−ρ (T (x ),PL)] dx
where D is the inner diameter of the regenerator vessel, ev is the void
volume fraction of the packed bed (ev = 0.37 for a randomly packed
bed of spheres), and ρ(T(x),PH) and ρ(T(x),PL) are the densities of the
fluid at location x in at the time that the CtHB and HtCB flow processes
are complete, respectively. The carryover loss is estimated assuming
that the temperature of the fluid varies linearly from the hot inlet
temperature to the cold inlet temperature. Since two regenerator beds
are operating back-to-back, the mass of fluid associated with the car-
ryover is returned to the compressor twice during every switching
period. This carryover mass is quantified as a mass flow rate according
to Eq. (1.6) and treated as a leakage in the system that reduces the
efficiency.
2mc
ṁ c =
P0
The model also calculates the pressure drop during both flow
THERMAL
OUTER SHELL
STANDOFF
HIGH TEMP
INLET
INSULATION
Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161
processes using a correlation for flow in a packed bed [22] and debits
the pressure ratio experienced by the turbine accordingly.
The effectiveness-NTU-Cm model expects that the dimensions of the
regenerator are inputs and the performance of the device is an output.
However during the design process, it is desirable to specify the effec-
tiveness and pressure drop associated with the regenerator and have the
model determine the required dimensions. To accomplish this, the
Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software is used [23]. Fluid prop-
erties are obtained through the internal property database in EES which
uses [24]. The user specifies the effectiveness, sphere size, switching
period, and pressure drop, and the model iteratively solves for the
diameter, length, and carryover mass for a regenerator meeting the
desired operating parameters.
3.1. Numerical validation
In order to verify that the relatively simple, corrected effectiveness-
NTU-Cm model provides correct results, a more sophisticated but also
more computationally intensive model [25] was created based on the
numerical one-dimensional regenerator equations using the method
outlined in [26]. This model is provided with the dimensions of the
regenerator, the temperature and mass flow rate of the fluid entering
the regenerator at each side, and average heat transfer coefficient for
each blow of the regenerator. The model uses matrix decomposition to
calculate the temperature of the fluid as a function of time and space
(1.5) during a quasi-steady cycle with successive substitution to account for
the temperature and pressure dependent properties. The numerical
model predicts a parasitic heat transfer rate (which is related to the
ineffectiveness) that is approximately 5% smaller than the value pre-
dicted by the corrected effectiveness-NTU-Cm model for the low tem-
perature regenerator, and 2.5% smaller for the high temperature re-
generator under a typical operating condition. The numerical model
shows adequate agreement with the modified effectiveness-NTU-Cm
model and therefore provides confidence in the results it predicts; the
modified effectiveness-NTU-Cm model appears to be slightly con-
servative relative to the actual performance.
4. ASME BPVC design
In order to accurately determine the cost of the regenerator, the
outer shell must be sized correctly using ASME Boiler and Pressure
(1.6)
Vessel Code (BPVC) [27]. Modeling and simulation of the regenerator
lead to an optimal design with an internally insulated pressure vessel.
Fig. 5. Concept drawing of insulated regenerator
pressure vessel.
LOW TEMP
INLET
PACKED BED
1155
J.F. Hinze et al.
The insulation reduced the temperature of the outer wall, allowing a
less expensive material to be used. The insulation also limits the tem-
perature transients and associated thermal stresses caused by the per-
iodic flow through the bed. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 5.
This insulated regenerator design is similar to a Fluidized Catalytic
Cracker (FCC) which is an internally insulated pressure vessel that also
contains a packed bed. Type 91 was chosen for its low cost, high
strength, and proven corrosion resistance to CO2 at temperature less
than 375 °C [27].
