Accepted Manuscript

Energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental (4E) analysis and multi-factor

evaluation method of low GWP fluids in trans-critical organic Rankine cycles

Cheng Zhang, Chao Liu, Xiaoxiao Xu, Qibin Li, Shukun Wang

PII: S0360-5442(18)32315-6

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.104

Reference: EGY 14202

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 27 July 2018

Accepted Date: 23 November 2018

Please cite this article as: Cheng Zhang, Chao Liu, Xiaoxiao Xu, Qibin Li, Shukun Wang, Energetic,
exergetic, economic and environmental (4E) analysis and multi-factor evaluation method of low
GWP fluids in trans-critical organic Rankine cycles, Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.
2018.11.104

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental (4E) analysis and multi-factor evaluation method
of low GWP fluids in trans-critical organic Rankine cycles
Cheng Zhang, Chao Liu *, Xiaoxiao Xu, Qibin Li, Shukun Wang

Key laboratory of low-grade Energy Utilization Technologies and Systems, Ministry of Education, College of Energy
and Power Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China

*Corresponding author. Tel: +86 02365112469; fax: + 86 023 65112469

E-mail address: liuchao@cqu.edu.cn

Abstract: Environmentally-friendly working fluid selection and multi-objective evaluation have

been paid a great attention in organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Based on a modified analytic hierarchy
process, a multi-factor evaluation method for trans-critical ORC (TORC) is developed first. The
multi-factor indicator consists of eight indicators including energetic, exergetic, economic and
environmental criteria (4E). The net power output, system efficiency, total exergy loss, exergy
efficiency, cost per unit of time, electricity production cost, dynamic payback period, and emissions
of CO2 equivalent (ECE) during life-time are considered. R134a, R32, R1270, R290 and R1234yf
are selected as potential working fluids. The results show that the performance of R134a is the best
followed by R32, R290, R1270 and R1234yf when only thermo-economic performances are
considered. R290 shows the maximum comprehensive emission reduction of 8019 tons CO2, eq
during life-time followed by R1270 being 7529 tons CO2, eq. The primary source of ECE from
R134a, R32, R1270 and R290 is fluid leakage, accounting for over 68～83%. In multi-factor
evaluation, R290 and R1270 exhibit higher feasibility level than R134a when the environmental
impact is paid great attention. The multi-factor evaluation method is effective and valid to conduct
comprehensive feasibility evaluation for decision-making.

Keywords: Waste heat recovery; Organic Rankine cycle; Economic; Carbon dioxide emission;
Multi-factor evaluation; Analytic hierarchy process

Highlights:
 A multi-factor evaluation and decision making method for trans-critical ORC is developed.
 Modified analytic hierarchy process is adopted based on quantitative evaluation.
 The energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental impacts (4E) analysis is performed.
 R290 and R1270 exhibit high comprehensive potential for trans-critical ORC.

1. Introduction
Increasing energy consumptions and environmental pollution during the procedure of social
development are main causes to global warming and sea level rise. In order to ease these problems,
enhancing the efficiency of energy utilization is one of effective ways [1]. A great effort has been
made to reduce the energy consumption by worldwide governments and researchers. Among the
technologies of energy conversion, such as Kalina cycle, Goswami cycle, organic Rankine cycle
(ORC), and steam expansion cycle, ORC is less complex and requires less maintenance [2]. In order
to improve the conversion efficiency of ORC, researchers have done a great deal of work. For
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

several decades, the researches highly focus on three aspects: working fluid selection, equipment
design, and system optimization.
The leakage of working fluid with high Global Warming Potential (GWP) leads to not only
environmental deterioration but also performance degradation of ORC [3]. Hydrofluoro-olefins
(HFOs) [4], hydrocarbons (HCs) [5] and carbon dioxide [6] were considered as a more desirable
thermodynamic and environmentally friendly alternative to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Studies have been conducted
on HFO R1234yf as a replacement for HFC R134a. Yamada et al. [7] compared the thermodynamic
performances of five ORC cycles using R1234yf. It was found that R1234yf offered a comparable
thermal efficiency with that of R134a. The maximum thermal efficiency ranging from 8.8-11.4%
was achieved. The working fluid selection and parametric optimization for an ORC coupled with
vapor compression cycle (ORC-VCC) was presented by Nasir et al. [8]. R245fa, R123, R134a,
R1234yf, R1234ze, butane and isobutene was selected as working fluid in the work. Wang et al. [9]
introduced a regenerative supercritical-subcritical dual-loop ORC system. The environmentally-
friendly working fluids R1233zd and R1234yf were selected. The results revealed that the efficiency
of energy conversion can be dramatically improved. With respect to the HCs, Yang et al. [10]
studied the thermodynamic performance on an ORC system driven by the cylinder jacket water of
diesel engines. The results showed that HC R600a (iso-butane) performed the best followed by
HFOs R1234ze and R1234yf.
Moreover, the comparison of subcritical and trans-critical cycles has been also analyzed in ORC
systems [7, 11]. Trans-critical ORC (TORC) can reduce the exergy loss and improve system
efficiency because of variable temperature heat absorption during the heating process [12]. Heberle
et al. [11] performed a life cycle assessment of ORC system driven by geo-thermal power.
Subcritical and supercritical cycles with one-stage and two-stage ORC power systems were
considered. The results indicated that the conversion efficiency of supercritical cycle with R1234yf is
37% higher and a significant decrease of the CO2-equivalent emissions (ECE) could be obtained. A
novel pinch point design and optimization of subcritical and supercritical ORC for maximum heat
recovery was proposed in Refs.[13, 14]. In the study, thermodynamic and environmental criteria, and
various performance parameters were considered, such as net power output, thermal efficiency, heat
recovery efficiency, irreversibility, exergetic efficiency, turbine size parameter and heat transfer
requirement. Zhi et al. [15] studied the multiple parametric analysis, optimization and efficiency
prediction of TORC with/without regenerator using R1234ze(E). Based on artificial neural network,
the cycle efficiencies were calculated with the changing of heat source temperature, heat sink
temperature, pump efficiency, turbine efficiency, and regenerator effectiveness.
The selection of objective function plays an important role in system optimization. However,
different objective functions usually results in great different optimal results. The energetic or/and
exergetic, economic and environmental evaluations (3E/4E) are considered as a comprehensive
method [16, 17]. Shu et al. [18, 19] carried out a parametric analysis and performance comparison of
a novel dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (DORC). It pointed out sub–trans DORC system with R43a
performed best, which was followed by sub–sub DORC system with R1234yf, when net output
power was selected as the objective function. Yang et al. [20] performed the thermo-economic multi-
objective optimization of an ORC system. GA (genetic algorithm) was applied to solve maximum
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

