Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Energetic, Exergetic, Economic and Environmental (4E) analysis of a

solar assisted refrigeration system for various operating scenarios
Evangelos Bellos ⇑, Christos Tzivanidis, Georgios Tsifis
Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this work is to investigate the yearly performance an absorption-compression cascade
Received 13 May 2017 refrigeration system driven by solar energy. Different operating scenarios are examined by testing differ-
Received in revised form 11 June 2017 ent combinations of refrigeration and condensation temperatures. Evacuated tube collectors coupled to a
Accepted 18 June 2017
storage tank are selected to be used for feeding the refrigeration system with the proper heat demand.
LiBr-H2O and R134a are selected as working pair in the absorption cycle and refrigerant in the compres-
sion cycle respectively. The analysis is performed in energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental
Keywords:
terms with a developed and validated model in EES (Engineering Equation Solver). According to the final
Solar refrigeration
Absorption-compression cascade system
results, the cascade system, in cases with low refrigeration temperatures is better economically while in
Absorption chiller higher refrigeration temperatures presents the greater percentage of electricity savings. On the other
Exergetic analysis hand, higher heat rejection temperature leads both to higher economic indexes and to higher electricity
VCC savings. For the case of heat rejection at 40 °C and refrigeration at
20 °C, the electricity savings are found
53.98%, the IRR 6.6% and the payback period close to 14 years.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction compression cycle (VCC) has been examined by many researchers.

Solar energy utilization is one of the most promising ways to
face the recent worldwide problems associated with the energy
domain. Global warming, climate change, fossil fuel depletion
and the increasing price of electricity are the main reasons which
lead to the adoption of renewable and sustainable energy sources,
as solar energy [1–3]. Numerous applications can exploit solar
energy because it can be converted into useful heat with the solar
thermal collectors or direct into electricity with photovoltaic pan-
els [4,5]. Among these applications, solar cooling and refrigeration
seem to have the best compatibility between source supply and
load demand [6,7]. Furthermore, solar cooling/refrigeration appli-
cations aid the decrease of high peaks of electricity consumption
is summer which creates severe problems in the grid energy distri-
bution [8].
In solar cooling applications, sorption machines are usually
used as absorption, adsorption and desiccant wheels. In solar
refrigeration applications, in extremely low temperatures close to

40 °C, absorption chillers with H2O-NH3 are the most usual
choice [9]. The last years, the utilization of cascade systems with
absorption chillers operating with LiBr-H2O and vapor
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bellose@central.ntua.gr (E. Bellos).
The basic idea of the cascade systems is to separate the
refrigeration process in two parts. In the low part, the VCC cycle
produces refrigeration in the desired temperature (for example

40 °C to
20 °C) and it rejects heat in a relatively small
temperature (5–10 °C). This heat is taken by the absorption chiller
as cooling load and the absorption chiller rejects it in the environ-
ment at a higher temperature level (30–40 °C). The VCC consumes
electricity and the absorption chiller utilizes heat at temperature
levels close to 100 °C when a single stage chiller is used [10].
This configuration is able to reduce the electricity consumption
in the compressor of VCC up to 50% [11] and it exploits alternative
energy sources as solar energy, geothermal energy and waste heat
[12]. Moreover, the LiBr-H2O is non-toxic compared to H2O-NH3
and thus it is usually selected in applications [13]. About 80% of
the existing absorption machines operate with LiBr-H2O [14], a fact
that proves the great adoption of this technology. An extra advan-
tage of the cascade systems is the exploitation of the existing
installations of vapor compression cycle by adding an extra absorp-
tion chiller.
In solar field, the selection of the proper collector type is a crit-
ical issue. Flat plate collectors are usually unable to produce heat at
temperatures close to 100 °C efficiently [15] and thus they are not
recommended for these applications. On the other hand, concen-
trating technologies are parabolic trough collectors and Fresnel

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.063
0196-8904/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1056 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069

Nomenclature

Ac collecting area, m2 Subscripts and superscripts

AT storage tank outer area, m2 a absorber
CF cash flow, € abs absorption chiller
cp specific heat capacity, J/kg K am ambient
C0 capital cost, € c condenser of absorption chiller
Day number of the day in the year, – c, m condenser of mechanical compression refrigerator
DR ambient temperature daily range, °C ch chiller
E daily energy amount, kWh col collector
GT solar radiation, W/m2 e evaporator of mechanical compression refrigerator
GT,max maximum daily solar radiation, W/m2 e, m evaporator of absorption chiller
h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg eq equivalent refrigerator
HT daily total irradiation in the collector level, kWh/m2 ex exergy
j year counter, – h hot
Kabs absorption chiller specific Cost, €/kW in inlet
Kel cost of electricity, €/kWh is isentropic
KETC specific cost of the ETC, €/m2 g generator
KO&M cost of operation and maintenance, % loss heat losses
Kmc mechanical compression refrigerator specific Cost, €/kW m mean
Kref cost of refrigeration mc mechanical compression
Ktank specific cost of the storage tank, €/m3 max maximum
m mass flow rate, kg/s net net gain
ma collector field specific mass flow rate, kg/sm2 opt optimum
M project life, years out outlet
ND day duration, hours r refrigerant in absorption chiller
Pel electricity consumption, kW ref refrigerant in mechanical compression refrigerator
Q heat rate, kW s solar
r discount factor, % st storage tank
t time, s str strong solution
th time, hours sys system
T temperature, °C s, 1 storage tank first mixing zone
Tsun sun temperature, K s, 2 storage tank second mixing zone
UA heat transfer coefficient, kW/K s, 3 storage tank third mixing zone
UT tank total heat loss coefficient, kW/m2 K u useful
V tank volume, m3 w weak solution
X LiBr mass concentration in mixture, %
Y yearly energy production/consumption, kWh Abbreviations
COP coefficient of performance
Greek symbols EES engineering equation solver
b collector slope, ° ETC evacuated tube collector
d solar declination, ° IRR internal rate of return
Dt time step, s NPV net present values
gHEX solution heat exchanger efficiency, – PP payback period
gis compressor isentropic efficiency, – s.p. state point
gm motor efficiency, – SPP simple payback period
gth collector thermal efficiency, – VCC vapor compression cycle
q water density, kg/m3
u0 latitude, °