The insulation for the pressure vessel needs to be carefully designed
to avoid damage to the turbo-machinery due to material loss or loss in
efficiency. The insulation needs to withstand the high pressure and high
temperature sCO2 environment without dusting. Any dust will in-
evitably find its way to the seals in the turbo-machinery and cause them
to fail. The insulation must have low conductance and low porosity to
the working fluid. If the insulation is too conductive then the pressure
vessel needed to contain it will get larger, increasing costs. Any porosity
causes in increase in carryover which reduces the efficiency of the
cycle. A castable type insulation sealed with thin sheets of stainless steel
has been chosen for the insulation. The insulation is strong enough to
withstand the pressure, while the thin sheet of stainless steel effectively
encapsulates the insulation, preventing any dust from entering the
stream and eliminating any potential problem with carryover.
ANSYS was used to create a 2-D, axisymmetric thermal model of the
regenerator shell and insulation in order to determine the temperatures
that will be experienced by the shell. The sizing of the wall of the re-
generator is described in the following section. The temperature-de-
pendent material properties of the insulation and wall were programed
into ANSYS along with the bed temperature and heat transfer coeffi-
cient obtained from the numerical model. The outside of the re-
generator was allowed to convect to an ambient temperature of 32 °C,
with the heat transfer coefficient calculated assuming natural convec-
tion [26]. Radiation from the wall was not considered but would only
act to further reduce the wall temperature. The inlet and outlet nozzles
of the regenerator were included in the model and are assumed to have
the same temperature as the bed at the nearest point. The heat transfer
coefficient in the nozzles is calculated assuming forced convection in a
pipe [26]. The entire model was initialized at a constant temperature
and successive substitution was used to solve for the steady state tem-
perature of the bed under quasi-steady state conditions.
A thermal standoff was added on the inlet and exit which allows the
shell of the regenerator to stay cool at the entrance and exit of the
regenerator. The standoff consists of two pipes where the inner pipe
carries the flow and the outer pipe is the pressure boundary. The an-
nular gap between outer pipe and the inner pipe is filled with insula-
tion. The outer pipe can be cooled so that its temperature is below
375 °C at the location where it is joined to the shell. In this way, the
High
Temperature
Inlet
Bed Packing
Thermal
Standoī
InsulaƟon
Pressure
Vessel Shell
1156
Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161
entire shell remains below 375 °C and also experiences minimal thermal
cycling. This design was analyzed and the results are shown in Fig. 6, at
the conclusion of the HtCB process. The outer pipe size was chosen
assuming the same insulation in the gap that is used on the inner sur-
face of the pressure vessel and natural convection on the outer surface.
The heat lost to the cooling of the outer pipe is insignificant compared
to the heat transfer occurring within the pipe. The stress due to the
thermal strain is small (about 5 MPa at the maximum) and due to the
high conductivity and high heat capacity of the wall and the insulation,
the wall temperature does not change significantly over the cycle.
Since the effect of temperature on stress cycling has been eliminated
in the larger diameter portion of the pressure vessel using the thermal
standoff design, Chapter 5 of BPVC Section VIII Division 2 can be em-
ployed to determine the wall thickness needed for the required pres-
sure-based stress cycling. Chapter 5 defines a limit on the number of
cycles for a given stress amplitude. The stress amplitude in the BPVC
must be estimated using a model of the entire pressure vessel simulated
throughout the entire stress cycle. This model takes into account stress
from pressure, structural loading, and thermal sources. A full finite
element analysis is impractical for this high level study where the goal
is to obtain a reasonable estimate of the cost of a regenerator; the model
must be able to rapidly iterate on the regenerator size. Instead, analy-
tical methods are used to determine a pressure vessel size that will
approximately pass the BPVC. The analytical solution does not include
thermal stresses in the stress amplitude; these thermal stresses have an
insignificant variation over each cycle. The stress amplitude due to the
pressure variation will have a maximum value at the point where the
largest absolute stress exists; this value can be determined using stress
equations for a cylindrical pressure vessel experiencing internal pres-
sure. Chapter 5 of the BPVC provides a lookup table for the allowable
stress amplitude as a function of the number of cycles that the vessel
must withstand. The lookup table was programed into the design model
along with the stress amplitude calculations in order to automate the
process of selecting the vessel dimensions. The stress amplitude was
found using cylindrical shell stress equations [28]. The diameter of the
pressure vessel was determined by the regenerator model, taking into
account the additional thickness needed for the insulation. The number
of cycles in the life of the system is calculated using the lifetime of the
power plant (30 years), the daily number of hours of operation (10 h),
and the switching time (45 s); these conditions are consistent with the
objectives of the Department of Energy APOLLO project. For these
conditions there will be 10 million cycles during the lifetime of the
regenerator. To account for startup and other pressure cycling events,
the total number of cycles is increased by 20 percent to 10 million
cycles for the design basis. Using this total number of cycles, the al-
lowable stress amplitude can be determined using the lookup table
provided by the BPVC Chapter 5. In order to check the results of the
Low Fig. 6. Temperature (°C) distribution in wall and
insulation of regenerator with a thermal standoff,
Temperature results are shown at the end of the HtCB process
Inlet where the temperatures are highest.