net power output and minimum total investment cost using HFOs, HCFCs, and HCs. R245fa
exhibited the most suitable thermo-economic performances, environmental impacts and safety levels.
Quoilin et al. [21] revealed that the minimum specific investment cost was obtained for HC n-butane,
but R1234yf performed the worst. Yang et al. [22] pointed out that the maximum thermo-economic
performances of R1234yf was higher than that with R245fa by 9% when the net power output index
was proposed to evaluate the performances of ORC. When only economic performances were
considered, HC R600 exhibited the best performances followed by R600a, R1233zd, R1234yf and
R1234ze [23].
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is an effective tool to analyze rational or irrational problems
for the complex multi-criteria and multi-factor decisions [24]. Fuzzy AHP was employed to analyze
the barriers of shale gas revolution [25]. Besides, Liang et al. [26] used Analytic Network Process
(ANP), which is a new generation of AHP and allows for interrelationships, to determine the feasible
ways to recover engine waste energy. Nevertheless, it is necessary to collect the experts’ opinion to
determine importance of different criteria for problems solving and decision making.
From the above literature review, it can be concluded that environmentally-friendly fluid
selection and comprehensive evaluation method have been paid a great attention in ORC studies.
However, different evaluation methods usually result in great different results in working fluid
selection. In the previous multi-objective evaluation, there were two common methods: one was to
only perform a qualitative comparison analysis based on the results of single indicator, and the other
was to obtain a quantitative index weighted by indicators and fixed weights. Thus, for the first time,
a multi-factor evaluation and decision making method is presented by applying a modified AHP. In
the traditional AHP method, the weights of all indicators are determined according to the judgment
matrix based on the experts mark. Therefore, the priority of each indictor strongly depends on the
judgment based on the experts mark. Different from the traditional AHP method, we make an
improvement, in which the weights of all indicators are determined by the quantitative result of
indicators. By employing the particle swarm optimization (PSO) method, firstly, a comprehensive
analysis, including energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental impacts of system (4E
analysis) is conducted. Then, net power output, thermal efficiency, total exergy loss, exergy
efficiency, cost per unit of time, electricity production cost (EPC) and dynamic payback period
(PPD) are calculated and compared based on the optimal net power output. At the end, the feasibility
level considering eight indicators is defined and calculated under the condition of the same heat load
offered by the heat sources. In this work, HFCs R134a and R32, HCs R1270 and R290, and HFO
R1234yf are used as working fluids.

2. System description and fluid selection

2.1 System description
Fig.1 shows the T-s diagram of trans-critical organic Rankine cycles with wet fluid and dry
fluid. The working fluid of supercritical pressure absorbs heat (process 4-1) from the heat source in
the evaporator (finned-tube) and release heat (process 2-3) to cooling water in the condenser (shell-
and-tube). In the turbine, the supercritical pressure and temperature fluid converts into shaft work
(process 1-2). And the saturated liquid is pumped into supercritical pressure fluid (process 3-4) by
pump. The processes 1-2s and 3-4s are the isentropic expansion and compression, respectively.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The given conditions and ORC parameters are listed in Table 1.The outlet temperature of heat
source is greater than 82°C [28] to avoid acid dew point. The parametric optimization is conducted
by PSO algorithm. In order to search the optimal parameters, the temperature difference ranges of 5-
35°C, 5-10°C are selected for pinch point temperatures. The condensing temperature range is 25-
40°C. The isentropic efficiencies of pump and turbine are 0.75 and 0.8 [29], respectively. Other
assumptions are as follows: Stable operation of the ORC system is considered. The heat losses in the
system and the pressure drop in the pipes are neglected. Fig.2 shows the limited condition of turbine
inlet. For both dry fluid and wet fluid, the maximal pressure (pmax) of turbine inlet is set as 1.5 times
the critical pressure. The turbine inlet temperature (TIT) is determined by the maximal specific
entropy (smax), which is the maximum value on the saturated curve for dry fluid (Fig.2 (a)) and the
specific entropy dependent on condensation temperature (Tcon) for wet fluid (Fig.2 (b)).

2.2. Working fluid

Most of the working fluids using in ORC systems are refrigerants because of their lower boiling
point. CFCs and HCFCs have been widely used in air-conditioning and refrigeration system since
1930. However, these substances should be phased out according to the Montreal protocol agreed in
1987. In addition, the substances leading to global warming were restricted for use in terms of Kyoto
protocol [30]. In order to control emissions from HFCs, two legislative acts, the ‘F-gas regulation’
and ‘MAC Directive’, prohibit the use of F-gases in the European Union [31]. Searching for
environmentally friendly fluids are receiving more and more attention, especially for the fluids with
zero ODP and GWP being lower than 150. HFOs and HCs are considered as more desirable working
fluids for alternative [5]. In this paper, the fluids we selected were the most concerned HFO
R1234yf, HCs R290 and R1270, and the most widely used HFCs R134a and R32 are selected. The
properties of the working fluid candidates are listed in Table 2.

3. Methodology
3.1. Energetic analysis
The heat transferred to the working fluid in the evaporator is determined as:
Qevap  mhs (h5  h6 )  mwf (h1  h4 ) (1)

The heat transfer in the condenser is determined as:

Qcond  mc (h8  h7 )  mwf (h2  h3 ) (2)

The work produced by the turbine in the TORC system is given by:
Wt  mwf (h1  h2 )  mwf (h1  h2 s )t (3)

The work consumed by the pump in the TORC system is given by:
W pp  mwf (h4  h3 )  mwf (h4 s  h3 )  pp (4)

The net power output (E1) in the TORC system is given by:
Wnet = Wt - W pp (5)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The thermal efficiency (E2) in the TORC system can be defined as:
th  (Wt  W pp ) Qevap (6)

3.2. Exergetic analysis

Exergy of a specific state, which is a measure of thermal energy quality, is defined as follows:
Ei  mi  hi  hi 0  T0  si  si 0   (7)

During the heat transfer process and heat-work conversion process, part of the thermal energy is
depleted due to the irreversibility. The exergy loss during the process of heat transfer can be
determined as:
I evap   E4  E5   ( E1  E6 ) (8)

The exergy loss during the process of heat transfer in a condenser can be determined as:
I cond  E2  E3 (9)

The exergy loss during the process of working fluid compression in a pump can be given by:
I pp   E3  W pp   E4 (10)

The exergy loss during the process of working fluid expansion in a turbine can be given by:
I t  E1  Wnet +E2  (11)

The total exergy loss (EX1) in ORC system is given by Eq. (12):
I tot  I evap  I cond  I pp  I t (12)

The available exergy offered by the heat source can be determined as:
Ehs  E 6  E7 (13)

The exergy efficiency (EX2) of ORC system is defined as:

ex  Wnet Ehs (14)

3.3. Economic analysis

In order to evaluate the economic performances of TORC system, heat exchanger design should
be carried out first. In the heat transfer model, the evaporator is finned tubes with circular fins, and
shell-and-tube heat exchangers are employed as the condenser. The log mean temperature difference
(LMTD) method is applied. Evaporator is considered as holistic process in heat transfer calculation,
while the condenser is divided into two processes, i.e. cooling and condensation process [32]. The
heat transfer processes are divided into finite small elements, in which constant properties
assumption are adopted. Table 3 gives the correlations of heat-transfer coefficient of heat
exchangers. In the evaporator, the overall heat transfer coefficient is estimated by Young’s
correlation [33] due to much smaller convective heat transfer coefficient of flue gas side than that of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

organic working fluid side [34]. Moreover, Table 4 lists the economic models and performance
indicators of TORC system. Cost per unit of time (Z) [16], EPC and PPD [35] are selected as
economic indicators. K1, K2, K3, B1, B2, C1, C2 and C3 are fitting cost coefficients for components and
the values are listed in Table 5. The life cycle time, annual operating time, and annual loan interest
rate are assumed as 15 years, 7000 h, and 5%, respectively. The grid electricity is taken the mean of
0.15 $/kWh according to the new energy grid purchase price of China in the study [29, 35].

