Proceedings of PWR2006
ProceedingsASME Power
SECOND LAW ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION OF ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE
C. Somayaji, Student Member
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762-5925
L.M. Chamra
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762-5925
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a second law analysis and optimization
for the use of Organic Rankine Cycle “ORC” to convert waste
energy to power from low grade heat sources. The working
fluids used in this study are organic substances which have a
low boiling point and a low latent heat for using low grade
waste heat sources. The organic working fluids under
investigation are R134a and R113 and their results are
compared with those of ammonia and water under similar
operating conditions. A combined first and second law analysis
is performed by varying some system operating parameters at
various reference temperatures. Some of the results show that
the efficiency of ORC is typically below 20% depending on the
temperatures and matched working fluid. In addition, it has
been found that organic working fluids are more suited for heat
recovery than water for low temperature applications, which
justifies the use of organic working fluids at the lower waste
source temperatures.
INTRODUCTION
Several industrial processes have low-temperature waste
heat sources (<250°C) that can not be efficiently recovered. In
the energy industry, the thermal efficiency becomes very low
when the exhaust stream temperature drops below 370°C. Due
to lack of efficient recovery methods, low grade waste heat has
generally been discarded by industry and has become an
environmental concern because of thermal pollution [1]. A
solution for this problem is the use of Organic Rankine Cycles
(ORC) which can make use of low temperature waste heat to
generate electricity. The ORC is a thermodynamic cycle that
uses an organic working fluid (usually at a temperature below
400°C) to generate electricity. The working fluid is heated to
boiling, and the expanding vapor is used to drive a turbine.
1 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/04/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
of PWR2006
May 2-4, 2006, Atlanta, GA, USA
ASME Power
May 2 - 4, 2006, Atlanta, GA
POWER2006-88061
PWR2006-88061
P.J. Mago, ASME Member
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762-5925
This turbine can be used to drive a generator to convert the
work into electricity. The working-fluid vapor is condensed
back into a liquid and fed back through the system.
One advantage of using ORC instead of steam Rankine
cycles in the energy industry is that the thermal efficiency
becomes economically feasible when organic fluids are used to
recover waste heat below 370°C [1]. At these low temperatures
a steam cycle would be inefficient, due to enormous volumes of
low pressure steam, causing very voluminous and costly
plants. ORCs can be applied for low temperature waste heat
recovery (industry), efficiency improvement in power stations
[2], and recovery of geothermal and solar heat. Therefore, the
use of ORC to recover waste heat below 370°C is favorable in
many aspects: better and economical use of the energy as well
as reduce the emission of CO2. Some example of low grade
waste heat (80-200°C) are: industrial waste streams, solar heat
trapped in the collectors, cooling water streams of stationary
diesel engines, the exhaust of diesel engines and biomass,
among others.
Some of the researchers that have investigated the
application and performance of ORC are: Hung [3], Hung et al.
[1], Gurgenci [4], Yamamoto et al. [5], Lee et al. [6], Larjola
[7], and Larjola et al. [8], among others.
Another important aspect of the operation of ORCs is the
selection of the working fluid. The organic working fluid must
be carefully selected based on safety and technical feasibility.
There is a wide selection of organic fluids that could be used in
ORC. Performances and characteristics of different working
fluids for waste heat recovery system can be found in Maizza
and Maizza [9], Vijayaraghavan and Goswami [10], and
 Maizza and Maizza [11]. Generally, a good working fluid
should exhibits low toxicity, good material compatibility and
fluid stability limits [12], and low flammability, corrosion, and
fouling characteristics. Refrigerants are good candidates for
ORC applications due to their low toxicity characteristics [13].
Another characteristic that must be considered during the
selection of organic fluid is its saturation vapor curve. This
characteristic affects the fluid applicability, cycle efficiency,
and arrangement of associated equipment in a power generation
system [3]. The slope of the saturation curve in the T-s diagram
depends of the type of fluid employed. A dry fluid has a
positive slope (R113); a wet fluid has a negative slope (water
and ammonia); while an isentropic fluid has infinite large
working conditions for different working fluids. The analysis
presented in this paper assumes the following: steady state
conditions, no pressure drop in the evaporator, condenser, and
pipes, and isentropic efficiencies for the turbine and pump. A
simple configuration of ORC for converting waste heat into
useful electrical power is shown in Figure 1. As can be
observed in Figure 1 there are four different processes: Process
1-2 (pumping process), Process 2-3 (constant-pressure transfer
of heat), Process 3-4 (expansion process), and Process 4-1
(constant-pressure heat transfer).
High Temperature
Reservoir 3

slopes (R134a). Generally, dry and isentropic fluids are better

working fluids for an ORC since they do not condensate after Electricity
Turbine Generator
Evaporator
the fluid goes through the turbine.
4
The objective of this paper is to study the change in 2
thermal efficiency and irreversibility of ORC using different
working fluids varying system operating parameters at various Condenser
reference temperatures. Pump
1