J.F. Hinze et al.
analytical model used to predict the pressure stress in the design model,
a 2-D axisymmetric ANSYS model was created [29]. The analytical
method was found to be within 5% of the ANSYS model. In addition,
the penetrations in the regenerator shell were designed according to
BPVC rules.
In conclusion, an appropriate pressure vessel that meets the BPVC
uses a design that employs a thermal standoff at the hot end of the
vessel and refractory insulation on its inner surface in order to eliminate
thermal transients in the outer wall of the vessel and reduce the wall
temperature, respectively. The vessel wall is then sized to reduce the
stress amplitude associated with the pressure load to below the allow-
able limit given the anticipated number of cycles. The pressure vessel
dimensions for a 10 MWe power plant are listed in Table 1.
5. Heat exchanger costs
Since the main objective of this paper is to assess the potential for
cost savings of using a regenerator in place of a recuperator, it is im-
portant to have an accurate cost model of the regenerators as well as
their associated hardware (e.g., valves) and also of the recuperators that
they are replacing. The main cost associated with the regenerator bed is
expected to be associated with the materials themselves as the manu-
facturing involved is not complicated. There are three materials needed
for the regenerators: Type 91 steel for the shell, 304SS for the packed
bed, and the refractory insulation. The wall material was chosen for its
low cost and good strength at the expected wall temperature 375 °C.
Other high alloy stainless steel or nickel alloys could be used, however
this would drastically increase the cost even if the insulation could be
eliminated. The material for the packed bed was chosen with the desire
of getting the highest possible efficiency. The optimization of the bed
material is outlined in Section 6. The appropriate insulation is less
clear; therefore, the most expensive of the current insulation options
was chosen for costing. The mass of each of these materials is calculated
using the dimensions returned by the effectiveness-NTU-Cm model in-
tegrated with the BPVC calculations, as discussed in the previous two
sections. The cost of material is calculated using cost information from
Design for Manufacture (DFM): Concurrent Costing, which is a com-
puter program that provides costing information based on the part
being created and the operations needed for its manufacture [30]. The
costs are listed in Table 2 with a 10 percent increase to account for
uncertainties in costs.
There are three major operations needed for the manufacture of the
regenerator: forming the outer tube and end caps, casting the insulation
inside of the shell, and welding the shell together. The cost of these
operations is estimated using DFM [30]. These processes together with
the material costs together were integrated with the cost model for the
regenerator. In order to establish some confidence in these calculations,
a quote from a manufacturer for the shell of the regenerator was ob-
tained and found to be within 15% of the cost predicted by the model.