3.4. Environmental analysis

The global warming impact of ORC system is evaluated by carbon footprint method, which is a
summation of equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of a product or service across its life cycle [40].
As shown in Fig.3, ECE, (EN1) are comprised of two emissions categories: Direct emissions and
indirect emissions. Direct emissions result from working fluid leakage and loss, including annual
leakage during the operation and working fluid loss when the system is disposed of. The equation of
direct emissions is given by [41]:
Direct emissions=FC   LT  ALR  EOL   GWP (15)

where FC is working fluid charge (kg), GWP is Global Warming Potential (kg CO2,eq/kg), ALR is
annual leakage rate, LT is lifetime of ORC system (year), and EOL is end-of-life loss rate.
Indirect emissions are comprised of energy consumption, manufacturing of material and
working fluid, and disposal of material and fluid. The equation of indirect emissions is given by [41]:
Indirect emissions=LT  AEC  CE  m  CM  mr  CMR
(16)
  FC  LT  ALR  FC   CFM  FC  1  EOL   CFR

where AEC is annual energy consumption (kWh), CE is CO2,eq produced unit energy consumption
(kg CO2,eq/kWh), m is mass of material (kg), CM is CO2,eq produced unit material mass (kg
CO2,eq/kg), mr is mass of recycled material (kg), CMR is CO2,eq produced unit recycled material
mass(kg CO2,eq/kg), CFM is CO2,eq produced of working fluid manufacturing (kg CO2,eq/kg), and
CFR is CO2,eq produced of working fluid disposal (kg CO2,eq/kg). The charging mass of the working
fluid of based on power output is 5.57 kg/kW.
The mass of different components in the TORC system is determined by equations (17)-(20):
   d o2  di2  Aevap L   dt2  di2   f 
wevap =Vfinned-tube      (17)
 4  do Y 4 

  d o2  di2  Acond
wcond =Vtube     (18)
4  do

wt =31.22  Wt (19)

wpp =14.0  W pp (20)

The mass of steel required by the turbine and pump is 31.22 kg/kW and 14.0 kg/kW based on
power consumption or production, respectively [42]. The manufacturing and disposal emissions of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

working fluid are listed in Table 6. With respect to material, the steel, aluminum, copper and plastic
are considered based on an estimated percentage of material composition 46%, 12%, 19% and 23%
[41], respectively. Most of materials today are manufactured with a mixture of virgin and recycled
materials. The virgin and mixed manufacturing emissions of materials are listed in Table 7.

3.5. Multi-factor evaluation method

AHP method is applied for the weights allocation of multi-indicator. AHP consists of a set of
primary criteria and secondary criteria. The weights of indicators are determined according to the
judgment matrix based on experts mark in the conventional AHP approach. Therefore, the priority of
each indictor strongly depends on the judgment of experts. In this study, we make an improvement.
The weights of secondary criteria are determined by the quantitative result of indicators, which are
based on optimal net power output. Firstly, a network structure of three hierarchies on multi-factor
indicators is established, as shown in Fig.4. The goal of multi-factor feasibility assessment consists
of four primary criteria: energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental criteria, and the four
primary criteria include eight indicators: net power output (Wnet), thermal efficiency (th), total
exergy loss (Itot), exergy efficiency (ex), cost per unit of time (Z), electricity production cost (EPC),
dynamic payback period (PPD) and emissions of CO2 equivalent (ECE). The eight indicators are
approximately considered as independence. Then, with normalization and gradation processing, the
comprehensive effect of eight factors can be superposed by multiplying their weights times gradation
level to develop a single evaluation indicator, i.e., feasibility level (FL). The FL of a working fluid
can be defined as:
FL  X    i 1  xi  wi  ,
n
n  1, 2, 3..., N (21)

where xi is the factor i, and wi is the weight of the factor i. The more feasible a working fluid, the
higher the multi-factor evaluation indicator FL. xi represents normalization value of each indicator,
which is given as:
 Xi
 X , X i   E1, E2, EX2 
 opt (22)
xi  
 X opt , X   EX1, EC1, EC2, EC3, EN1
 X i i

where Xi is the indicator i, Xopt is the optimal value of indicator i for working fluid candidates.
The steps of AHP are as follows:
(a) Define the problem and determine the kind of study.
(b) Structuring the decision hierarchy: Start from the top of evaluation goal, then the primary criteria,
and the lowest level with a set of the alternatives or secondary criteria.
(c) Setting up judgment matrixes: There are nine absolute numbers (1~9) that indicate intensity of
importance for making pairwise comparison and setting up a judgment matrix, as presented in Table
8. The intensities of importance of primary criteria are given as different sets, and the intensities of
importance of secondary criteria are determined by the normalization and gradation of indicators.
(d) Ranking the indicators: calculate weight of each indicator.
(e) Consistency checking: calculate consistency ratio, CR=CI/RI. If CR<0.1, the matrix meets
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

consistency, or the matrix need to be abandoned. CI denotes consistency index, as defined by Eq.
(19) [24]. RI denotes the average random consistency index and is listed in Table 9.
CI =  max  1  n  1 (23)

where max indicates the largest eigenvalue, and n is the order of matrix.

3.6 Optimization method

The PSO method, which is inspired by the foraging behavior of birds, was first proposed by
Kennedy in 1995 [46]. This algorithm is a bio-inspired result based on a population of particles, each
of which represents a potential solution. Compared with genetic algorithm (GA), PSO is easier to be
used for multi-objective optimization.
The movements of particles to optimal solution are adjusted by updating their position and
velocity as following equations:
vik,d1  wvik,d  c1r1  pbesti ,d  xik,d   c2 r2  gbestd  xik,d  (24)

xik,d1  xik,d  vik,d (25)

where v and x are velocity and positon respectively, pbest is the personal best position, gbest is the
global best position of particle swarm, i denotes the ith particle in the particle swarm, d denotes the
dth dimensional variable of optimization problem, c1 and c2 are acceleration constants, r1 and r2 are
random functions in the range [0, 1], and k denots the iteration number.
In the calculation, the pressure of turbine inlet, the pinch point temperature difference in the
evaporator and condenser, and condensation temperature are four design parameters. The steps of
PSO are as follows (as shown in Fig.5):
(a) A random particle swarm with initial positions and velocities is generated.
(b) Each particle is evaluated by using objective function to search for the personal best position of
each particle and the global best position of the particle swarm.
(c) The positions and velocities of each particle are updated using Equations (24) and (25).
(d) Then each particle is evaluated again until the convergence is met (up to the maximum iteration
number or meeting the global best position restrain).
The calculation processes are built and simulated in the MATLAB, and the physical properties
of working fluids are calculated by REFPROP developed by NIST (National institute of standards
and technology).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Results of design thermal parameters
The thermodynamic parameters of TORCs with different working fluids are optimized based on
the same heat load offered by the heat source. The optimal thermodynamic parameters of each state
are given in Table 10. The highest operating pressure is about 8052 kPa when R32 is used as
working fluid. For other working fluid R134a, R1270, R290 and R1234yf, the range of operating
pressure is from 5000 kPa to 7000 kPa, and R1234yf exhibits the lowest working pressure 5073 kPa.
Moreover, the results of 4E analysis for TORCs with R134a, R32, R1270, R290 and R1234yf,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

respectively, are listed in Table 11. It should be noted that R134a exhibits the optimal thermo-
economic performances but the worst environmental impact. The th, ex, EPC and ECE of R134a
are 13.22%, 57.06%, 0.0895 $/kWh and 813.90 tons CO2,eq, respectively.
Figures 6-9 show the performance indicators of TORCs with different working fluids. TORC
with R134a exhibits high potential if only thermo-economic performances are considered, as shown
in Figs. 6-9. Particularly, R1270 and R290 exhibit the lowest environmental impact and relatively
good thermo-economic performances, which exhibits a Wnet decrease of 3.5% when compared with
R134a. The Wnet, th, ex, EPC and ECE of R290 are 87.83kW, 12.75%, 53.02%, 0.0938 $/kWh and
15.43 tons CO2,eq, respectively. The 4E performances of R1270 are very close to R290. R1234yf
performs the lowest th, ex, and the worst economic performances when compared with R134a,
R32, R1270 and R290. The Wnet of R1234yf is lower than that of R134a by approximately 13%,
while a significant decrease of ECE is obtained for R1234yf. Approximately emission reduction of
800 tons CO2,eq is reached for R1270, R290 and R1234yf.
Based on the analysis above, R134a is the best followed by R32, R290, R1270 and R1234yf
when only thermo-economic performances are considered. However, HCs R1270 and R290 are the
better selection when thermo-economic performance and environmental impact are comprehensively
taken into account.