Low Temperature
NOMENCLATURE Reservoir
h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
&I Irreversibility rate, kW Figure 1. Simple configuration of ORC to produce electrical
W& power, kW power.
q specific heat, kJ/kg
Q& heat rate, kW 1. Process 1-2 (Pump):
The circulation pump is the driving mechanism of the
η efficiency, % ORC. The pump power can be expressed as:
m& mass flow rate, kg/s W& p ,ideal m& (h1 − h2 s )
T temperature, K W& p = = (1)
TH temperature of the high-temperature reservoir, K ηp ηp
TL temperature of the low-temperature reservoir, K
ΔT temperature differential, K where W& p ,ideal is the ideal power of the pump, m& is the working
S entropy, kJ/K
s specific entropy, kJ/kg K fluid mass flow rate, η p is the isentropic efficiency of the
pump, and h1 and h2s are the enthalpies of the working fluid at
Subscripts: the inlet and outlet of the pump for the ideal case. The actual
ideal isentropic case specific enthalpy of the working fluid at the pump outlet is:
e evaporator (
h2 = h1 − W& p m& ) (2)
c condenser
t turbine
p pump The irreversibility rate for uniform flow conditions can be
exit conditions at the exit expressed as:
⎡ ⎤
( ) ∑( )
inlet conditions at the inlet
∑ ∑
dS
o ambient I& = To = To m& ⎢ sexit − sinlet + dssystem dt + q j Tj ⎥
dt ⎢⎣ j ⎥⎦
cycle cycle
(3)
ANALYSIS ( )
where the term ds system dt = 0 for steady state conditions.
The equations used to determine the cycle efficiency as
well as the cycle irreversibility for ORC are presented in this
For the pump the irreversibility rate can be expressed as:
section. Using the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics,
the performance of an ORC can be evaluated under diverse I& p = To m& (s2 − s1 ) (4)

2 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/04/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 where s1 and s2 are the specific entropies of the working fluid at the rate of latent heat rejection from the condensing working
the inlet an exit of the pump for the actual conditions, fluid can be expressed as:
respectively. Q& c = m& (h1 − h4 ) (10)

2. Process 2-3 (Evaporator):

The condenser irreversibility rate can be determine from
This is a constant-pressure transfer of heat. The evaporator
Equation (3) as follows
heats the working fluid at the pump outlet to the turbine inlet
⎡ h − h4 ⎤
condition which can be saturated or superheated vapor. The I&c = To m& ⎢(s1 − s 4 ) − 1 ⎥ (11)
heat transfer rate from the evaporator into the working fluid is ⎣ TL ⎦
given by:
Q& e = m& (h3 − h2 ) (5) where s1 and s4 are the specific entropies of the working fluid at
the inlet an exit of the condenser, respectively, and TL is the
where h3 and h2 are the enthalpies of the working fluid at the temperature of the low temperature reservoir. This temperature
exit and inlet of the evaporator, respectively. is considered to be equal to TL = T1 − ΔTL