In addition to the cost for regenerators, the cost of the recuperators
also must be understood in order to accurately determine the cost
savings that is possible. A manufacturer of PCHE heat exchangers,
CompRex, is a partner on the project and was able to provide a cost
correlation for the recuperators as a function of their conductance
which was used to estimate the cost of the recuperators avoided by
using a regenerator. For low conductance recuperators, the cost nor-
malized by conductance is higher but as conductance increases the
normalized costs are reduced. The average cost is around 2,500 $/(kW/
K). At the 2016 sCO2 symposium, SuperCritical Technologies presented
a general cost relationship for various parts of the sCO2 power block
[31]. The cost of the recuperators was reported there to be 2,500 $/
(kW/K) which is similar to the costs provided by CompRex in the range
of UA required for a 10 MWe power plant (500–800 kW/K). The
agreement between the two sources provided some confidence in the
estimated cost of the recuperators.
The other source of cost information for recuperators is a paper
1157
Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161
published by Ho et al. [7]. The costs for the machinery are based on
scaling equations available from the various sources that are indicated
in the paper. For a recompression cycle, the regenerator costs are es-
timated to be 244$/kWe which is 24% of the total cost of the power
block. The cost of recuperators for a 10 MWe cycle was calculated using
each of these sources and the results are shown in Table 3.
This comparison shows that the cost numbers provided by CompRex
for the recuperators are similar to previously presented information.
There is likely to be a discontinuity in the cost curves for recuperators
when it becomes necessary to shift from a standard 316 stainless steel to
high nickel content alloys at higher temperatures. It is possible that
regenerators do not experience this discontinuity due to the potential
for cooling the pressure vessel wall and the fact that the bed itself does
not experience any load. This suggests that the advantage associated
with the use of regenerators over recuperators becomes more pro-
nounced as the cycle temperatures continue to increase.
6. Regenerator optimization
The goal for designing the regenerator is to have the largest possible
reduction in LCoE related to the replacement of the recuperators with
regenerators. The primary reduction in LCoE is associated with the
reduced capital cost. However, carryover has a dramatic and negative
effect on the performance of a cycle that uses a regenerator. Therefore,
it is important to reduce the carryover loss as much as possible. The
largest reduction in the carryover mass can be achieved by using the
high pressure fluid in one regenerator to partially fill the low pressure
regenerator rather than allowing this mass to drain directly back to the
compressor. If a linking valve is introduced that allows the two re-
generators to exchange mass with each other before opening the valves
to the compressor then some of the high pressure fluid that would have
returned directly to the compressor during the blowdown process will
instead partially fill the regenerator. This fluid would otherwise be
obtained from the compressor during the pressurization process. Once
the pressure has equalized between the two regenerators, the valves are
opened and normal operation is resumed. Adding one linking valve and
operating the system in this fashion reduces the carryover mass by
approximately a factor of 2 and, depending on the operating condition,
increases the thermal efficiency of the cycle by as much as 3 percent.
This valve operation is illustrated in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 shows the additional equilibration process where all valves to
each regenerator must be closed except for the added linking valve;
with only two beds there will be nowhere for the high pressure fluid
exiting the compressor to go during this period of time. To eliminate
this issue, the regenerator is broken into at least four beds so that
continuous flow can be maintained. This means that while one pair of
beds are pressurizing/depressurizing the other beds are still operating
normally. The additional beds also provide some secondary benefits
including more efficient operation under part load conditions and mi-
tigation of fluctuations of pressure and mass flow rate that would
otherwise be experienced by the turbomachines. If all of the beds had to
be used under part load conditions then the regenerators would be
much larger than is needed to obtain high effectiveness. The extra bed
volume results in larger carryover relative to the mass flow through the
system and reduces the thermal efficiency. By breaking the regenerators
Table 1
Regenerator dimensions for 10 MW power plant.
Dimension Low temp regenerator High temp regenerator
Length 1.25 m (4.1 ft) 1.00 m (3.3 ft)
Diameter 1.19 m (3.9 ft) 1.31 m (4.3 ft)
Total frontal area 1.11 m2 (11.9 ft2) 1.35 m2 (14.5 ft2)
Regenerator volume 1.39 m3 (49.1 ft3) 1.35 m3 (47.7 ft3)
Wall thickness 53.2 mm (2.09 in.) 57.9 mm (2.28 in.)