4.2. Exergetic and environmental evaluation of component, working fluid and life cycle
Fig.10 shows the exergy loss and proportion of components with different working fluids. It
could be concluded that turbine and evaporator are the main components of exergy loss producing.
Total exergy loss of the two components accounts for over 75% for all working fluids. For
evaporator, greater temperature difference of heat transfer leads to more exergy loss. The exergy loss
in the turbine greatly depends on the exergy efficiency of turbine. The maximum exergy loss is
found in the evaporator for R32 and R1234yf, but the maximum exergy loss is found in the turbine
for R134a, R1270 and R290. In addition, the minimum exergy loss is found in pump, which is less
than 6% of total system exergy loss. As shown in Fig.11, the ECE of components during life-time are
presented. Analogously, ECE from component manufacturing are mainly caused by turbine and
evaporator. The turbine contributes to the maximum ECE for all working fluids. This is because that
the ECE from component greatly depends on the mass of component, and the mass of evaporator and
turbine are obviously greater than that of condenser and pump in ORC. The results of exergetic,
environmental performances and relative parameters of different components are listed in Table 12.
As shown in Fig.12, the primary source of ECE from working fluid R134a, R32, R1270 and
R290 is fluid leakage, which accounts for 68-83%. With respect to R1234yf, fluid charging and
leakage will lead to equivalent effect on the ECE. However, with respect to R134a and R32, the
contribution of fluid charging to ECE is obviously small (<1%). Moreover, the ECEs from R134a
and R32 are not able to be ignored at the end-of-life (>16%). The ECEs exceed over 300 and 600
tons CO2,eq for R32 and R134a due to the fluid leakage during the process of system operation.
R134a shows a maximum ECE, which is over 800 tons CO2,eq and accounts for 82.98% of total ECE.
It is mainly resulted from the impact of high GWP for R134a. As given in Table 13, the ECEs of
R1270, R290 and R1234yf are 1.73, 2.47 and 16.52 tons CO2,eq, and a significant decrease of ECE is
reached. Therefore, R134a and R32 are not good selection for TORC from environmental viewpoint.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.13 shows the ECE and proportion of systems during life-time. It could be observed that the
main differences of ECEs for different working fluids are during the construction phase and
decommissioning phase. The ECE of different life-time phase is listed in Table 14. With respect to
R134a and R32 with high GWP, operation phase exhibits the maximum ECE, which is about 665
tons CO2,eq and accounts for 81.7% for R134a, and 301 tons CO2,eq and 80% for R32. With respect to
R1270, R290 and R1234yf, construction phase exhibits the maximum ECE and contributes to the
ECE of 67-87%, approximately 13-18 tons CO2,eq.
When we discuss the ECE of TORC above, we discuss the CO2 equivalent of direct and indirect
emissions from system. However, the comprehensive effect of emission reduction is more intuitive
to evaluate the environmental performance of TORC with different working fluids. Thus, the
emission reduction on conversion of heat load to electricity during life-time is taken into account.
The emission conversion factor of electricity from grid is set as 0.968kg CO2,eq/kWh [16]. Table 15
gives the ECE lists during life-time for different working fluids. It should be noted that R290
exhibits the maximum ECE reduction followed by R1270, R32, R134a and R1234yf, and the
emissions reduction are about 8019, 8015, 7529, 7520 and 7230 tons CO2, eq, respectively.

4.3. Multi-factor evaluation

From the perspective of comprehensive feasibility evaluation, we selected the following eight
cases for the assessment of TORCs. The eight cases are calculated based on the same heat load
offered by heat source but different weights allocation for four criteria. With normalization
processing first, all the single-indicator is transformed to non-dimensional parameters. Table 16
presents the normalization of eight indictors as given in Table 11. Then, the normalization of each
indicator is graded based on grading standards, which are presented in Table 17. In the grading
standards, each value is assigned to a level, i.e., 1 indicates ‘extremely low’, 2 for ‘low’, 3 for
‘medium’, 4 for ‘high’, and 5 for ‘extremely high’. The grading values of each indicator for working
fluids are listed in Table 18. AHP is applied for the weight allocation of each indicator using the
number scales of importance (1~9) based on the grading values rather than scoring by the expert.
Table 19 presents the results of multi-factor indicator for thirteen cases with different working fluids.
Fig.14 gives the flow diagram of multi-factor evaluation method.
Cases 1-4 are used as a validation study to verify the feasibility of the multi-factor evaluation
method. The weights of energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental criteria are allocated as
100%, respectively. With respect to cases 1-4, each case represents energetic dominance, exergetic
dominance, economic dominance and environmental dominance, respectively. The results show that
the maximal FLs are 4.67, 4.67 and 3.97 for cases 1-3 with R134a, and the minimal FL of 2.38 is
obtained in case 4 with R134a. R134a exhibits the optimal thermo-economic performances but the
worst environmental impact. R134a is the best followed by R32, R290, R1270 and R1234yf when
only thermo-economic performances are considered, as presented in Fig.15. This conclusion is well
consistent with that of 4E analysis above and previous study [11]. In terms of thermodynamic
performances, R134a achieved the maximum power output and exergetic efficiency followed by
propane (R290) and R1234yf in one-stage supercritical ORC when the temperature of the geothermal
is 428K (155°C) for Upper Rhine Rift Valley. In terms of environmental impact, R134a exhibited the
maximum global warming impact, while a significant decrease of global warming impact was
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

obtained for R290 and R1234yf in the study. Therefore, the multi-factor evaluation method is an
effective way for multi-objective evaluation.
Case 5 gives equal weights allocation to energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental
criteria by 25%, respectively. With respect to cases 6-8, different weights allocation is given to only
economic and environmental criteria, while energetic and exergetic weights are set as 0%. As shown
in Fig. 14, it could be observed that R134a exhibits the highest feasibility level (FL=3.95) followed
by R32 (FL=3.83), R290 (FL=3.04), R1270 (FL=2.83) and R1234yf (FL=1.83) in case 5. The
feasibility level of R1234yf is significantly lower than that of the other four working fluids. In case
6, same sequence is observed for five working fluids when economic and environmental criteria are
given equal weights by 50%, respectively. However, R1270 and R290 exhibit a significant decrease
in FL due to worse economic performance when compared with R134a.
In case 7, the weight of environmental criteria is set as 0.8, which represents environmental
dominance to economic criteria. R290 exhibits the highest feasibility level (FL=3.54) followed by
R1270 (FL=3.33), R32 (FL=2.90), R134a (FL=2.79) and R1234yf (FL=2.39). In case 8, the
feasibility level of R1270, R290 and R1234yf are obviously lower than that of R134a and R32 when
economic dominance to environmental criteria. It could be concluded that R290 and R1270 perform
better than R134a only when environmental impact is paid high attention to. In fact, both R1270 and
R290 are highly flammable. However, some highly flammable fluids (such as HCs R290, R601 and
toluene) also have been used as working fluid in commercial applications due to their very
competitive thermo-economic performances and minimal environmental impact. In commercial
units, R290 has been used for air-conditioning system, R601 (n-pentane) was selected for solar,
geothermal ORC provided by Ormat Technologies Inc. [47], and toluene for recovery of heat
developed by Tri-O-Gen company [48]. Without a doubt, more measures and attentions should be
paid to keep safe operation when highly flammable fluids are used in ORC systems. In addition,
flammable fluid mixed with retardant fluid, such as R290/CO2, can be considered in the future
research work.
Based on the analysis above, it can be concluded that the multi-factor evaluation method
presented by this study is an effective way for multi-objective evaluation. The feasibility of working
fluid used in TORC can be easily evaluated quantitatively via comprehensive indicator FL based on
the decision-maker’s emphasis.