reflectors are complex and expensive technologies which need
accurate tracking mechanism and they usually utilized in applica-
tions for medium and high temperatures (usually over 150–200 °C)
[16,17]. Thus, the use of evacuated tube collectors (ETCs) seems to
be the most appropriate solution [18,19] for feeding sorption
machines, as in the previously described cascade systems.
In literature, there are numerous studies which have examined
the cascade refrigeration system with absorption chiller and VCC. A
minor number of studies has been focused on systems with H2O-
NH3 absorption chillers because of these machines are usually
applied in applications which need extremely low evaporating
temperatures. Fernandez-Seara et al. [20] examined a cascade sys-
tem with H2O-NH3 as the absorbent working pair, while CO2 and
NH3 were tested as refrigerants. Similar results are obtained
between these refrigerants and the general conclusion was the
low performance of the examined system. Jain et al. [21] compared
a similar system with a double stage VCC and they finally found
60% electricity savings.
The majority of the studies are focused on systems with LiBr-
H2O as the absorbent working pair, while various refrigerants have
been tested. Cimsit and Ozturk [22] examined the performance of a
cascade refrigeration system with LiBr-H2O with various refriger-
ants and they proved that R134a is a better solution than R410a
and NH3. Moreover, they showed that the electricity savings can
reach up to 50%, compared to the conventional VCC. Moreover,
Cimsit et al. [23] proved that the use of LiBr-H2O in cascade sys-
tems is more efficient than the use of H2O-NH3. They indicated that
the use of CO2 as refrigerant leads to lower performance than
 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069
R134a. Colorado and Velazquez [24] examined also absorption-
compression cascade refrigeration systems with various working
fluids. They found that R134a is the most suitable solution com-
pared to NH3 and CO2. Colorado and Rivera [25] proved that the
use of R134a is better than CO2 with single or double stage absorp-
tion chiller operating with LiBr-H2O. The electricity savings with
R134a were found close to 45%. Xu et al. [26] examined the use
of an evaporator-subcooler and they compared this configuration
with the conventional evaporator-condenser. They found that the
conventional system presents higher COP but lower exergetic effi-
ciency than the innovative evaporator-subcooler system.
The next category of literature studies examines the cascade
system with the respective heat source. Various heat sources have
been examined in the literature as it is stated below. The use of
boiler has been examined in Refs. [27,28], while the use of a heat
engine in Refs. [29,30]. Waste heat utilization has been studied
by Garimella et al. [31], while the use of geothermal energy has
been examined by Kairouani and Nehdi [32].
Solar energy as the main heat source has also been examined by
many researchers. Chinnappa et al. [33] were the first researchers
who examined an absorption-compression cascade refrigeration
system. In this configuration, flat plate collector had been used,
while H2O-NH3 and R22 had been used as working pair and refrig-
erant respectively. Munfath Khan and Orfi [34] examined a similar
configuration with different refrigerants. They examined R22,
R134a and CO2 and they found that R134a is the best candidate
which leads to 44.7% electrical savings on a yearly basis. Li et al.
[13] investigated the use of compound parabolic collectors in a cas-
cade system with LiBr-H2O and R410a. They found only 7% yearly
electrical savings and they indicated that the specific collecting
area of the solar refrigeration system has to be ranged from 4.50
to 6.75 m2/kW. The last study associated with the utilization of
solar energy in absorption-compression refrigeration systems is
performed by Boyaghchi et al. [35]. They investigated a refrigera-
tion system driven by flat plate collectors operating with nanofluid
and an auxiliary heat source. Their system includes an absorption
chiller and a compression system with ejector. They selected
LiBr-H2O as working pair and they examined various refrigerants.
R134a is proved again to be the best candidate and the daily COP
is found to be close to 0.09, while the daily exergetic efficiency
close to 0.53%. These small performance indexes are explained by
the refrigeration production in a relatively high temperature equal
to 4 °C.
In this paper, the most efficient configuration of the absorption-
compression cascade system is examined. This refrigeration sys-
tem operates with LiBr-H2O as working pair and R134a as refriger-
ant. LiBr-H2O is found to be the best choice for absorption chiller in
Ref. [23] and R134a is the best working fluid in the mechanical
compression, according to Refs. [22–25,34,35]. Solar energy is the
only heat source in the examined system and ETCs have been
selected as the most suitable solar technology. The cascade system
is examined in dynamic basis during all the year period for the cli-
mate conditions of Athens, Greece. The analysis is performed in
energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental terms in order
to present a multilateral study. The innovation of this study is
based on the examination of the cascade system in a great range
of possible operating conditions (refrigeration temperature and
heat rejection temperature) with a systematic way. The final
results of this study indicate clearly the cases that this cascade sys-
tem has to be applied by all the possible points of view (energetic,
exergetic, economic and environmental). Moreover, the results
have obtained after a dynamic simulation which makes this study
to be close to the real operating conditions of a solar driven cascade
system. The analysis is performed with EES (Engineering Equation
Solver) with a developed numerical model which is validated using
literature results.
1057
2. Methods
2.1. The examined system
The examined solar refrigeration system can be separated into
four main subsystems: solar collector field, storage tank, absorp-
tion chiller and mechanical compression refrigerator. Fig. 1 depicts
the examined system with details.
The solar collector field consists of evacuated tube collector
with title angle equal to 38°. This angle is selected to be as the
geographical latitude of Athens, a choice which leads to optimum
yearly solar energy exploitation [36]. The collecting area has been
selected to be constant in this study and it is equal to be 300 m2.
The mass specific flow rate of the collector field is selected to be
0.02 kg/sm2 [36]; a usual value which usually varies from 0.01 to
0.03 kg/sm2. The working fluid in this circuit is thermal oil in
order the operation in temperature levels over 100 °C to be feasi-
ble without safety problem. Therminol VP1 [37] is selected as one
reliable solution for solar thermal systems which can operate up
to 400 °C with safety [37]. This thermal oil is also used in the stor-
age tank of the examined system. The optimum storage tank is
found to be equal to 5 m3, as a simple sensitivity proved. This
analysis is presented in Section 3 and it compared the storage
tanks of 5, 10, 15 and 20 m3. The storage tank has a cylindrical
shape and it is insulated in order the thermal losses to the ambi-
ent to be minimum. The thermal loss coefficient, which includes
radiation, convection and conduction losses, is taken equal to
0.5 W/m2 K [5]. The stored energy in the storage tank is utilized
for feeding the absorption chiller with the demanded thermal
energy. The overall heat transfer coefficient in the generator of
the absorption chiller is selected to be 15 kW/K. The storage tank
has been modeled with mixing zones [36] and inside the storage
tank, the hotter thermal oil is gathered in its upper part and the
colder in its lower part.
The heat input to the generator of the absorption chiller is
utilized for the evaporation of the steam from the strong solution
LiBr/H2O inside the generator. This superheated steam (state
point 3 or s.p. 3) leaves the generator and it is delivered to the
condenser of the system. In the condenser, heat is rejected to
the environment and saturated water (s.p. 6) is created. The
saturated water enters to the throttling valve and its pressure is
reduced without thermal losses. This assumption (adiabatic
process) makes the enthalpy to be conserved between state points
6 and 7. The state point 7 is a water/vapor mixture of low
pressure and it is found before the evaporator inlet. Inside
the evaporator, heat is absorbed from the condenser of the
mechanical compression system. The temperature level inside
the evaporator is Te,m and it is lower than the temperature levels
inside the mechanical compression condenser in order the heat
transfer to be feasible. In the outlet of the absorption chiller
evaporator (s.p. 8), the saturated steam of low pressure is
produced. This quantity is delivered to the absorber where heat
is rejected to the environment. Inside the absorber, the weak
solution exists and the incoming steam is captured inside the salt.
The saturated weak salt of low pressure (s.p. 1) leaves the absor-
ber and with the aid of a circulating pump, which consumes
extremely low amounts of electrical energy, is delivered to the
solution heat exchanger. The weak solution in the inlet of this
heat exchanger (s.p. 12) is heated from the strong and hot
solution of the other steam and finally, it is warmed up (s.p. 2).
On the other side, the warm strong solution of high pressure
(s.p. 4) leaves the generator and it goes into the heat exchanger.
This steam leaves this device with lower temperature (s.p. 45)
and it enters into a throttling valve (again the enthalpy is
conserved here). After this device, it becomes a strong solution
of low pressure (s.p. 5) which goes into the absorber.
1058 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069

Fig. 1. The examined solar refrigeration system.

The temperature of the evaporator in the absorption chiller has 2.2. Mathematical formulation
selected to be 5 °C. This value has selected to have a low value in
order to reduce also the condenser temperature of the mechanical In this subsection, all the mathematical equations associated
compression system. This strategy targets to minimize the electric- with the modeling of the examined system (Fig. 1) are presented
ity consumption in the mechanical compression refrigeration sys- with details. All these equations are mainly energy and mass flow
tem. Moreover, the temperature level in the condenser of the rate balances, as well as definitions of various evaluation indexes.
absorption chiller is selected to be the same as the temperature
level in the absorber. This temperature is examined parametrically 2.2.1. Solar field modeling
in this study from 30 °C to 50 °C. The available solar irradiation in the collector level is calculated
In the mechanical compression system, the refrigeration load is as:
captured in its evaporator which operates with the temperature
Q s ¼ Ac  GT ; ð1Þ
equal to Te. This temperature is examined parametrically from

40 °C to 0 °C. The refrigerant is selected to be R134a, an optimum The useful heat production of the collector field is calculated by
solution according to the literature review of Section 1. This refrig- the energy balance on the fluid volume:
erant leaves the evaporator, as saturated vapor (s.p. a), and it is Q u ¼ mc  cp  ðT col;out
T col;in Þ; ð2Þ
delivered to the mechanical compressor. The isentropic efficiency
of this device is selected to be 90% and the mechanical efficiency The thermal efficiency of the collector is the ratio of the useful
70% [38]. The superheated vapor in the outlet of the compressor heat to the available solar irradiation on the collector level:
(s.p. b) enters to the condenser of the mechanical compression sys- Qu
tem which operates with saturation temperature equal to Tc,m. gth ¼ ; ð3Þ
Qs
Electrical energy is consumed in this device and the reduction of
this consumption is one of the main goals of the presented config- The efficiency curve of the ETC in this study is taken from Ref.
uration. This temperature level is selected to be 8 K greater than [39] and it is given as:
the evaporating temperature in the absorption chiller evaporator

T col;in
T am
(Tc,m–Te,m = 8 K) [22]. This condenser rejects heat to the evaporator gth ¼ 0:6869
1:4709  ; ð4Þ
GT
of the absorption chiller and saturated liquid is created in its outlet
(s.p. c). This liquid is delivered to the adiabatic throttling valve The mass flow rate in the collector field is calculated according
(constant enthalpy process) and liquid/vapor mixture is created to the specific mass flow rate [36], as it is presented below:
in its outlet (s.p. d). This mixture is delivered to the evaporator
and the mechanical compression cycle closes.
_ col ¼ 0:02  Ac :
m ð5Þ
 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069 1059