J.F. Hinze et al. Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161

Table 2 The bed packing material can also have a significant effect on car-
Cost of materials in regenerator system from [30]. ryover. Since any volume in the bed that is not taken up in the packing
will result in more carryover, it is desirable to store as much energy as
Material Cost ($/kg)
possible in the smallest space. This suggests that the bed material
304 1.43 should have a large volumetric heat capacity. All materials show a re-
Type 91 3.79 latively constant volumetric heat capacity, with variations on the order
Insulation 3.08
of 10%. Stainless steel is one of the materials on the high end of vo-
lumetric heat capacity that can also withstand a high temperature high
Table 3
pressure CO2 environment. Additionally, stainless steel is low cost
Cost comparison of recuperators for a 10 MW power cycle from various compared to the other options such as refractory or metal foams.
sources. The effectiveness and pressure drop of the recuperators must be
simultaneously optimized. There are two requirements for obtaining a
Source Cost (k$)
high effectiveness regenerator: the first is to have a Cm ratio and the
CompRex 3,125 second is to have a high NTU. Eq. (1.1) shows that to keep the same Cm
SuperCritical Technologies [31] 3,368 for a given minimum capacitance rate, the mass of the bed must be
Ho et al. [7] 2,440 increased if the switching time is increased. Therefore, the switching
time should be kept as short as possible to keep the bed as small as
possible. The optimization of LCoE tends to push the regenerator to-
into more beds, unneeded regenerators can be taken offline and the
wards a relatively high NTU, moderate Cm operating design in order to
cycle can always operate with nearly an optimally sized regenerator.
keep the bed small. The NTU is based on the conductance (UA) of the
The disadvantage of this approach is that more relatively expensive
bed which can be increased by making the size of the spheres used for
valves are required to implement this option.

Fig. 7. Bypass valve operation to reduce carryover.

1158
J.F. Hinze et al. Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161

the matrix smaller. This increases the UA both by increasing the specific valves, depending on the configuration, varied between $500,000 and
surface area of the bed and also by increasing the heat transfer coeffi- $1,500,000 for the entire system. The configuration with the lowest
cient due to the reduction in the hydraulic diameter of the passages. LCoE was the low pressure drop option, because the higher efficiency of
The disadvantage of this approach is that the pressure drop also in- the larger valves made up for their cost.
creases with a smaller hydraulic diameter. A smaller pressure drop re-
quires beds with short length and large diameter which increases the
8. Cost comparison
thickness required for the shell and therefore its cost. A larger pressure
drop results in a reduction in thermal efficiency. The optimal effec-
In order for regenerators to replace recuperators, they must to
tiveness is a balance between high heat recovery at high effectiveness,
provide an advantage in one or more of the following categories: cost,
with low carryover and low cost at low effectiveness.
maintenance, reliability, or lifetime so that the replacement of re-
The models described here allow a comprehensive optimization of
cuperators with regenerators creates a reduction in the LCoE. The LCoE
the system that includes the tradeoffs discussed. The optimal pressure
takes into account all of the capital costs associated with the power
drop for each regenerator is approximately 220 kPa. The optimal value
block and spreads them out evenly to the electricity produced by the
for effectiveness for the high temperature regenerator is 98.7% whereas
cycle using the method outlined in [32]. The LCoE calculations for this
the optimal value for the low temperature regenerator is only 96.0%.
analysis were done for a power plant with a 20 MWt heat input. To
The reason for this difference is related to the carryover contributions
make the results more general, only the contribution to LCoE from the
associated with each unit. In the low temperature regenerator the
power block (not the heat source or fuel) was considered in this ana-
density variation with pressure is much higher and, as a result, about
lysis. The constant heat input takes into account the difference in
75% of the total carryover loss in the cycle occurs in the low tem-
thermal efficiencies associated with using regenerators compared to
perature regenerator. By lowering the effectiveness slightly, the carry-
recuperators. A high efficiency results in more power generation and
over is reduced and the thermal efficiency of the cycle actually in-
thus more energy to spread the capital costs over. The costs for the
creases.