5. Conclusions
Energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental impacts analysis (4E analysis) and a multi-
factor evaluation and decision making method for TORCs with low GWP fluids is conducted. The
multi-factor indicator is composed of eight factors including net power output, thermal efficiency,
total exergy loss, exergy efficiency, cost per unit of time, electricity production cost, dynamic
payback period, emissions of CO2 equivalent based on life-time. The PSO method is employed to
optimize the parameters of system and a modified AHP is applied for the weights allocation of each
indicator to establish the multi-factor evaluation method. The comprehensive effect of eight factors is
superposed by multiplying their weights times their gradation levels to develop a single evaluation
indicator. The main conclusions are as follows:
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(1) R134a exhibits the best thermo-economic performances followed by R32, R290, R1270 and
R1234yf. R1270 and R290 are the better selection when thermo-economic performance and
environmental impact are comprehensively concerned.
(2) The lowest thermal efficiency, exergy efficiency, and the worst economic performances are
obtained for R1234yf. The net power output of R1234yf is lower than that of 134a by approximately
13%. However, a significant decrease of CO2 equivalent emissions during life-time is obtained for
R290, R1270 and R1234yf.
(3) Turbine and evaporator are the main components of exergy loss producing. Total exergy
loss of the turbine and evaporator accounts for over 75% with different working fluids. The
maximum exergy loss is found in the turbine for R134a, R1270 and R290, but in the evaporator for
R32 and R1234yf. In addition, the minimum exergy loss is found in pump, which is not more than
6% of total system exergy loss. The emissions of CO2 equivalent from component manufacture are
mainly caused by turbine and evaporator.
(4) The primary source of emissions of CO2 equivalent from R134a, R32, R1270 and R290 is
fluid leakage, which accounts for 68～83%. When the emission reduction on conversion of waste
flue gas to electricity during life-time is taken into account, R290 exhibits the maximum CO2
equivalent emission reduction followed by R1270, R32, R134a and R1234yf, and the emissions
reduction are about 8019, 8015, 7529, 7520 and 7230 tons CO2, eq, respectively.
(5) The multi-factor evaluation method is an effective way for multi-objective evaluation. R290
and R1270 perform better than R134a only when the environmental impact is paid high attention to.
R1234yf is not a good working fluid for the TORC system under given conditions.

Acknowledgements
The study is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51576019) and
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2018CDXYDL0001). The author,
Cheng Zhang, would like to acknowledge financial support from the Chinese Scholarship Council
(CSC).

Nomenclature
A heat transfer surface area/flow area (m2)
Bo boiling number (-)
C cost ($)/constant relative to equipment cost correlation/correlation for two-phase boiling heat-transfer
coefficient
C0 p cost of equipment using carbon steel and at ambient pressure ($)
Co convection number (-)
CEPCI Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (-)
COM cost of operation and maintenance ($)
CRF capital recovery factor (-)
E Exergy (kW)
F constant relative to equipment cost correlation (-)
FL multi-factor evaluation indicator: feasibility level (-)
G mass velocity (kg/m2 s)
H fin height (m)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

K constant relative to equipment cost correlation (-)

L length of finned-tube (m)
LT life cycle time (year)
Nu Nusselt number (-)
PT tube pitch (m)
Pr Prandtl number (-)
Q heat load (kW)
Re Reynolds number (-)
W power (kW)
Y fin pitch (m)
Z cost per unit of time ($/s)
a constants for shell-and-tube heat-transfer coefficient (-)
cp specific heat (J/kg °C)
d feature size (m)
dt fin collar outside diameter (m)
db fin root diameter (m)
h enthalpy(J/kg)
j j-factor for shell-and-tube heat-transfer coefficient (-)
k heat conductivity coefficient (W/m °C)
l length (m)
m mass flow rate (kg/s)
p pressure (kPa)
top annual operating hours (hour)
w mass (kg)
x dryness fraction (-)

Greek letters
T temperature difference (°C)
 convection heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C)
 thickness (m)
 efficiency (-)
 dynamic viscosity (N·s/m2)
 density (kg/m3)
 maintenance factor (-)

Subscripts/superscripts
BM bare module
c cold/condensation
cond condenser
crit critical
e evaporating
elec electricity
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

evap evaporator
ex exergy
f fin
g gas
hs heat source
id ideal tube bank
l liquid
m material/mass flow rate
max maximum
min minimum
net net
o outside
op operating
pp pump
s shell side
t turbine
th thermal
tot total
tp two-phase
wf working fluid

Abbreviation
AHP analytic hierarchy process
GWP global warming potential
PSO particle swarm optimization
TORC trans-critical organic Rankine cycle
4E energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental
E1 energetic indicator one (net power output)
E2 energetic indicator two (thermal efficiency)
EX1 exergetic indicator one (total exergy loss)
EX2 exergetic indicator two (exergy efficiency)
EC1 economic indicator one (cost per unit of time)
EC2 economic indicator two (electricity production cost)
EC3 economic indicator three (dynamic payback period)
EN1 environmental indicator one (emissions of CO2 equivalent)

References
[1] Li Q, Xiao Y, Shi X, Song S. Rapid evaporation of water on graphene/graphene-oxide: A molecular dynamics
study. Nanomaterials. 2017;7(9):265.
[2] Chen H, Goswami DY, Stefanakos EK. A review of thermodynamic cycles and working fluids for the
conversion of low-grade heat. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14(9):3059-67.
[3] Wang S, Liu C, Zhang C, Xu X. Thermodynamic evaluation of leak phenomenon in liquid receiver of ORC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

systems. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2018;141:1110-9.