Using Equation (3) the evaporator irreversibility rate can 5. Cycle efficiency:
be determined as: The thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio between the
⎡ h −h ⎤ net power of the cycle to the evaporator heat rate. It can be
I&e = To m& ⎢(s3 − s2 ) − 3 2 ⎥ (6) expressed as:
⎣ TH ⎦
W&t + W& p
ηcycle = (12)
where s3 and s2 are the specific entropies of the working fluid at Q& e
the inlet an exit of the evaporator, respectively, and TH is the
temperature of the high-temperature heat source. This 6. Total Cycle Irreversibly:
temperature is considered to be equal to TH = T3 + ΔTH The total irreversibility can be obtained adding Equations
(4), (6), (9), and (11) as follows:
3. Process 3-4 (Turbine): ∑
I&cycle = I& j =I& p + I&e + I&t + I&c (13)
The superheated or saturated vapor working fluid passes j
through the turbine to generate the mechanical power. After the ⎡⎛ h − h ⎞ ⎛ h − h ⎞⎤
vapor expands, it is depressurized by the turbine blades.. The I&cycle = m& To ⎢⎜⎜ − 3 2 ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ 1 4 ⎟⎟⎥ (14)
turbine power is given by: ⎣⎢⎝ TH ⎠ ⎝ TL ⎠⎦⎥
W&t = W&t ,idealηt = m& (h3 − h4 s )ηt (7)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For the purpose of this study two organic fluids were used:
where W&t ,ideal is the ideal power of the turbine, ηt is the turbine R134a and R113. The results for the organic fluids were
isentropic efficiency, and h3 and h4s are the enthalpies of the compared with those for ammonia and water under similar
working fluid at the inlet and outlet of the turbine for the ideal operating conditions.
case. The actual specific enthalpy of the working fluid at the
turbine exit is: Figure 2 shows the variation of the system thermal
(
h4 = h3 − W&t m& ) (8) efficiency with the turbine inlet temperature. To generate this
figure the evaporator pressure and condenser temperature were
The turbine irreversibility rate can be expressed as: kept constant at 1.5 MPa and 298 K, respectively. The
isentropic efficiencies of the turbine and pump were 80% and
I&t = To m& (s4 − s3 ) (9) 85%, respectively, while the temperature differential was kept
where s3 and s4 are the specific entropies of the working fluid at constant at 15 K for all cases. Basically, this figure shows the
the inlet an exit of the turbine for the actual conditions, effect of superheating the working fluid over the thermal
respectively. efficiency of the cycle. The range of temperature used to
analyze each fluid varies from the saturation temperature to the
4. Process 4-1 (Condenser): critical temperature. This figure illustrates that the efficiency
The working fluid leaving the turbine goes through a of the cycle remains approximately constant with the increment
constant pressure phase change process in the condenser into a of the turbine inlet temperature. This reflects the fact that
saturated liquid, rejecting latent heat into the environment or organic fluids do not need to be superheated to increase the
the condenser coolant. The condenser heat rate, Q& c , which is cycle thermal efficiency as oppose to water that increasing the
inlet turbine temperature increases the thermal efficiency.

3 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/04/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 From Figure 2, it can also be observed that R113 shows the
maximum efficiency between the organic fluids for
temperatures above 430 K. However, R134a shows the best
efficiency for temperatures between 330 K and 430 K, while
water is the best fluid when temperatures go above 470 K. It
is important to point out here, how organic fluids can be used
to produce power from low temperature waste heat. However,
organic fluids are restricted to a small range of applicability
depending on their thermodynamic conditions
40
R134a
Ammonia
System Thermal Efficiency (%)
results are consistent for all the fluids, since the system thermal
efficiency increases with the increment of the turbine inlet
pressure for all of them. This can be explained because when
the inlet turbine pressure increases both the net work and the
evaporator heat increase. However, the percentage of increase
of the net work is higher than the percentage of increase of the
evaporator heat. Therefore the ratio of the net work and the
evaporator heat increases whit the turbine inlet pressure. In
this figure R113 shows the best performance between the
organic fluids for pressures below 3MPa, while R134a presents
the best efficiency for a range of pressure between 3 and 4
MPa. Water shows the best thermal efficiency under the
conditions analyzed in this case.

R113
30
Water
1000

R134a
Ammonia
20 800 R113
Water

Irreversibility (kJ/kg)
600
10

400

0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
200
Turbine Inlet Temperature (K)
Figure 2. Variation of the system thermal efficiency with the
turbine inlet temperature (Pe = 1.5 MPa and Tc = 298 K) 0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Figure 3 shows the variation of the system specific Turbine Inlet Temperature (K)
irreversibility with the turbine inlet temperature under the same Figure 3. Variation of the system irreversibility with the
conditions used to generate the results shown in Figure 2. It turbine inlet temperature (Ph = 1.5 MPa and Tc = 298 K)
can be observed that the total system irreversibility increases
with the increment of the turbine inlet temperature for all the 40

fluids. The results presented in this figure show the importance R134a
Ammonia
to perform a second law analysis. According to the results R113
Thermal System Efficiency (%)