power block and recuperators were obtained from [7] and the re-
Several limits were placed on the values of the parameter space
generator system cost was estimated using the techniques and cost es-
explored during the optimization described in this section. The
timates discussed in this paper. The system was assumed to be an RCBC
switching time could not be made arbitrarily small since the valves
operating with a 720 °C turbine inlet temperature at pressures of
need a finite time to respond. The valve response time was estimated to
25 MPa and 8 MPa. The recuperators were specified to have a effec-
be 3 s to fully open and close and therefore the smallest allowable flow
tiveness of 94%, which has been reported to be the maximum practical
period was set to be much larger than this value, 45 s. The size of the
value due to the crossflow nature in the headers [14]. The effectiveness
spheres in the packed bed were limited to 3 mm or higher.
of the low temperature regenerator is set to 96.0% while the high
temperature regenerator is set to 98.7% effectiveness; these higher
7. Valve selection
values are possible because a regenerator can be operated in a true
counter flow configuration. The thermal efficiency of the optimized
From a cost standpoint it was found that the valves used to control
cycle, the LCoE, and the cost of the recuperator or regenerator plus
the flow of the high temperature and high pressure carbon dioxide were
valves, are summarized in Table 4.
almost as important as the regenerator beds themselves. Not only is the
The cycle operating with a regenerator shows a modest increase in
temperature of the fluid in the valves very high (560 °C for a 720 °C
cycle efficiency while maintaining a substantial reduction in LCoE due
turbine) but the temperature experienced by the valve fluctuates during
to the lower cost for the regenerator system. It is important to also know
each cycle causing thermal cycling. Fig. 4 shows an example of the
the sensitivity to costs of the regenerators and valves as they contain the
temperature variation that the valve will experience every 45 s as the
most uncertainty in this analysis. Fig. 8 shows contours of constant
cycle is running for a typical cycle. Large temperature changes cause
reduction in LCoE as a function of a cost multiplier for the regenerator
thermal stresses in the valve body which can result in leakage or pre-
and valve costs.
mature breakage of the valves. Ideally a valve would last for the life-
Even with a 50% increase to the costs of the regenerators and valves
cycle of the power plant (30 years) but that may not be feasible in such
there is still a 12.8% decrease in the LCoE for the regenerator system as
a hostile environment. The minimum valve life that is acceptable is one
compared to the recuperator cycle. This analysis shows that re-
year, which is how often most plants shut down for maintenance. The
generators have the potential to reduce the costs of the sCO2 power
valves also need to be able to open and close quickly so that re-
cycle under a wide range of cost conditions.
generators can operate correctly. Finally, the valve pressure drop must
meet performance targets.
Information on commercially available valves has been gathered in 9. Conclusions
collaboration with the project partner FlowServe in order to compare
the capital and maintenance costs for each type of valve. A table of The sCO2 power cycle has the potential to provide electricity at
valve operating conditions was provided to FlowServe, who analyzed much greater efficiency than current Rankine cycle technologies due to
three types of valve for this application; open/close globe valve, three its ability to operate at much high temperatures. However the high
way valve, and rotary valve. The three way valve and rotary valve degree of recuperation necessary for high efficiency means that the
options resulted in a high cost and more complexity for this application printed circuit heat exchangers currently being considered for this ap-
leaving the open/close globe valve as the best choice. The valves were plication are a large portion of the cost of the power block [7]. This
sized to have the lowest possible cost for the operating conditions. paper describes a thorough and realistic estimate of the potential for
Valves located in positions that do not experience high temperature are
designed with lower cost alloys. Several scenarios were considered Table 4
Efficiency, recuperator costs, and LCoE for a recuperator and regenerator operating at
which corresponded to both high and low values for both pressure drop
identical conditions.