2.2.2. Storage tank modeling reason for making the mass flow energy balances on the absorber
The storage tank modeling is based on the thermal zones mod- because identical equations as (15) and (16) will be written.
eling [36]. According to this modeling, the storage tank is separated The next device that has to be described is the solution heat
into horizontal zones which include thermal oil of the same tem- exchanger. In this device, two are the demanded equations for
perature (uniform temperature in the entire zone). Heat and mass the proper modeling. Eq. (17) presents the energy balance in every
are exchanged between the zones and temperature stratification is stream and Eq. (18) is the effectiveness of the heat exchanger
created inside the tank. Hotter thermal oil is found in the upper [10,40]:
part and colder in the lower part of the storage tank. The present
mw  ðh2
h12 Þ ¼ mstr  ðh4
h45 Þ; ð17Þ
storage tank is separated into three mixing zones, a strategy that
has been followed also in other studies [10,40]. h4
h45
The energy balances in all the mixing zones are presented by gHEX ¼ ; ð18Þ
h4
h12
the following equations:
Furthermore, it is essential to state that the enthalpy is con-
qV dT s;1 served in the throttling vales and so the following equations have
 cp  ¼ mcol  cp  ðT col;out
T s;1 Þ þ mh  cp  ðT s;2
T s;1 Þ
3 dt to be applied:

U T  AT1  ðT s;1
T am Þ; ð6Þ
h45 ¼ h5 ; ð19Þ

qV dT s;2 h7 ¼ h6 ; ð20Þ

 cp  ¼ mcol  cp  ðT s;1
T s;2 Þ þ mh  cp  ðT s;3
T s;2 Þ
3 dt
The enthalpy increase in the weak solution due to pump is

U T  AT2  ðT s;2
T am Þ; ð7Þ
neglected and thus Eq. (21) gives approximately the enthalpy in
the state point 12:
qV dT s;3
 cp  ¼ mcol  cp  ðT s;2
T s;3 Þ þ mh  cp  ðT h;out
T s;3 Þ h12 ¼ h1 ; ð21Þ
3 dt

U T  AT1  ðT s;3
T am Þ; ð8Þ Moreover, it essential to state that the absorber temperature is
taken equal to the condenser temperature in the absorption chiller.
It is important to notice that the inlet temperature in the collec-
This assumption is reasonable because these two devices are
tor field is assumed to be equal to the temperature level in the
assumed to reject heat at the same temperature level to the same
lower part of the storage tank:
heat sink (environment) [10,40].
T col;in ¼ T s;3 ; ð9Þ
Tc ¼ Ta; ð22Þ
Moreover, the temperature of the stream to the generator (Th,in)
Also, the heat transfer from the mechanical compression system
is equal to the temperature in the upper storage tank zone, as the
to the absorption chiller is achieved by taking the temperature in
following equations show:
the absorption chiller evaporator lower than the temperature level
T h;in ¼ T s;1 ; ð10Þ in the mechanical compression condenser [22]:

The mass flow rate to the generator (mh) is taken equal to the T e;m ¼ T c;m
8; ð23Þ
mass flow rate of the collector field (mcol). This selection makes
The heat transfer in the generator is described with the follow-
the heat production to be equivalent to the heat supply and the
ing equations. Eq. (24) is the energy balance in the fluid volume of
system is more stable. The calculation of the outer surface of the
thermal oil in the hot circuit.
various mixing zones (AT) is described with details in Refs. [10,40].
_ h  cp  ðT h;in
T h;out Þ;
Qg ¼ m ð24Þ
2.2.3. Absorption chiller modeling
Eq. (25) shows the heat transfer between the heat source (ther-
The modeling of the single stage absorption chiller operating
mal oil) and the generator solution:
with the LiBr-H2O working pair is presented below. The energy rate
balances and the mass flow rate balances are given below with T h;in
T h;out
Q g ¼ ðUAÞg  T
T
; ð25Þ
details. Eqs. (11)–(14) are devoted to the energy balances on the lnðT h;in
Tgg Þ
h;out
generator, evaporator, condenser and absorber of the absorption
chiller.
2.2.4. Mechanical compression refrigerator system modeling
Q g ¼ mr  h3 þ mstr  h4
mw  h2 ; ð11Þ The basic equations which describe the mathematical modeling
of the mechanical compression refrigerator are given below. Eq.
Q e;m ¼ mr  ðh8
h7 Þ; ð12Þ (26) shows the energy balance in the condenser and Eq. (27) shows
the energy balance in the evaporator.
Q c ¼ mr  ðh3
h6 Þ; ð13Þ
Q c;m ¼ mref  ðhc
hb Þ; ð26Þ
Q a ¼ mr  h8 þ mstr  h5
mw  h1 ; ð14Þ Q e ¼ mref  ðha
hd Þ; ð27Þ
The total mass flow rate balance in the generator is given The demanded electricity consumption in the compressor is
below: given as:
mr þ mstr ¼ mw ; ð15Þ ðhb
ha Þ
Pel ¼ mref ; ð28Þ
The mass flow rate of the LiBr substance in the generator is gm
given below: The isentropic efficiency of the compressor is calculated accord-
X w  mw ¼ X str  mstr ; ð16Þ ing to Eq. (29):

It has been assumed that the steam in the state point 3 is pure hb;is
ha
gis ¼ ; ð29Þ
H2O without LiBr. Moreover, it is important to state that there is no hb
ha
1060 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069

Moreover, it is important to present the enthalpy conservation the costs for operation and maintenance, according to Eq. (38). It is
in the throttling valve: important to state that the yearly refrigeration production (Ye) and
the yearly electrical consumption (Yel) are calculated with integra-
hd ¼ hc ; ð30Þ
tion during the entire year period.

2.2.5. Performance indexes definition CF net ¼ K ref  Y e
K O&M  C 0
K el  Y el ; ð38Þ

In this paragraph, the main perforce indexes of the system, as The refrigeration cost (Kref) can be calculated as the ratio of the
well as important parameters for the system evaluation, are electricity cost (Kel) to the equivalent COP of the single stage
defined. mechanical compressor refrigeration system (COPeq) [42]:
The Coefficient of performance for the mechanical compression
system is given as: K el
K ref ¼ ; ð39Þ
COP eq
Q
COP mc ¼ e; ð31Þ The next important parameter is the internal rate of return
Pel
which shows the real efficiency of the investment. This parameter
The Coefficient of performance for the absorption chiller system can be calculated by Eq. (40), as the discount factor (r) which leads
is defined as: to zero NPV. Eq. (40) gives a retrospective formula for this param-
Q e;m eter if the project life is M years.
COP abs ¼ ; ð32Þ " #
Qg
CF net 1
IRR ¼  1
; ð40Þ
The Coefficient of performance for the total system is given as: C0 ð1 þ IRRÞM
Qe Moreover, the simple payback period (SPP) and the payback
COP sys ¼ ; ð33Þ
Q s þ Pel period (PP) are calculated according to Eqs. (41) and (42)
The exergetic efficiency of the system is defined as: respectively:
h i C0

Q e  1
TTame SPP ¼ ; ð41Þ
 CF net
gex;sys ¼    4  ; ð34Þ
Pel þ Q s  1
43  TTsun
am
þ 13  TTsun
am  
CF net
ln CF net
C 0 r
PP ¼ ; ð42Þ
It is important to state that the exergy flow of the solar irradi- lnð1 þ rÞ
ation have been calculated according to the Petela model [41].
All the daily parameters are obtained by integration of the These parameters give the demanded operation years for the
respective parameter during the daily hours. For example, the daily system in order the capital cost of the investment to be covered.
refrigeration production is calculated as: The simple payback period assumes that all the cash flows are con-
Z stant during the time, while the payback period takes into account
Ee ¼ Q e  dt h ; ð35Þ the reduction of the cash flows due to the discount factor.
day

Moreover, it is important to state that the yearly performance 2.2.7. Weather data
parameters are calculated with integration during the year period, The weather data in this paper regarding the climate conditions
using the monthly calculated parameters. of Athens, Greece (37°590 N, 23°440 E). The 21th day of every month
is selected as the most appropriate day for examination, according
2.2.6. Economic analysis to the ASHRAE standards. For these days, some useful parameters
The economic evaluation of the presented system is performed are calculated. The solar declination angle is given according to
with various indexes. In any case, the cascade system is compared Eq. (43) [36]. The parameter ‘‘Day” is the day number in the year
to the respective mechanical compression system which produces (for example Day = 1 for the 1st of January).
refrigeration at temperature levels equal to Te and rejects heat to