presented in Figure 2 the thermal efficiency is approximately 30 Water

constant with the increment of the turbine inlet temperature.
However, a combine first and second law analysis shows that
the best case scenario is obtained when the fluid is operated at
20
saturated conditions before the turbine. This yields the same
thermal efficiency with lower irreversibility that operating
under superheating conditions. Figure 3 also illustrates how
the system with higher (R113) and lower (Ammonia) thermal 10

efficiencies present the lower and higher irreversibility,

respectively.
0
Figure 4 illustrates the variation of the system thermal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

efficiency with the turbine inlet pressure with keeping the
turbine inlet temperature at saturated conditions. For this case
the condenser temperature was kept constant at 298 K, while
the maximum pressure used for each fluid was the critical
pressure. Similarly to Figure 2, the isentropic efficiencies of
the turbine and pump were 80% and 85%, respectively, while
the temperature differential was kept constant at 15 K. The
Turbine Inlet Pressure (MPa)
Figure 4. Variation of the system thermal efficiency with the
turbine inlet pressure (Tc = 298 K)
Figure 5 showed the total specific irreversibility versus the
turbine inlet pressure for the same conditions used to generate
Figure 4. It can be observed how the irreversibility increases

4 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/04/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 with the increment of the turbine pressure for all the fluids. irreversibility rates than R134a. The decrease in the rate of
Water shows the highest irreversibility values while R134a the irreversibility shown by ammonia is due to the fact that to
lowest values. As observed in Figure 3, ammonia presents the produce 30 kW of net power, this is the fluid that requires the
higher irreversibility among the fluids evaluated in this paper. lowest mass flow rate.
5
The variation of the mass flow rate needed to generate the
R134a
same power output with the turbine inlet pressure is evaluated Ammonia
4
in Figure 6. This figure was generated for R113, R134a, and R113
ammonia, using the same conditions described in Figure 4 and

Mass Flow Rate (Kg/s)

for a power output of 30 KW. It can be seen that for all the 3

fluids the mass flow rate needed decreases with the increment
of the turbine inlet pressure. This is due to the increase in the 2
net work of the cycle with the increment in turbine inlet
pressure increase. 1
600

0
500
Irreversibility (kJ/kg)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
400
Turbine Inlet Pressure (MPa)
R134a
300 Ammonia Figure 6. Mass flow rate needed to produce 30 kW power
R113 versus turbine inlet pressure (Tc = 298 K)
Water

200 220

200 R134a
Ammonia
100 180 R113
Irreversibility Rate (kW)

160
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 140

Turbine Inlet Pressure (MPa) 120

Figure 5. Variation of the system irreversibility with the 100
turbine inlet temperature (Tc = 298 K)
80

These results agree with the results presented in Figure 3, 60

since an increment of the net work represents an increase in the
cycle thermal efficiency. Another interesting point is that the
fluid that requires the lowest mass flow rate is ammonia. This
can be explained since ammonia is the fluid that generates the
highest net work among the evaluated fluids. However, the
ratio between the net work and the total heat input (thermal
efficiency) is much lower for ammonia than for the other
evaluated fluids. R113 and R134a generate lower net works but
they required less heat input in the evaporator, therefore they
show higher thermal efficiencies.
Figure 7 shows the irreversibility rates for each fluid for
the case analyzed in Figure 6. From this figure it can be seen
that the irreversibility rates decrease for R-134a and ammonia,
while for R113 shows a slight increment. This figure illustrates
that for the pressure range between 0.5 MPa to 3 MPa R113
shows the lowest irreversibility, while ammonia shows the
highest irreversibility rate. Between 3.0 and 3.2 MPa the
irreversibility of the three fluids are very similar, while for
pressures higher than 3.2 MPa, ammonia shows lower
40
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Turbine Inlet Pressure (MPa)
Figure 7. Total irreversibility rate of the system for a power
output of 30 kW versus turbine inlet pressure (Tc = 298 K)
Figure 8 shows the variation of thermal efficiency with the
condenser outlet temperature. This figure was generated
keeping constant the evaporator pressure at 3 MPa. The
isentropic efficiencies of the turbine and pump were 80% and
85%, respectively. From this figure it can be observed that for
all the working fluids, the system thermal efficiency decreases
linearly with the increase in condenser outlet temperature.
These results indicate that ORC will be more beneficial in
places with annual low ambient temperatures. The trend
observed in this figure is consistent with the results shown in
Figures 2 and 3 where R113 shows the best thermal efficiency
while ammonia the worse among the three evaluated fluids.