(30 kPa and 90 kPa) and flow rate so that the cost penalty associated
with these options could be considered. As expected, the costs were Thermal LCoE Recuperator/regenerator
lower for a high pressure drop option but the efficiency of the system efficiency ($/kWh) + valves cost (k$)
was also reduced. It was determined that the efficiency gained by using
Recuperators 51.76% 0.01957 4177
the lower pressure drop valves was more important than the capital cost Regenerators 52.27% 0.01542 1897
savings associated with the valve in terms of the LCoE. The cost of the

1159
J.F. Hinze et al.
1.5
1.4
Valve Cost Multiplier
1.3
1.2
1.1
19.5
1.0
21
0.9 22.5
24
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Regenerator Cost Multiplier
cost savings that is associated with replacing the recuperators with
regenerators. Regenerators provide a slightly higher thermal efficiency
due to the higher effectiveness that is possible with a pure counter flow
configuration. The cost of regenerators was estimated by optimally
designing these components and then combining the amount of mate-
rial with an estimate of the material and manufacturing costs. The re-
generator shell was sized such that it could approximately meet the
ASME BPVC. The cost of the valves required by a regenerator system
was obtained in partnership with a well-established industrial valve
manufacturer and the cost of the recuperators that are replaced by the
regenerators was estimated using several sources, including a partner-
ship with a well-established manufacturer of PCHEs. The result of this
analysis suggests that switching from recuperators to regenerators can
result in a modest improvement in thermal efficiency and a 50% re-
duction in capital cost of the heat transfer equipment. These effects
result in a 21.2% reduction in the contribution to LCoE from the power
block. The current drawbacks to widespread adoption of regenerators is
the lack of testing. Recuperators, even the relatively new PCHEs have
had significant testing, whereas regenerators operating at these condi-
tions have not been thoroughly studied. The sCO2 cycle creates a need
for lower cost regenerators because of the high temperatures and high
pressures that are not present in a more conventional Rankine cycle.
While regenerators are much further down the technology readiness
scale, they have the potential to disrupt the sCO2 heat exchanger
market.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Evan Reznicek from Colorado School of Mines for
his help with modeling the regenerator, Rich Gradle from FlowServe for
his work with sizing and designing the valves, and Zhijun Jia from
Comprex for obtaining cost estimates for the PCHE recuperators.
Funding
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department
of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0007120.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes
any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or re-
sponsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any in-
formation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161
Fig. 8. Percentage reduction in LCoE of regenerators as compared to
recuperators as a function of a cost multipliers for valves and re-
13.5 generators.
15
16.5
18
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to
any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute
or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
References
[1] Driscoll MJ. Supercritical CO2 Plant Cost Assessment. Cambridge; 2004.
[2] Persichilli M, Kacludis A, Zdankiewicz E, Held T. Supercritical CO2 power cycle
developments and commercialization: why sCO2 can displace steam. Power-Gen
India Cent Asia 2012:1–15.
[3] Conboy TM, Carlson MD, Rochau GE. Dry-cooled supercritical CO2 power for ad-
vanced nuclear reactors. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2014;137:12901. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1115/1.4028080.
[4] Dyreby JJ. Modeling the Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle with
Recompression; 2014.
[5] Pierres R Le, Southall D, Osborne S. Impact of Mechanical Design Issues on Printed
Circuit Heat Exchangers. In: Proc. sCO2 Power Cycle Symp. 2011, Boulder: 2011.
[6] Musgrove GO, Pierres R Le, Nash J. Tutorial: heat exchangers for supercritical CO2
power cycle applications; 2014.
[7] Ho CK, Carlson M, Garg P, Kumar P. Cost and performance tradeoffs of alternative
solar-driven S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations. Proc. ASME 2015 Power Energy
Convers. Conf. 2015. p. 1–10.
[8] Urquiza E, Lee K, Peterson PF, Greif R. Multiscale transient thermal, hydraulic, and
mechanical analysis methodology of a printed circuit heat exchanger using an ef-
fective porous media approach. J Therm Sci Eng Appl 2013;5:1–8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1115/1.4024712.