284 þ Day
the environment at temperature level equal to Tc. The Coefficient d ¼ 23:45  sin 2p ; ð43Þ
of performance for this equivalent case (COPeq) is calculated and
365
it is used in the following analysis
The day duration is calculated as [36]:
The first parameter is the net present value (NPV) which shows
the present value of the investment by taking into account the 2
ND ¼  arccosð
tanð/0 Þ  tanðdÞÞ; ð44Þ
future gains and the possible discount in the cash flows. 15
X
M The ambient temperature during the day is given according to
CF net
NPV ¼
C 0 þ j
; ð36Þ the Eq. (45) [44]. This equation shows that the maximum ambient
J¼1 ð1 þ rÞ temperature is observed at 14:00, a realistic assumption.
The capital cost of the investment is the sum of the separate !
DR th
N2D
2
costs. More specifically, the absorption chiller, the mechanical T am ¼ T am;m þ  cos 2p  ; ð45Þ
compression refrigerator, the solar collectors and the tank are the 2 24
main parts of the system that have to be taken into account in
the cost analysis. The other costs are assumed to be included in The solar irradiation for every moment is calculated according
these quantities. Eq. (37) describes the way that the capital cost to the following formula [43]. This formula assumes that the inci-
is calculated in every case: dent solar irradiation on the collector level is a sine function which
is a realistic assumption.
C 0 ¼ K mc  Q e þ K ch  Q e;m þ K ETC  Ac þ K tan k  V; ð37Þ


p  HT  103 p  ðth Þ
The yearly income is calculated as the income from the cooling GT ¼  sin ; ð46Þ
production minus the cost of the electrical consumption and minus 2  ND ND
 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069 1061

It would be useful to state that the time parameter (th) takes 800 21 January
values from 0 to ND in Eqs. (45) and (46). Table 1 gives all the 700
21 February
important data about the solar potential and the ambient temper- 21 March
600
ature level for all the examined months [45,46]. Moreover, the 21 April
solar declination angle and the day duration are given for the 500 21 May

GT (W/m2)
21 June
twelve examined days. Figs. 2 and 3 depict the incident solar irra-
400 21 July
diation and the ambient temperature level during the twelves
300 21 August
examined days respectively. It is essential to note that these
21 September
weather data correspond to the literature data for Athens climate 200 21 October
and they represent typical days for all the months. Thus, it is pos- 21 November
100
sible to determine the monthly performance of the collector by 21 December
examining only one day every month. 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Hours
2.3. Followed methodology
Fig. 2. Daily incident solar irradiation for all the examined months.
In this work, the cascade refrigeration system is examined in
dynamic basis during twelve characteristic days, one for every
21 January 21 February 21 March 21 April
month. The meteorological data of Figs. 2 and 3 are used in order 21 May 21 June 21 July 21 August
the yearly performance to be found. The presented mathematical 21 September 21 October 21 November 21 December
equations in Section 2.2 consist the developed mathematical mod- 35

eling. These equations are inserted in a developed mathematical 30

model in EES (Engineering Equation Solver) [47]. The properties
25
of the various working fluids are taken from the libraries of this
program. More specifically, the properties for the Therminol VP-1
Tam (oC)
20
are taken by Ref. [37], the properties of R134a from Ref. [48] and 15
the water/steam properties from Ref. [49]. The LiBr/H2O properties
10
are taken by the study Patek and Klomfar [50].
It is important to state that the differential Eqs. (6)–(8) are dis- 5
cretized according to the following general formula [44]:
0
NEW OLD
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
@T T
T
¼ ; ð47Þ Hours
@t Dt
Fig. 3. Daily ambient temperature for all the examined months.
EES is used as the solver of these differential equations and the
time step is selected to 60 s, after a sensitivity analysis. The present
devoted to the yearly evaluation of the system, using twelve typi-
model is based on solving the differential equation inside the stor-
cal days. It is important to note that the validation of the developed
age tank (Eqs. (6)–(8)) during the daily operation of the chiller. It is
models in EES is presented in the following Section 2.4.
assumed that the temperature level inside the storage tank, in the
Table 2 includes all the parameters which have been kept con-
start of the solving process, is equal to the demanded generator
stant in the present analysis. All these parameters have been
temperature. Moreover, it is assumed that the system operates
explained in Section 2. Table 3 gives the variable parameters of
the daily hours and when there are adequate temperature levels
the examined study. It is important to state that different combina-
in the storage tank in order the absorption chiller to be fed. More-
tions of evaporator temperature (Te) and condenser temperature
over, for every case, the generator temperature has been kept con-
(Tc) are examined in order to determine the system behavior in
stant during the day and it has an optimum value.
various operating conditions. Every combination of these tempera-
In order to find the optimum generator values, a preliminary
ture levels corresponds to a different application which needs a
analysis for a typical day with solar potential equal to 6 kWh/m2,
refrigerator or to different operating conditions. Evaluating the
12 h duration, 25 °C mean ambient temperature and 8 K ambient
results of all the possible temperature combinations will indicate
temperature daily range equal to is examined. The results of this
in which cases-applications, the suggested system has to be
preliminary analysis are given in Section 3.1 with details. More-
applied. For every combination (Te, Tc), the generator temperature
over, the storage tank volume is examined parametrically in this
(Tg) is optimized. The optimization is performed with the daily
subsection in order to determine the best choice. Section 3.2 is

Table 1
Weather data for the 21th day of each month [49–50].

Month HT GT,max Day d ND Tam,m DR

(kWh/m2) (W/m2) (–) (°) (h) (K) (K)
January 3.308 531.3 21
20.14 9.78 281.61 7.67
February 4.236 615.6 52
11.23 10.81 282.41 8.21
March 5.161 675.5 81 0.00 12.00 285.25 9.17
April 5.829 692.1 111 11.58 13.23 289.58 10.36
May 6.202 685.1 141 20.14 14.22 294.18 11.45
June 6.466 693.8 172 23.45 14.64 297.97 12.17
July 6.649 732.4 202 20.44 14.26 299.71 12.29
August 6.533 774.5 233 11.75 13.25 299.03 11.78
September 5.842 766.0 264
0.20 11.98 296.02 10.77
October 4.697 686.3 294
11.75 10.75 291.69 9.57
November 3.525 568.5 325
20.44 9.74 286.94 8.45
December 2.988 501.4 355
23.45 9.36 283.33 7.77
1062 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069

Table 2 Table 4
Constant parameters of the present study. Parameters for the economic analysis.

Parameter Symbol Value Parameter Symbol Value Reference

Absorption chiller evaporator temperature Te,m 5 °C Absorption chiller specific cost Kabs 600 € k/W [51]
Maximum cooling/refrigeration load Qe,max 70 kW Mechanical compression specific Kmc 300 € k/W [52]
Generator heat transfer coefficient (UA)g 15 kW/m
2 K cost
Solution heat exchanger efficiency gHEX 60% ETC specific cost KETC 300 €/m2 [44]
Tank thermal loss coefficient UT 0.5 10
3 kW/m2 K Tank specific cost Ktank 1000 €/m3 [53]
Collecting area Ac 300 m2 Electricity cost Kel 0.20 €/kWh [5]
Collector slope (equal to Athens latitude) b 38o Discount factor r 3% [44]
Compressor isentropic efficiency gis 90% Project life M 25 [44]
Compressor mechanical efficiency gm 75% Operation and maintenance KO&M 1% of capital [54]
Sun temperature for calculations Τsun 5770 K cost
Collector field specific mass flow rate ma 0.02 kg/s m2
Time step Dt 60 s

Section 2, this day is assumed to have 6 kWh/m2 solar potential,

performance of the system in a typical day, as it is presented
below. Moreover, the storage tank volume is also optimized. In
Section 3.1. Table 4 gives the cost of the various devices, as well
as other useful parameters of the present study.
2.4. Model validation
2.4.1. Absorption chiller validation
The validation of the absorption chiller is performed with other
the literature study Gogoi and Konwar [55]. In order to perform a
suitable comparison with the literature model, some modifications
in the present program have been made, as the heat exchanger
effectiveness which selected equal to 75%. Table 5 includes the val-
idation results which are presented with the comparison of the
COPabs, as well as with the weak and strong solution concentra-
tions. The mean deviation in the Coefficient of performance is
about to 0.87%, while in weak and strong concentrations are about
0.11% and 0.23%. These results prove a very small deviation which
validates the developed model of the absorption chiller.
2.4.2. Cascade system validation
In this subsection, the validation process of the cascade system
is presented. The study of Cimsit and Ozturk [22] is selected to be
used for performing a suitable comparison. The comparison is per-
formed for a specific operation of the system which is described in
Table 6. The only modification in the present program is about the
COPsys which is defined with the heat input in the generator and
not the solar input in order to make a suitable comparison with
Ref. [22]. According to the results of Table 6, the deviation in the
examined parameters is relatively low and it is up to 2.70% which
is an accepted value. The small deviations can be explained by pos-
sible differences in the thermodynamic properties of the working
fluids, as well as in the solution process errors. In any case, the
results are very close to each other and the developed model can
be adopted as reliable.
3. Results
3.1. Optimization of the system
This subsection is devoted to investigate and optimize the
examined system for a typical day. As it has been stated in
Table 3
Variable parameters of the present study.
Parameter Examined range Comment
Te
40 °C to 0 °C Parametric analyzed
Tc 30–50 °C Parametric analyzed
Tg 60–120 °C Optimized
V 5–20 m3 Optimized
12 h duration and 25 °C mean ambient temperature.
Figs. 4–6 show the daily refrigeration output, the mean daily
COP and the mean daily exergetic efficiency respectively. The
results are presented for various generator temperatures (Tg) and
evaporator temperatures (Te), while the condenser temperature
(Tc) is kept equal to 40 °C. This temperature level is usual and rep-
resentative, and thus the results are presented for this level in this
section.
All the curves in Figs. 4–6 have similar trends. For low generator
temperatures, they have increasing trends and they are maximized
for generator temperature equal to 93 °C. After this point, the
curves are getting lower with a small and approximately constant
slope. It is noticeable that higher evaporating temperatures lead to
higher system performance. This is a reasonable result because the
refrigeration production in higher temperatures is easier and
higher amounts of refrigeration can be produced with the same
solar energy input.
The daily refrigeration production for the optimum case
(Tg = 93 °C) is equal to 545 kWh, 580 kWh, 615 kWh, 648 kWh
and 679 kWh for evaporator temperatures equal to
40 °C,