[4] Huo E, Liu C, Xu X, Dang C. A ReaxFF-based molecular dynamics study of the pyrolysis mechanism of HFO-
1336mzz (Z). International Journal of Refrigeration. 2017;83:118-30.
[5] Calm JM, Hourahan GC. Physical, safety, and environmental data for current and alternative refrigerants. 23rd
International-Institute-of-Refrigeration(IIR) International Congress of Refrigeration. 2011.
[6] Zhang S, Xu X, Liu C, Zhang Y, Dang C. The buoyancy force and flow acceleration effects of supercritical CO
2 on the turbulent heat transfer characteristics in heated vertical helically coiled tube. International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer. 2018;125:274-89.
[7] Yamada N, Mohamad MNA, Kien TT. Study on thermal efficiency of low-to medium-temperature organic
Rankine cycles using HFO− 1234yf. Renewable Energy. 2012;41:368-75.
[8] Nasir MT, Kim KC. Working fluids selection and parametric optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle
coupled Vapor Compression Cycle (ORC-VCC) for air conditioning using low grade heat. Energy and
Buildings. 2016;129:378-95.
[9] Wang E, Yu Z, Zhang H, Yang F. A regenerative supercritical-subcritical dual-loop organic Rankine cycle
system for energy recovery from the waste heat of internal combustion engines. Applied Energy.
2017;190:574-90.
[10] Yang M-H, Yeh R-H. Analyzing the optimization of an organic Rankine cycle system for recovering waste
heat from a large marine engine containing a cooling water system. Energy Conversion and Management.
2014;88:999-1010.
[11] Heberle F, Schifflechner C, Brüggemann D. Life cycle assessment of Organic Rankine Cycles for geothermal
power generation considering low-GWP working fluids. Geothermics. 2016;64:392-400.
[12] Chen H, Goswami DY, Rahman MM, Stefanakos EK. A supercritical Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixture
working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat into power. Energy. 2011;36(1):549-55.
[13] Sarkar J. Generalized pinch point design method of subcritical-supercritical organic Rankine cycle for
maximum heat recovery. Energy. 2018;143:141-50.
[14] Sarkar J. A Novel Pinch Point Design Methodology Based Energy and Economic Analyses of Organic
Rankine Cycle. J Energy Resour Technol-Trans ASME. 2018;140(5):8.
[15] Zhi L-H, Hu P, Chen L-X, Zhao G. Multiple parametric analysis, optimization and efficiency prediction of
transcritical organic Rankine cycle using trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(E)) for low grade waste
heat recovery. Energy Conversion and Management. 2019;180:44-59.
[16] Aminyavari M, Najafi B, Shirazi A, Rinaldi F. Exergetic, economic and environmental (3E) analyses, and
multi-objective optimization of a CO 2/NH 3 cascade refrigeration system. Applied Thermal Engineering.
2014;65(1):42-50.
[17] Mamaghani AH, Najafi B, Shirazi A, Rinaldi F. 4E analysis and multi-objective optimization of an integrated
MCFC (molten carbonate fuel cell) and ORC (organic Rankine cycle) system. Energy. 2015;82:650-63.
[18] Shu G, Liu L, Tian H, Wei H, Yu G. Parametric and working fluid analysis of a dual-loop organic Rankine
cycle (DORC) used in engine waste heat recovery. Applied energy. 2014;113:1188-98.
[19] Shu G, Liu L, Tian H, Wei H, Xu X. Performance comparison and working fluid analysis of subcritical and
transcritical dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (DORC) used in engine waste heat recovery. Energy conversion
and management. 2013;74:35-43.
[20] Yang F, Zhang H, Song S, Bei C, Wang H, Wang E. Thermoeconomic multi-objective optimization of an
organic Rankine cycle for exhaust waste heat recovery of a diesel engine. Energy. 2015;93:2208-28.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[21] Quoilin S, Declaye S, Tchanche BF, Lemort V. Thermo-economic optimization of waste heat recovery
Organic Rankine Cycles. Applied thermal engineering. 2011;31(14):2885-93.
[22] Yang M-H, Yeh R-H. Thermo-economic optimization of an organic Rankine cycle system for large marine
diesel engine waste heat recovery. Energy. 2015;82:256-68.
[23] Yang M-H, Yeh R-H. Economic performances optimization of an organic Rankine cycle system with lower
global warming potential working fluids in geothermal application. Renewable Energy. 2016;85:1201-13.
[24] Saaty TL. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1980.
[25] Ren J, Tan S, Goodsite ME, Sovacool BK, Dong L. Sustainability, shale gas, and energy transition in China:
Assessing barriers and prioritizing strategic measures. Energy. 2015;84:551-62.
[26] Liang X, Sun X, Shu G, Sun K, Wang X, Wang X. Using the analytic network process (ANP) to determine
method of waste energy recovery from engine. Energy Conversion and Management. 2013;66:304-11.
[27] Braimakis K, Preißinger M, Brüggemann D, Karellas S, Panopoulos K. Low grade waste heat recovery with
subcritical and supercritical Organic Rankine Cycle based on natural refrigerants and their binary mixtures.
Energy. 2015;88:80-92.
[28] Xu J, Yu C. Critical temperature criterion for selection of working fluids for subcritical pressure Organic
Rankine cycles. Energy. 2014;74:719-33.
[29] Feng Y, Zhang Y, Li B, Yang J, Shi Y. Comparison between regenerative organic Rankine cycle (RORC) and
basic organic Rankine cycle (BORC) based on thermoeconomic multi-objective optimization considering
exergy efficiency and levelized energy cost (LEC). Energy Conversion and Management. 2015;96:58-71.
[30] Meng Z, Zhang H, Lei M, Qin Y, Qiu J. Performance of low GWP R1234yf/R134a mixture as a replacement
for R134a in automotive air conditioning systems. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer.
2018;116:362-70.
[31] Le VL, Kheiri A, Feidt M, Pelloux-Prayer S. Thermodynamic and economic optimizations of a waste heat to
power plant driven by a subcritical ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) using pure or zeotropic working fluid.
Energy. 2014;78:622-38.
[32] Quoilin S, Lemort V, Lebrun J. Experimental study and modeling of an Organic Rankine Cycle using scroll
expander. Applied Energy. 2010;87(4):1260-8.
[33] Institute LPMR. Heat exchanger, 2nd version. China Petrochemical Press. 2013.
[34] Li YR, Du MT, Wu CM, Wu SY, Liu C, Xu JL. Economical evaluation and optimization of subcritical organic
Rankine cycle based on temperature matching analysis. Energy. 2014;68:238-47.
[35] Zhang C, Liu C, Wang S, Xu X, Li Q. Thermo-economic comparison of subcritical organic Rankine cycle
based on different heat exchanger configurations. Energy. 2017;123:728-41.
[36] Gnielinski V. New equations for heat mass transfer in turbulent pipe and channel flows. Int Chem Eng.
1976;16:359-68.
[37] Kandlikar SG. A general correlation for saturated two-phase flow boiling heat transfer inside horizontal and
vertical tubes. Journal of heat transfer. 1990;112(1):219-28.
[38] Shah M. A general correlation for heat transfer during film condensation inside pipes. International Journal of
heat and mass transfer. 1979;22(4):547-56.
[39] Turton R, Bailie R, Whiting W, Shaeiwit J. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes. Pearson
Education Inc. 2009.
[40] Johnson EP. Air-source heat pump carbon footprints: HFC impacts and comparison to other heat sources.
Energy Policy. 2011;39(3):1369-81.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[41] Group ILW. Guideline for Life Cycle Climate Performance. International Institute of Refrigeration. 2015.
[42] Ding Y, Liu C, Zhang C, Xu X, Li Q, Mao L. Exergoenvironmental model of Organic Rankine Cycle system
including the manufacture and leakage of working fluid. Energy. 2017;145:52-64.
[43] Lee H, Troch S, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. LCCP evaluation on various vapor compression cycle options and
low GWP refrigerants. International Journal of Refrigeration. 2016;70:128-37.
[44] Zhao L, Zeng W, Yuan Z. Reduction of potential greenhouse gas emissions of room air-conditioner
refrigerants: a life cycle carbon footprint analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;100:262-8.
[45] Baral A, Minjares R, Robert AU. Upstream climate impacts from production of R-134a and R-1234yf
refrigerants used in mobile air conditioning systems. International Council on Clean Transportation. 2013.
[46] Kenney J. Particle swarm optimization. Conference Particle swarm optimization. 1995.
[47] Vélez F, Segovia JJ, Martín MC, Antolín G, Chejne F, Quijano A. A technical, economical and market review
of organic Rankine cycles for the conversion of low-grade heat for power generation. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;16(6):4175-89.
[48] F. Tchanche B, Pétrissans M, Papadakis G. Heat resources and organic Rankine cycle machines. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;39:1185-99.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figures
2
3 Fig.1. T-s diagram of trans-critical organic Rankine cycle: (a) dry fluid, (b) wet fluid
4 Fig.2. T-s schematic of limited condition of turbine inlet [27]: (a) dry fluid, (b) wet fluid
5 Fig.3. Carbon dioxide emissions categories
6 Fig.4. Hierarchy network structure of multi-factor evaluation for trans-critical organic Rankine cycle
7 Fig.5. Flow chart of particle swarm optimization and multi-factor evaluation process
8 Fig.6. Optimal net power output and thermal efficiency of system
9 Fig.7. Total exergy loss and exergy efficiency of system
10 Fig.8. Cost per unit of time, electricity production cost and dynamic payback period of system
11 Fig.9. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of systems during life-time
12 Fig.10. Exergy loss of components and proportions with different working fluids
13 Fig.11. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of components during life-time and proportions with
14 different working fluids
15 Fig.12. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of working fluids during life-time
16 Fig.13. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of systems during life-time
17 Fig.14. Flow diagram of multi-factor evaluation method
18 Fig.15. Feasibility level of cases 1-8 for different working fluids
19