[9] Carlson MD, Bell C, Schalansky C, Fleming DF, Rochau G. The Selection, Evaluation
and Rating of Compact Heat Exchangers (SEARCH) Software Suite - Code
Capabilities and Experimental Comparison. In: 5th Int. Symp. - Supercrit. CO2
Power Cycles, San Antonio; 2016, p. 1–13.
[10] Jentz IW. Modeling, performance testing, and ASME BPVC Certification of a s-CO2
Marbond Channel Heat Exchanger. University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2016.
[11] Carlson MD, Kruizenga AK, Schalamsky C, Fleming DF. Sandia Progress on ad-
vanced heat exchangers for SCO2 Brayton Cycles. In: 4th Int. Symp. - Supercrit. CO2
Power Cycles; 2014, p. 1–10.
[12] Kruizenga A, Anderson M, Fatima R, Corradini M, Towne A, Ranjan D. Heat transfer
of supercritical carbon dioxide in printed circuit heat exchanger geometries. J
Therm Sci Eng Appl 2011;3:31002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4004252.
[13] Tsuzuki N, Utamura M, Ngo TL. Nusselt number correlations for a microchannel
heat exchanger hot water supplier with S-shaped fins. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29:3299–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.004.
[14] Nikitin K, Kato Y, Ngo L. Printed circuit heat exchanger thermal – hydraulic per-
formance in supercritical CO2 experimental loop. Int J Refrig 2006;29:807–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2005.11.005.
[15] Gheith R, Aloui F, Ben Nasrallah S. Determination of adequate regenerator for a
Gamma-type Stirling engine. Appl Energy 2015;139:272–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.011.
[16] Hu JY, Luo EC, Dai W, Zhang LM. Parameter sensitivity analysis of duplex Stirling
coolers. Appl Energy 2017;190:1039–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
1160
J.F. Hinze et al. Applied Energy 208 (2017) 1150–1161

2017.01.022. Phys Chem 1996;25.

[17] Gifford WE. The Gifford-McMahon Cycle. Adv. Cryog. Eng., Boston, MA: Springer
US; 1966, p. 152–9. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0522-5_16.
[18] El-Wakil MM. Powerplant Technology. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2013.
[19] Korakianitis T, Wilson DG. Models for predicting the performance of Brayton-Cycle
engines, vol. 2 Aircr. Engine; Mar. Microturbines Small Turbomach. ASME; 1992, p.
V002T02A020. doi:10.1115/92-GT-361.
[20] Dragutinovic GD, Baclic BS. Operation of Counterflow Regenerators. Boston:
Computational Mechanics Publications; 1998.
[21] Barron R, Nellis G. Cryogenic Heat Transfer. 2nd ed. Taylor and Francis; 2016.
[22] Kays WM, London AL. Compact Heat Exchangers. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill;
1984.
[23] F-Chart. EES Engineering Equation Solver; 2015.
[24] Span R, Wagner W. A new equation of state for carbon dioxide covering the fluid
region from the triple-point temperature to 1100 K at pressures up to 800 MPa. J
[25] MathWorks. Matlab2015a; 2015.
[26] Nellis G, Klein SA. Heat Transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
[27] Engineers AS of M. Section VIII Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels. In:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers B and PVC, editor. ASME Boil. Press.
Vessel Code, New York; 2007.
[28] Beer FP, Johnston ERJ, DeWolf JT, Mazurek DF. Mechanics of Materials. 6th ed.
New York: McGraw Hill; 2012.
[29] ANSYS Academic Research, Release 16.1 n.d.
[30] Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc. DFMA 2016.
[31] Wright SA, Davidson CS, Scammell WO. Thermo - economic analysis of four sCO2
waste heat recovery power systems. In: 5th Int. sCO2 Symp., n.d., p. 1–16.
[32] Short W, Packey DJ, Holt T. A manual for the economic evaluation of energy effi-
ciency and renewable energy technologies; 1995.

1161