30 °C,
20 °C,
10 °C and 0 °C respectively. The system COP for
the respective conditions is found to be: 0.2656, 0.2904, 0.3153,
0.3406 and 0.3657. The system exergetic efficiency for the respec-
tive conditions is found to be: 0.0377, 0.0503, 0.0616, 0.0717 and
0.0804. The exergetic efficiencies and the COP are relatively low
because of the consumption of electricity and thermal energy
simultaneously.
The same analysis has been made for the other condenser tem-
peratures from 30 °C to 50 °C with step 5 °C. Similar results about
the impact of the generator temperature on the results are
obtained. More specifically, every condenser temperature level is
characterized by an optimum generator temperature level. Fig. 7
depicts these optimum generator temperatures. It is obvious that
there is an approximately linear correlation between the optimum
generator temperature and the condenser temperature. In the fol-
lowing analysis, these optimum values are applied in order to
achieve the higher possible outputs.
In Figs. 4–7, the storage tank volume is selected to be equal to 5
m3. This value is also used in all the present study. However, the
examination of the suitable storage tank volume parametrically
is an important issue. Fig. 8 gives the daily refrigeration output
for various evaporator temperatures with condenser temperature
equal to 40 °C and for optimum generator temperatures. It is obvi-
ous that the selection of the storage tank of 5 m3 is the best choice
among the examined. Moreover, the curves of 5 m3 and 10 m3 are
close to each other, an important result which indicates that lower
storage tank volume would not lead to a noticeable enhancement.
This figure comes to explain the selection of the storage tank of 5
m3 as a proper choice.
At this point, it would be useful to present results about the
operation of the system during the day. The representative case
 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069 1063

Table 5
Validation results for the absorption chiller.

Te,m Tg Tc Ta Literature Present study Deviation (%)

°C °C °C °C COPabs Xw Xstr COPabs Xw Xstr COPabs Xw Xstr
4 70 31 31 0.794 57.8% 53.6% 0.794 57.8% 53.8% 0.05% 0.00% 0.30%
4 69 31 35 0.697 57.3% 55.9% 0.704 57.3% 55.9% 1.05% 0.05% 0.05%
5 66 28 35 0.769 57.5% 55.2% 0.769 57.6% 55.3% 0.04% 0.09% 0.14%
6 72 33 37 0.730 57.6% 55.7% 0.733 57.7% 55.7% 0.34% 0.10% 0.04%
8 63 25 37 0.819 57.8% 54.3% 0.819 57.8% 54.5% 0.05% 0.05% 0.42%
8 85 46 39 0.585 56.5% 55.5% 0.611 56.7% 55.6% 4.36% 0.41% 0.13%
9 66 28 34 0.837 57.5% 52.0% 0.839 57.6% 52.3% 0.23% 0.09% 0.52%

Table 6
Validation results for the cascade system.

Parameter Literature This study Deviation

Input parameters Tg (°C) 90 90 –
Ta (°C) 40 40 –
Tc (°C) 40 40 –
Te,m (°C) 10 10 –
Te (°C)
10
10 –
Qe (kW) 50 50 –
Output parameters Qg (kW) 76.45 77.57 1.44%
Pel (kW) 8.25 8.033 2.70%
COPmc 6.061 6.224 2.62%
COPabs 0.750 0.761 1.45%
COPsys 0.590 0.599 1.50%
mw (kg/s) 0.2161 0.2121 1.85%
mstr (kg/s) 0.1917 0.1876 2.14%
mr (kg/s) 0.0244 0.0245 0.41%
mref (kg/s) 0.2973 0.2977 0.13%
Xw (%) 55 54.91 0.16%
Xstr (%) 62 62.15 0.24%

T = -40 C T = -30 C T = -20 C T = -10 C T =0 C T = -40 C T = -30 C T = -20 C T = -10 C T =0 C

700
0.40
650
600 0.35
550
0.30
Ee (kWh)

500
COPsys

450
0.25
400
350 0.20
300
250 0.15
200
0.10
80 90 100 110 120 80 90 100 110 120
Tg (oC) Tg (oC)

Fig. 4. Daily refrigeration output for various generator (Tg) and evaporator (Te) Fig. 5. Daily system COP for various generator (Tg) and evaporator (Te) tempera-
temperatures, with condenser temperature (Tc) equal to 40 °C. tures, with condenser temperature (Tc) equal to 40 °C.

of 40 °C condenser temperature and
20 °C evaporator tempera-
ture is examined. Fig. 9 show the daily variation of the solar irradi-
ation, of the ambient temperature and of the mean storage tank
temperature. The temperature inside the storage tank is ranged
from 94 °C to 118 °C during the day and it is maximized about
40 min after the solar noon (12:40). Fig. 10 illustrates the incident
solar energy, the refrigeration production, as well as the electricity
consumption during the day. It is important to state that the oper-
ation of the refrigerator starts 50 min (6:50) after the sunrise and it
presented maximum yield 40 min after the solar noon (12:40). The
system operation stops at the sunset (18:00).
The next step in this analysis is the presentation of the final
results about the system performance for all the examined opera-
tion cases. More specifically, all the possible combinations of evap-
orator temperatures and condenser temperatures are examined
and in every case the optimum generator temperature, as it has
been given in Fig. 6, is applied.
The daily refrigeration production is depicted in Fig. 11. The
presented curves correspond to different condenser temperatures
and all the curves seem to be parallel. The refrigeration production
is getting higher when higher evaporator temperatures and lower
condenser temperatures are applied. Moreover, the curves are clo-
ser to each other for lower temperature levels and their distance
increases with the increase in the evaporator temperature. This
result shows that the condenser temperature effect on the results
is greater when the system operates at higher evaporator temper-
atures. Similar results are taken from Fig. 12 about the system COP.
It would be useful to elaborate more the results by presenting
some characteristic numerical results. The daily refrigeration pro-
duction is varied from 527 kWh to 725 kWh when the evaporator
1064 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069

T = -40 C T = -30 C T = -20 C T = -10 C T =0 C G Ts Tam

800 140
0.09
700 120
0.08
0.07 600
100

GT (W/m2)
0.06 500
80

T (oC)
nex,sys

0.05 400
0.04 60
300
0.03 40
200
0.02
100 20
0.01
0.00
0 0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Tg (oC) Daily hours

Fig. 9. Daily variation of solar irradiation (GT), ambient temperature (Tam) and
Fig. 6. Daily system exergetic efficiency for various generator (Tg) and evaporator
storage tank temperature (Ts) for the case of [Te =
20 °C and Tc = 40 °C].
(Te) temperatures, with condenser temperature (Tc) equal to 40 °C.

120 250
Solar Refrigeraon load Electricity

110 200

100
Q (kWh)
150
Tg,opt (oC)

90
100
80
50
70
0
60 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
30 35 40 45 50 Daily hours
Tc (oC)
Fig. 10. Solar energy, refrigeration load and electricity consumption during the day
Fig. 7. Optimum generator temperature levels for various condenser temperatures for the case of [Te =
20 °C and Tc = 40 °C].
(Tc).

Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
700 850
680 V = 5 m³ 800
660 750
V = 10 m³
700
Ee (kWh)

640 V = 15 m³
650
Ee (kWh)

620 V = 20 m³ 600
600
550
580 500
560 450
540 400
0 -10 -20 -30 -40
520
Te (oC)
500
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 Fig. 11. Daily refrigeration output for various evaporator (Te) and condenser (Tc)
Te ( C) temperatures, with optimum generator temperature in every case (Tg).