5 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/04/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 40
R134a
Ammonia
R113
Thermal System Efficiency (%)
30
20
10
0 Conditions.” Solar Energy, 36(1), pp. 45-52.
275 280 285 290
Condenser Outlet Temperature (K)
Figure 8. Variation of the system thermal efficiency with the
condenser outlet temperature (Pe = 3 MPa)
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents an analysis of the performance of ORC
using R113 and R134a, and a comparison of their results with
those for ammonia and water operating under similar
conditions. This analysis was based on the first and second
laws of thermodynamics, and parameters such as thermal
efficiency and irreversibility were evaluated and compared with
the results for water under the same conditions. It was shown
that organic fluids can be used to generate power using low-
temperature waste heat.
Organic fluids do not need to be superheated since the
cycle thermal efficiency remains approximately constant when
the inlet temperature of the turbine is increased. However,
using the second law analysis it can be seen that superheating
organic fluids increases the irreversibility. Therefore, organic
fluids must be operated at saturated conditions to reduce the
total irreversibility of the system. It can also be concluded, that
the thermal efficiency of ORC increases when the condenser
temperature is decreased. Therefore, using ORC in locations
with low ambient temperatures will be more effective.
For the different scenarios analyze in this investigation,
ORC using R113 show the best thermal efficiency while those
using ammonia show the worse efficiency. However, it is
important to point out that some organic fluids show better
performance within a range of temperature. Therefore,
designers have to closely monitor the operation conditions in
order to select the right organic fluid.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
Mississippi State University is gratefully acknowledged.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/04/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
REFERENCES
[1] Hung, T.C., Shai, T.Y., and Wang, S.K., 1997, “A Review
of Organic Rankine Cycles (ORCs) for the Recovery of
Low-Grade Waste Heat.” Energy, 22(7), pp. 661-667.
[2] Verschoor, M.J.E. and Brouwer, E.P., 1995. “Description
of the SMR Cycle, Which Combines Fluid Elements of
Steam and Organic Rankine Cycle.” Energy, 4(20)
pp.295-304.
[3] Hung, T.C., 2001, “Waste Heat Recovery of Organic
Rankine Cycle Using Dry Fluids.” Energy Conversion &
Management, 42, pp. 539-553.
[4] Gurgenci, H., 1986, “Performance of Power Plants with
Organic Rankine Cycles Under Part-Load and Off-Design
295 300
[5] Yamamoto, T., Furuhata, T., Arai, N., and Mori, K., 2001,
“Design and Testing of the Organic Rankine Cycle.”
Energy, 26(3), pp. 239-251.
[6] Lee, K.M., Kuo, S.F., Chien, M.L., and Shih, Y.S., 1988,
“Parameters Analysis on Organic Rankine Cycle Energy
Recovery System.” Energy Conversion and Management,
28(2), pp. 129-136.
[7] Larjola, J., 1991, “Electricity From Waste Heat Using the
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC).” International Journal of
Production Economics, 41, pp. 227-235.
[8] Larjola, J., Sarkomaa, P., and Suistoranta, S., 1987, “Ne
technology ORC-Plant for Heat Recovery odf Diesel
Engines.” 17th International Congress on Combustion
Engines, June 8-11, Warsaw (CIMAC).
[9] Maizza, V., and Maizza, A., 1996, “Working Fluids in
Non-Steady Flows for Waste Energy Recovery Systems.”
Applied Thermal Engineering, 16(7), pp. 579-590.
[10] Vijayaraghavan, S., and Goswami, D.Y., 2005, “Organic
Working Fluids for a Combined Power and Cooling
Cycle.” ASME Journal of Energy Recourses Technology,
127, pp. 125-130.
[11] Maizza, V., and Maizza, A., 2001, “Unconventional
Working Fluids in Organic Rankine-Cycles for Waste
Energy Recovery Systems.” Applied Thermal
Engineering, 21(3), pp. 381-390
[12] Niggeman R.E., and Greenlee, W.J., and Lacey, P., Fluid
Selection and Optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle
Waste Heat Power Conversion System. ASME 78-WA,
January 6, 1978.
[13] Lee, M.J., Tien, D.L., Shao, C.T. 1993, “Thermophysical
Capability of Ozozno Safe Working Fluids for an organic
Rankine-Cycle System,” Heat Recovery System & CHP,
13, pp. 409-418.
6 Copyright © 2006 by ASME