T 5 T 5
1  Te 1
 Te
6
6
4 2 4
4s 4s 2
2s
3 3 8
7  Tc 8  Tc
s 7 s
20 (a) (b)

21 Fig.1. T-s diagram of trans-critical organic Rankine cycle: (a) dry fluid, (b) wet fluid
22

T Dry fluid pmax=1.5pcrit T Wet fluid pmax=1.5pcrit

TIT=T(smax) TIT=T(smax)

Tcon
smax s smax s
23 (a) (b)
24 Fig.2. T-s schematic of limited condition of turbine inlet [27]: (a) dry fluid, (b) wet fluid
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25
Direct emissions Working fluid leakage and loss

Carbon dioxide
emissions Energy consumption

Indirect emissions Material and fluid manufacturing

Material and fluid recycling

26
27 Fig.3. Carbon dioxide emissions categories
28
29
30

Goal Critera Indicators

E1:net power ouput Wnet

E: Energetic criteria
E2:thermal efficiency th

EX1: total cycle irreversibility Itot

EX: Exergetic criteria
EX2: exergy efficiency ex
Multi-factor
feasibility assessment
EC1:cost per unit of time Z

EC: Economic criteria EC2: electricity production cost EPC

EC3: dynamic payback period PPD

EN: Environmental criteria EN1: emissions of CO2 equivalent ECE

31
32 Fig.4. Hierarchy network structure of multi-factor evaluation for trans-critical organic Rankine cycle
33
34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Start
PSO
parameters
Initialize the
particle swarm

Conditions
and given
solution
Energetic Exergetic
Model Model

Economic Environmental
AHP
Model Model patameters
Calculate fitness

Xk AHP

xk wk Output[w, x]

Update pbest, gbest, position and speed F  X   i 1  xi  wi 

n

No Meet maximum iterations Yes

or gbest restrain？ End
35
36 Fig.5. Flow chart of particle swarm optimization and multi-factor evaluation process
37
38
39

40
41 Fig.6. Optimal net power output and thermal efficiency of system
42
43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

44
45 Fig.7. Total exergy loss and exergy efficiency of system
46

47
48 Fig.8. Cost per unit of time, electricity production cost and dynamic payback period of system
49

50
51 Fig.9. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of systems during life-time
52
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

53
54 Fig.10. Exergy loss of components and proportions with different working fluids
55

56
57 Fig.11. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of components during life-time and proportions with
58 different working fluids
59
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

60
61 Fig.12. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of working fluids during life-time
62

63
64 Fig.13. ECE (Emissions of CO2 equivalent) of systems during life-time
65
66
67
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

68
69 Fig.14. Flow diagram of multi-factor evaluation method
70
71

72
73 Fig.15. Feasibility level of cases 1-8 for different working fluids
74
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

75 Tables
76
77 Table 1 Given conditions and ORC parameters
78 Table 2 Properties of working fluids [5]
79 Table 3 Heat-transfer coefficient correlations for heat exchangers
80 Table 4 Thermo-economic models for various ORC configurations
81 Table 5 Equipment costs constants [39]
82 Table 6 Manufacturing and disposal emissions of working fluids [40, 41, 43-45]
83 Table 7 Manufacturing and disposal emissions of material [41]
84 Table 8 Fundamental scale of importance intensity [24]
85 Table 9 Average random consistency index (RI)
86 Table 10 Thermodynamic parameters of each state in the trans-critical organic Rankine cycle
87 Table 11 Results of energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental performances
88 Table 12 Thermo-economic, environmental performances and relative parameters of different
89 components
90 Table 13 ECE (ton CO2, eq) from working fluids charging, leakage and disposal
91 Table 14 ECE (ton CO2, eq) of different phases
92 Table 15 CO2 equivalent emission list (ton CO2, eq) during life-time
93 Table 16 Normalization of energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental criteria
94 Table 17 Indicators grading standards
95 Table 18 Grading values of indicators for different working fluids
96 Table 19 Weights allocation of indicators for different cases in multi-factor assessment and results of
97 feasibility level with five working fluids
98
99
100 Table 1 Given conditions and ORC parameters
Parameter unit Value

The flue gas temperature °C 150

Mass flow rate of flue gas kg/s 10

The temperature constraint of discharged flue gas °C 82

Condensing temperature °C 25-40

The inlet temperature of cooling water °C 20

Pinch point temperature in evaporator °C 5-10

Pinch point temperature in condenser °C 5-30

Expander isentropic efficiency - 0.80

Pump isentropic efficiency - 0.75

The operating time top hour 7000

life cycle time LT year 15

annual loan interest rate i - 0.05

on-grid electricity price Celec $/kWh 0.15

101
102
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

103 Table 2 Properties of working fluids [5]

ASHRAE 34 a Classification Molecular mass Tcrit(°C) pcrit(MPa) ODP GWP/100yr

R32 HFC 52.02 78.1 5.78 0 675

R134a HFC 102.03 101.1 4.06 0 1370

R1270 HC 42.08 91.1 4.56 0 2

R290 HC 44.10 96.7 4.25 0 3

R1234fy HFO 114.04 94.7 3.38 0 4

104 a ASHRAE 34: American Society of Refrigerating Engineers: Standard 34 for designation and safety classification of refrigerants

105
106 Table 3 Heat-transfer coefficient correlations for heat exchangers
Heat exchanger type Region Heat-transfer coefficient correlation Reference

Finned-tube heat exchanger Single-phase: air-side dt/db=1.2～1.6, and db=13.5～16mm: [33]

Nu  0.1507(db Gmax  ) 0.667

(c p  ) (Y H )
13 0.164
(Y  f ) 0.075

dt/db=1.7～2.4, db=12～41mm：

Nu  0.1378(dbGmax  )0.718 (c p  )1 3 (Y H )0.296

Shell-and-tube heat exchanger b Single-phase: shell-side  s   id J c J l J b J s J r [31]

For reasonable design: J J J J J  0.6
c l b s r

 id  ji c p s (m&s As )(ks c p s  s ) 2/3 (  s  sw )0.14

ji  a1 (1.33d o PT ) a ( Res ) a2
a3
a
1  0.14( Res ) a4

Single-phase: tube-inside da ( f 8)(Re- 1000) Pr f 2/3

[36]
Nu = = [1 + (d l ) ]ct
k 1 +12.7 f 8(Pr f2/3 - 1)

Two-phase boiling [37]

 tp   l {1  3000 Bo0.896  1.12[ x (1  x)]0.75 ( l  g )0.41}

al = 0.023Rel0.8 Prl0.4 (kl d )

Two-phase condensation [38]

atp = al {(1 - x)0.8 + 3.8 x 0.76 (1 - x)0.04 Pr 0.38 }

 l  0.023(G (1  x) d  ) Prl0.4 (kl d )

107 b Tube-side for working fluid and shell-side for heat transfer fluid.