Fig. 8. Daily refrigeration output for different storage tank volumes and evaporat-
ing temperatures, with condenser temperature (Tc) equal to 40 °C.
temperature is equal to
20 °C. For condenser temperature equal
to 40 °C, it is ranged from 544 kWh to 679 kWh. It is obvious that
the refrigeration production is less influenced by the evaporator
temperature (dEe/dTe = 4.95 kWh/K) than the condenser tempera-
ture (dEe/dTc = 6.75 kWh/K). The system COP is varied from
0.2732 to 0.3670 for evaporator temperature equal to
20 °C,
while when the condenser temperature is kept constant to 40 °C
it takes values from 0.2656 up to 0.3657. The impact of the con-
denser temperature (dCOPsys/dTc = 0.0050 kWh/K) is greater than
the influence of evaporator temperature (dCOPsys/dTe = 0.0023
kWh/K), a result which is consistent with the respective for the
daily refrigeration production.
The next examined parameter is the system exergetic efficiency.
The parameter is given in Fig. 13 for all the examined operating
conditions. Lower values of evaporator temperatures lead to
greater exergetic efficiency, as Eq. (34) indicates. Moreover, higher
condenser temperature leads to lower exergetic efficiency because
of the consequent decrease in the system COP (see Fig. 10). It is
clearly presented in Fig. 13 that the evaporator temperature plays
a significant role on the exergetic output of the system. For con-
denser temperature equal to 40 °C, the exergetic efficiency varies
 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069 1065

Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
0.45 90%
80%
0.40 70%

Electricity Savings
60%
0.35
COPsys

50%

0.30 40%
30%
0.25 20%
10%
0.20 0%
0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40
0 -10 -20 -30 -40
Te (oC)
Te (oC)
Fig. 12. Daily system COP for various evaporator (Te) and condenser (Tc) temper-
Fig. 14. Daily electricity savings for various evaporator (Te) and condenser (Tc)
atures, with optimum generator temperature in every case (Tg).
temperatures, with optimum generator temperature in every case (Tg).

from 0.03774 to 0.08043 (dgex,sys/dTe = 0.1067%). For evaporator
temperature equal to
20 °C, the system exergetic performance
takes values from 0.05352 up to 0.07153 (dgex,sys/dTc = 0.0905%).
Fig. 14 exhibits the electricity savings that are taken from the
examined system compared to the conventional single stage
mechanical compression system. This equivalent system is sup-
posed to operate between (Te) and (Tc) in every case. The results
of this figure indicate a significant reduction in the electricity con-
sumption for all the examined cases. More specifically, the electric-
ity savings are higher for greater condenser temperatures and for
lower evaporator temperatures. It can be said, that the electricity
savings are higher when the absorption chiller operation covers a
greater fraction of the demanded temperature difference between
Te and Tc. For condenser temperature equal to 40 °C, the electricity
savings are ranged from 46.18% to 76.14%. For the lower examined
condenser temperature (Tc = 30 °C), the electricity savings are ran-
ged from 32.76% to 60.31%, while for the higher condenser temper-
ature (Tc = 50 °C) they are ranged from 57.13% to 79.41%.
3.2. Yearly evaluation
3.2.1. Energetic and exergetic evaluation
This subsection is devoted to the energetic and exergetic evalu-
ation of the system during the year. The meteoroidal data for
Athens climate, as they have presented in Section 2.2.7, are used
in order to take the results of this subsection. First of all, the
monthly variation of the most important parameters is given in
Figs. 15 and 16. These figures regard the case with 40 °C condenser
temperature and
20 °C evaporator temperature, which is one
representative case. It is important to note that similar monthly
variation is observed among all the operation cases (Te and Tc)
and thus only one is adequate in order to present and to comment.
The following figures will present the final results for all the
examined operation cases.
Fig. 15 depicts the solar energy potential for the total collector
field, the refrigeration production and the electricity consumption
for the twelve months of the year. August is the month with the
greater solar potential and the greater refrigeration production,
while December is the one with the lowest. Generally, the period
fro June to September is the period with the greater yield, while
the period from November to February is the one with the lowest.
Similar results are obtained by the Fig. 16 which gives the system
monthly COP and the exergetic efficiency.
In August, the solar energy potential is about 51,090 kWh, the
refrigeration production 17,346 kWh, the electricity consumption
4134 kWh, the mean system COP 0.3141 and the mean system
exergetic efficiency 0.0635. In December, the solar energy potential
is about 25,227 kWh, the refrigeration production 6528 kWh, the
electricity consumption 1556 kWh, the mean system COP 0.2437
and the mean system exergetic efficiency 0.0325.
The next step is to present the yearly results for all the exam-
ined cases. These results are illustrated in Figs. 17–21. The analysis
of these results is similar to the analysis of the presented results in
Figs. 11–14. Thus, the analysis of Figs. 17–21 will be more briefly.
Fig. 17 shows the yearly refrigeration production and Fig. 18 the
yearly system COP. These quantities are getting higher when
greater evaporator temperature and lower condenser temperature
are selected.

Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C Solar Energy Refrigeraon producon Electrical consumpon

0.10
December
0.09 November
0.08 October
September
0.07 August
ex,sys

0.06 July
June
0.05 May
0.04 April
March
0.03 February
0.02 January
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Te (oC) Monthly energy (kWh)

Fig. 13. Daily system exergetic efficiency for various evaporator (Te) and condenser Fig. 15. Solar energy potential, refrigeration production and electrical consumption
(Tc) temperatures, with optimum generator temperature in every case (Tg). in monthly basis for the case of [Te =
20 °C and Tc = 40 °C].
1066 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069

Monthly exergec efficiency Monthly system COP Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C

0.45
December
November
0.40
October

Yearly COPsys
September
0.35
August
July 0.30
June
May 0.25
April
March 0.20
February 0 -10 -20 -30 -40
January Te (oC)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Fig. 18. Yearly system COP for all the examined operation scenarios.
Performace Index

Fig. 16. System exergetic efficiency and COP in monthly basis for the case of
Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
[Te =
20 °C and Tc = 40 °C].
0.09

0.08
Fig. 19 proves that the yearly exergetic efficiency is greater for
lower evaporator temperatures and for lower condenser tempera- 0.07
tures. Fig. 20 shows that the electricity consumption is higher
ex,sys
0.06
when a lower temperature in the evaporator and in the condenser Yearly
is applied. The electricity consumption has similar behavior such 0.05
as the exergetic efficiency of the system. Fig. 21 shows that the
0.04
electricity savings have reverse behavior compared to the electric-
ity consumption; lower evaporator and condenser temperatures 0.03
leads also to lower electricity savings.
0.02
0 -10 -20 -30 -40
3.2.2. Economic and environmental evaluation Te (oC)
This subsection evaluates the obtained results by an economic
point of view. All the usual indexes as the net present value, the Fig. 19. Yearly system exergetic efficiency for all the examined operation scenarios.
internal rate of return and the payback period are given for all
the examined operating scenarios. Moreover, the savings of carbon
Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
dioxide due to the reduction in the electricity consumption are
80000
Yearly electricity - Eel (kWh)

given.
Fig. 22 illustrates the net present value (NPV) for all the exam- 70000
ined combinations of evaporator and condenser temperatures. The 60000
NPV is positive for the majority of the examined cases and it takes 50000
values up to 163 k€. It is negative only for cases with condenser
40000
temperature equal to 30 °C and relatively high evaporator temper-
atures (0 °C and
10 °C). In these cases, the installation of the pre- 30000
sent system is not recommended. This result is explained by the 20000
smaller electricity savings in these cases, as well as by the small 10000
electrical requirements. These cases correspond to smallest tem-
0
perature differences between condenser and evaporator (Tc–Te), a 0 -10 -20 -30 -40
negative fact for installing the suggested cascade system. More- Te (oC)
over, it is essential to state that the NPV is higher in the cases that
Fig. 20. Yearly electricity consumption for all the examined operation scenarios.

Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
220000 the electricity savings are higher and generally the difference
Yearly refrigeraon - Ee (kWh)

(Tc–Te) is greater.
200000
Fig. 23 exhibits the internal rate of return (IRR) for the exam-
180000 ined cases. This parameter shows the investment yearly efficiency
in economic terms. It reaches up to 13.4%, which is an attractive
160000
value for a technology with solar energy utilization. The cases with
140000 IRR lower than 3% (discount factor of this study) are not profitable
solutions. For a typical application with (Te =
20 °C and
120000 Tc = 40 °C), the IRR is about 6.6%, an encouraging value for the sus-
tainability of this investment. It is also essential to state that the
100000
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 curves of the IRR have similar trends with the NPV curves of
Te (oC) Fig. 22.
Figs. 24 and 25 show the payback and the simple payback per-
Fig. 17. Yearly refrigeration production for all the examined operation scenarios. iod respectively. Payback period takes into account the selected
 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069 1067

Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
35
80%
75% 30

Payback Period (Years)

Yearly electricity savings

70% 25
65%
60% 20

55% 15
50%
10
45%
40% 5
35%
0
30% 0 -10 -20 -30 -40
0 -10 -20 -30 -40
Te (oC)
Te (oC)
Fig. 24. Payback period for all the examined operation scenarios.
Fig. 21. Yearly electricity savings for all the examined operation scenarios.

Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
180000 25

Simple Payback Period (Years)

160000
20
140000
120000
NPV (€)

15
100000
80000
10
60000
40000
5
20000
0
0
0 -10 -20 -30 -40
0 -10 -20 -30 -40
Te (oC)
Te (oC)
Fig. 22. Net present value for all the examined operation scenarios.
Fig. 25. Simple payback period for all the examined operation scenarios.

discount factor while the simple payback period assumes this
parameter equal to zero. Generally, the payback period is greater
than the respective simple payback period. When these parameters
are greater than the project life, then the investment is considered
as non-profitable. This result is taken only for the cases [Te = 0 °C,
Tc = 30 °C] and [Te =
10 °C, Tc = 30 °C], which are the cases with
negative net present value. Generally, payback periods close to
15 years are observed. This result is encouraging for the invest-
ment in the suggested cascade system. For example, for the typical
case [Te =
20 °C, Tc = 40 °C] the payback period is 13.95 years and
the simple payback period is 12.07 years. The minimum payback
period is 7.76 years for the case [Te =
40 °C, Tc = 50 °C] and the
simple payback period, in this case, is 7.13 years.
All the previous results about the economic evaluation of the
examined systems show that the cascade system is a sustainable
solution. In the majority of the cases, the financial indexes are
encouraging. Only for applications with the lowest examined con-
denser temperatures and relatively high evaporator temperatures,
the investment seems not to be viable.
In the end of this subsection, the carbon dioxide savings are
given in Fig. 26 for all the examined cases. It is essential to state
that the energy mixture of Greece has been used in order to obtain
these results. More specifically, it is assumed that 1 MWhel leads to
0.989 tn of CO2 production [56]. The obtained results show signif-
icant saving in CO2 at yearly basis. These results are associated
with the electricity consumption and the electricity savings which
are presented in Figs. 20 and 21.

Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C Tc = 30 C Tc = 35 C Tc = 40 C Tc = 45 C Tc = 50 C
70
14%
Yearly CO2 Savings (tn)

12% 60
10%
50
8%
IRR

6% 40
4%
30
2%

0% 20
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0 -10 -20 -30 -40
Te (oC) Te (oC)

Fig. 23. Internal rate of return for all the examined operation scenarios. Fig. 26. Yearly carbon dioxide savings for all the examined operation scenarios.
1068 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069
Table 7
Summary of the results for yearly operation with the condenser temperature (Tc) equal to 40 °C.
Te Total lifetime
NPV IRR SPP
(°C) (€) – (Years)

40 97387 9.33% 9.57

30 76286 7.91% 10.75

20 57809 6.62% 12.07

10 41689 5.43% 13.50
0 27713 4.36% 15.06
3.2.3. Final evaluation and discussion
This subsection is devoted to present the obtained results
briefly. Table 7 includes the main results for the typical condenser
temperature of 40 °C and for all the examined evaporator temper-
atures. These results regard the energetic, exergetic, economic and
environmental evaluation of the examined system.
The net present value is ranged from 27,713 € to 97,387 €, pre-
senting a significant variation. On the other hand, the IRR is ranged
from 4.36% to 9.33%, leading a relatively lower variation. Moreover,
the payback and the simple payback periods are varied from 10.72
to 18.10 years and from 9.57 to 15.06 years respectively. These
results prove that the investment in this technology is generally
vital when the system is designed to operate at a usual condenser
temperature.
In the energetic analysis, it is noticeable that higher electricity
savings are observed at higher evaporator temperatures. On the
other hand, the carbon dioxide savings are lower in these cases
because of the impact of the real electrical consumption (see
Figs. 20 and 21). The system COP varies from 0.2645 to 36.41
and it increases for higher evaporator temperatures. On the other
hand, the exergetic efficiency decreases for higher evaporator tem-
peratures and it takes values from 0.0690 (for Te =
40 °C) to
0.0277 (for Te = 0 °C).
4. Conclusions
This work examines an absorption-compression cascade refrig-
eration system which is assisted by solar collectors. Evacuated tube
collectors (300 m2), coupled to a storage tank (5 m3), supply the
demanded heat input to an absorption chiller operating with
LiBr/H2O. This absorption chiller is the cycle of a cascade system,
while the down cycle is a VCC with R134a. The objective of this
study is to evaluate the sustainability of this system in energetic,
exergetic, economic and environmental terms. In order to perform
a suitable work, the system is examined under dynamic conditions
for twelve days during the year (one for every month). It is impor-
tant to state that before the yearly analysis, the system is opti-
mized for a typical day in order to determine the optimum
generator temperature and storage tank volume. The analysis is
performed with the EES (Engineering Equation Solver) and the
developed model has been validated with literature results.
According to the final results, the system is able to produce
great amounts of refrigeration with significant electricity savings.
Moreover, the financial indexes indicate that the installing of this
system is a viable choice. Below, the most important results for
the typical case with evaporator temperature equal to
20 °C
and condenser temperature equal to 40 °C are presented. The
yearly refrigeration production is found to be about 155 MWh,
the electricity consumption about 37 MWh, the yearly system
COP 0.314 and the exergetic efficiency 0.051. In the financial anal-
ysis, the NPV is found to be about 58 k€, the IRR 6.6%, the payback
period 14 years and the simple payback period about 12 years. The
payback period of 14 years is not a low value but it is acceptable for
Yearly
PP CO2 savings COPsys gex,sys Electricity savings
(Years) (tn) – – –
10.72 53.0 0.2645 0.0690 46.18%
12.23 47.9 0.2892 0.0604 49.32%
13.95 42.9 0.3141 0.0506 53.98%
15.90 38.9 0.3391 0.0397 61.01%
18.10 35.3 0.3641 0.0277 72.12%
a system which exploits a renewable source such as solar energy
and achieves electricity savings over 50%.
Moreover, it can be concluded that the system is found to be
suitable in cases with greater temperature difference (Tc–Te). In
these cases, there is a greater margin for improvement and the
reduction in the electricity consumption can cover easier the extra
capital cost for the solar field and the absorption chiller.
References
[1] Loni R, Kasaeian AB, Mahian O, Sahin AZ. Thermodynamic analysis of an
organic rankine cycle using a tubular solar cavity receiver. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;127:494–503.
[2] Krajačić G, Duić N, Vujanović M, Kılkısß S
ß , Rosen MA, Al-Nimr MA. Sustainable
development of energy, water and environment systems for future energy
technologies and concepts. Energy Convers Manage 2016;125:1–14.
[3] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. Parametric analysis and optimization
of a solar assisted gas turbine. Energy Convers Manage 2017;139:151–65.
[4] Qiu Y, He Y-L, Li P, Du B-C. A comprehensive model for analysis of real-time
optical performance of a solar power tower with a multi-tube cavity receiver.
Appl Energy 2017;185(1):589–603.
[5] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Moschos K, Antonopoulos KA. Energetic and financial
evaluation of solar assisted heat pump space heating systems. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;120:306–19.
[6] Bataineh K, Taamneh Yazan. Review and recent improvements of solar
sorption cooling systems. Energy Build 2016;128:22–37.
[7] Kerme ED, Chafidz A, Agboola OP, Orfi J, Fakeeha AH, Al-Fatesh AS. Energetic
and exergetic analysis of solar-powered lithium bromide-water absorption
cooling system. J Clean Prod 2017;151:60–73.
[8] Mohan G, Kumar U, Pokhrel MK, Martin A. A novel solar thermal
polygeneration system for sustainable production of cooling, clean water
and domestic hot water in United Arab Emirates: dynamic simulation and
economic evaluation. Appl Energy 2016;167:173–88.
[9] Chen Y, Han W, Jin H. Proposal and analysis of a novel heat-driven absorption–
compression refrigeration system at low temperatures. Appl Energy 2017;185
(2):2106–16.
[10] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. Exergetic and energetic comparison of
LiCl-H2O and LiBr-H2O working pairs in a solar absorption cooling system.
Energy Convers Manage 2016;123:453–61.
[11] Jain V, Sachdeva G, Kachhwaha SS. Energy, exergy, economic and
environmental (4E) analyses based comparative performance study and
optimization of vapor compression-absorption integrated refrigeration
system. Energy 2015;91:816–32.
[12] Jain V, Kachhwaha SS, Sachdeva G. Thermodynamic performance analysis of a
vapor compression–absorption cascaded refrigeration system. Energy Convers
Manage 2013;75:685–700.
[13] Li Z, Jing Y, Liu J. Thermodynamic study of a novel solar LiBr/H2O absorption
chiller. Energy Build 2016;133:565–76.
[14] Allouhi A, Kousksou T, Jamil A, Bruel P, Mourad Y, Zeraouli Y. Solar driven
cooling systems: an updated review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;44:159–81.
[15] Labed A, Moummi N, Aoues K, Benchabane A. Solar drying of henna (Lawsonia
inermis) using different models of solar flat plate collectors: an experimental
investigation in the region of Biskra (Algeria). J Clean Prod 2016;112
(4):2545–52.
[16] Sharan P, Bandyopadhyay S. Solar assisted multiple-effect evaporator. J Clean
Prod 2017;142(4):2340–51.
[17] Bellos E, Mathioulakis E, Tzivanidis C, Belessiotis V, Antonopoulos KA.
Experimental and numerical investigation of a linear Fresnel solar collector
with flat plate receiver. Energy Convers Manage 2016;130:44–59.
[18] Angrisani G, Entchev E, Roselli C, Sasso M, Tariello F, Yaïci W. Dynamic
simulation of a solar heating and cooling system for an office building located
in Southern Italy. Appl Therm Eng 2016;103:377–90.
[19] Buonomano A, Calise FO, d’Accadia MD, Ferruzzi G, Frascogna S, Palombo A,
et al. Experimental analysis and dynamic simulation of a novel high-
temperature solar cooling system. Energy Convers Manage 2016;109:19–39.
 E. Bellos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 148 (2017) 1055–1069
[20] Fernandez-Seara J, Sieres J, Vazquez M. Compression–absorption cascade
refrigeration system. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26:502–12.
[21] Jain V, Sachdeva G, Kachhwaha SS. Thermodynamic modelling and parametric
study of a low temperature vapour compression-absorption system based on
modified Gouy-Stodola equation. Energy 2015;79:407–18.
[22] Cimsit C, Ozturk IT. Analysis of compression–absorption cascade refrigeration
cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2012;40:311–7.
[23] Cimsit C, Ozturk IT, Hozol M. Second law based thermodynamic analysis of
compression-absorption cascade refrigeration cycles, Analysis of
compression–absorption cascade refrigeration cycles. J Therm Sci Technol
2014;34(2):9–18.
[24] Colorado D, Velazquez VM. Exergy analysis of a compression–absorption
cascade system for refrigeration. Int J Energy Res 2013;37:1851–65.
[25] Colorado D, Rivera W. Performance comparison between a conventional vapor
compression and compression-absorption single-stage and double-stage
systems used for refrigeration. Appl Therm Eng 2015;87:273–85.
[26] Xu Y, Jiang N, Pan F, Wang Q, Gao Z, Chen G. Comparative study on two low-
grade heat driven absorption-compression refrigeration cycles based on
energy, exergy, economic and environmental (4E) analyses. Energy Convers
Manage 2017;133:535–47.
[27] Marimón MA, Arias J, Lundqvist P, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Integration of
trigeneration in an indirect cascade refrigeration system in supermarkets.
Energy Build 2011;43:1427–34.
[28] Wu W, Shi W, Wang B, Li X. Annual performance investigation and economic
analysis of heating systems with a compression-assisted air source absorption
heat pump. Energy Convers Manage 2015;98:290–302.
[29] Sun ZG. Experimental investigation of integrated refrigeration system (IRS)
with gas engine, compression chiller and absorption chiller. Energy 2008;33
(3):431–6.
[30] Hojjat Mohammadi SM, Ameri M. Energy and exergy comparison of a cascade
air conditioning system using different cooling strategies. Int J Refrig
2014;41:14–26.
[31] Garimella S, Brown AM, Nagavarapu AK. Waste heat driven absorption/vapor-
compression cascade refrigeration system for megawatt scale, high-flux, low-
temperature cooling. Int J Refrig 2011;8:1776–85.
[32] Kairouani L, Nehdi E. Cooling performance and energy saving of a
compression–absorption refrigeration system assisted by geothermal energy.
Appl Therm Eng 2006;26(2–3):288–94.
[33] Chinnappa JC, Crees MR, Murthy SS, Srinivasan K. Solar assisted vapor
compression/absorption cascaded air-conditioning systems. Sol Energy
1993;50:453–8.
[34] Munfath Khan MS, Orfi J. Cooling performance and energy saving analysis of
cascade refrigeration system powered by solar energy for Riyadh region (Saudi
Arabia). Int J Sustain Build Technol Urban Dev 2014;5(1):44–52.
[35] Boyaghchi FA, Mahmoodnezhad M, Sabeti V. Exergoeconomic analysis and
optimization of a solar driven dual-evaporator vapor compression-absorption
cascade refrigeration system using water/CuO nanofluid. J Clean Prod
2016;139:970–85.
[36] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 3rd
ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley; 2006.
[37] Solutia technical bulletin 7239115C-TherminolVP. Available online at (https://
www.therminol.com/products/Therminol-VP1).
1069
[38] Tzivanidis C, Bellos E, Antonopoulos KA. Energetic and financial investigation
of a stand-alone solar-thermal Organic Rankine Cycle power plant. Energy
Convers Manage 2016;126:421–33.
[39] Zambolin E, Del Col D. An improved procedure for the experimental
characterization of optical efficiency in evacuated tube solar collectors.
Renew Energy 2012;43:37–46.
[40] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. Exergetic, energetic and financial
evaluation of a solar driven absorption cooling system with various collector
types. Appl Therm Eng 2016;102:749–59.
[41] Petela R. Exergy analysis of solar radiation. In: Enteria N, Akbarzadeh A,
editors. Solar thermal sciences and engineering applications. CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group; 2013 [chapter 2].
[42] Mróz TM. Thermodynamic and economic performance of the LiBr–H2O single
stage absorption water chiller. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26(17–18):2103–9.
[43] Belessiotis V, Mathioulakis E, Papanicolaou E. Theoretical formulation and
experimental validation of the input–output modeling approach for large solar
thermal systems. Sol Energy 2010;84:245–55.
[44] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Symeou C, Antonopoulos KA. Energetic, exergetic and
financial evaluation of a solar driven absorption chiller – a dynamic approach.
Energy Convers Manage 2017;137:34–48.
[45] Kouremenos DA, Antonopoulos KA, Domazakis ES. Solar radiation correlations
for the Athens, Greece, area. Sol Energy 1985;35:259–69.
[46] Kouremenos DA, Antonopoulos KA, Doulgerakis S. Direct and diffuse solar
radiation correlations for tilted surfaces in Athens, Greece. Sol Energy 1987;38
(3):203–17.
[47] F-Chart Software, Engineering Equation Solver (EES); 2015. Available at:
http://www.fchart.com/ees.
[48] Tillner-Roth R, Baehr HD. An international standard formulation for the
thermodynamic properties of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a) for
temperatures from 170 K to 455 K and pressures up to 70 MPa. J Phys
Chem, Ref Data 1994;23(5).
[49] Electrical Research Association. 1967 Steam Tables, Thermodynamic
Properties of Water and Steam; Viscosity of Water and Steam, Thermal
Conductivity of Water and Steam. London: Edward Arnold Publishers; 1967.
[50] Pátek J, Klomfar J. A computationally effective formulation of the
thermodynamic properties of LiBr–H2O solutions from 273 to 500 K over full
composition range. Int J Refrig 2006;29(4):566–78.
[51] Shirazi A, Taylor RA, Morrison GL, White SD. A comprehensive, multi-objective
optimization of solar-powered absorption chiller systems for air-conditioning
applications. Energy Convers Manage 2017;132:281–306.
[52] Canada NR. RETScreen international. 4.1 ed.
[53] Al-Ugla AA, El-Shaarawi MAI, Said SAM, Al-Qutub AM. Techno-economic
analysis of solar-assisted air-conditioning systems for commercial buildings in
Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:1301–10.
[54] Yang S, Liang J, Yang S, Qian Y. A novel cascade refrigeration process using
waste heat and its application to coal-to-SNG. Energy 2016;115(1):486–97.
[55] Gogoi TK, Konwar D. Exergy analysis of a H2O–LiCl absorption refrigeration
system with operating temperatures estimated through inverse analysis.
Energy Convers Manage 2016;110:436–47.
[56] Balaras CA, Dascalaki EG, Droutsa KG, Kontoyiannidis S. Empirical assessment
of calculated and actual heating energy use in Hellenic residential buildings.
Appl Energy 2016;164:115–32.