108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

117 Table 4 Thermo-economic models for various ORC configurations

Component Model

Economic models

Heat exchanger
log C p0 = K1 + K 2 log10 ( A) + K3[log10 ( A)]2

Expander/Pump log C p0 = K1 + K 2 log10 (W ) + K 3[log10 (W )]2

CBM = CP0 ( B1 + B2 Fm FP )
logFP = C1 + C2 log10 ( p) + C3[log10 ( p)]2
CBM ,2016 = CBM ,2001CEPCI 2016 CEPCI 2001
Economic assessment

Cost per unit of time (EC1) f ×Ctot CRF

Z=
3600top

Electricity production cost (EC2) (Ctot CRF + COM )

EPC =
topWnet

Ctot = CBM ,evap + CBM ,cond + CBM ,t + CBM , pp

i (1 + i ) LT
CRF =
[(1 + i ) LT - 1]
Dynamic payback period (EC3) Wnet Celec - COM
PPD = ln( ) ln(1 + i )
Wnet Celec - COM - i ×Ctot

118
119 Table 5 Equipment costs constants [39]
Equipment K1 K2 K3 C1 C2 C3 B1 B2 Fm Fbm

HX-F c 4.3247 -0.3030 0.1634 0 0 0 1.63 1.66 1.25 /

(5<p<140barg) -0.00164 -0.00627 0.0123

HX-S d 4.8306 -0.8509 0.3187 0 0 0 1.63 1.66 1.30 /

(5<p<140barg) 0.03881 -0.11272 0.08183

Pump 3.3892 0.0536 0.1538 0 0 0 1.89 1.35 1.50 /

(10<p<100barg) -0.3935 0.3957 -0.00226

Turbine 2.2476 1.4965 -0.1618 / / / / / / 3.30

120 c finned-tube heat exchanger

121 d shell-and-tube heat exchanger

122
123 Table 6 Manufacturing and disposal emissions of working fluids [40, 41, 43-45]
Working fluid Manufacturing emissions Disposal emissions

kg CO2,eq/kg kg CO2,eq/kg

R32 7.2 1.46

R134a 5 1.55

R1270 0.5 0.06

R290 0.67 0.05

R1234fy 13.7 2.04

124
125
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

126 Table 7 Manufacturing and disposal emissions of material [41]

Material Virgin material manufacturing emissions Mixed material manufacturing emissions Disposal emissions

kg CO2,eq/kg kg CO2,eq/kg kg CO2,eq/kg

Steel 1.80 1.43 007

Aluminum 12.6 4.50 0.07

Copper 3.00 1.64 0.07

Plastics 2.80 2.61 0.01

127
128 Table 8 Fundamental scale of importance intensity [24]
Intensity of importance on an absolute scale Definition

1 Equal importance

3 Moderate importance

5 Strong importance

7 Very strong or demonstrated importance

9 Extreme importance

2, 4, 5, 6, 8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments

Reciprocals of above If activity i has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned to it when compared with activity j,

then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i

129
130
131
132 Table 9 Average random consistency index (RI)
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.54

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

151 Table 10 Thermodynamic parameters of each state in the trans-critical organic Rankine cycle
Working m (kg·s-1) E (kW)
T (°C) p (kPa) h (kJ·kg-1) s (kJ·kg-1·K-1)
fluid

R134a

1 135.75 6088.92 3.3383 453.81 1.7145 280.21

2 35.42 766.58 3.3383 420.60 1.7337 150.58

3 29.84 766.58 3.3383 241.49 1.1427 131.00

4 33.89 6088.92 3.3383 247.41 1.1476 146.04

5 150.00 101.0 10.0 424.81 7.2151 226.77

6 82.00 101.0 10.0 355.90 7.0376 58.06

7 20.00 101.0 28.5919 84.01 0.2965 0.0

8 25.00 101.0 28.5919 104.92 0.3672 5.04

R32

1 135.75 8052.56 2.2396 571.28 2.0476 406.03

2 34.98 1919.87 2.2396 524.08 2.0749 282.44

3 29.85 1919.87 2.2396 255.02 1.1871 262.70

4 35.65 8052.56 2.2396 263.62 1.1941 277.39

5 150.00 101.0 10.0 424.81 7.2151 226.77

6 82.00 101.0 10.0 355.90 7.0376 58.06

7 20.00 101.0 28.8050 84.01 0.2965 0.0

8 25.00 101.0 28.8050 104.93 0.3672 5.08

R1270

1 133.07 6832.50 1.7863 676.96 2.3348 378.31

2 35.45 1299.79 1.7863 613.16 2.3716 245.07

3 29.83 1299.79 1.7863 276.56 1.2610 225.38

4 35.63 6832.50 1.7863 291.21 1.2729 245.33

5 150.00 101.0 10.0 424.81 7.2151 226.77

6 82.00 101.0 10.0 355.90 7.0376 58.06

7 20.00 101.0 28.7507 84.01 0.2965 0.0

8 25.00 101.0 28.7507 104.92 0.3672 5.07

R290

1 132.74 6376.80 1.7772 680.50 2.3473 348.64

2 35.27 1074.58 1.7772 616.65 2.3841 215.96

3 29.83 1074.58 1.7772 278.37 1.2680 196.27

4 35.08 6376.80 1.7772 292.80 1.2797 215.81

5 150.00 101.0 10.0 424.81 7.2151 226.77

6 82.00 101.0 10.0 355.90 7.0376 58.06

7 20.00 101.0 28.7483 84.01 0.2965 0.0

8 25.00 101.0 28.7483 104.92 0.3672 5.07

R1234yf

1 122.27 5073.30 4.1449 248.33 0.7505 285.80

2 35.08 779.41 4.1449 223.91 0.7646 167.49

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3 29.81 779.41 4.1449 76.82 0.2792 147.56

4 33.69 5073.30 4.1449 82.09 0.2835 164.20

5 150.00 101.0 10.0 424.81 7.2151 226.77

6 82.00 101.0 10.0 355.90 7.0376 58.06

7 20.00 101.0 29.1545 84.01 0.2965 0.0

8 25.00 101.0 29.1545 104.92 0.3672 5.14

152
153 Table 11 Results of energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental performances
Environmental
Working Energetic criteria Exergetic criteria Economic criteria
criteria
fluid
Wnet (kW) th (%) tot (kW) ex (%) Z ($/s) EPC ($/kWh) PPD(year) ECE (ton CO2,eq)

R134a 91.10 13.22 97.37 57.06 0.00206 0.0895 7.06 813.90

R32 86.44 12.54 101.54 55.22 0.00196 0.0900 7.11 377.15

R1270 87.78 12.74 107.10 52.77 0.00209 0.0943 7.56 14.68

R290 87.83 12.75 106.53 53.02 0.00208 0.0938 7.51 15.43

R1234yf 79.34 11.51 111.25 50.94 0.00190 0.0951 7.64 27.76

154
155 Table 12 Thermo-economic, environmental performances and relative parameters of different
156 components
Evaporator Condenser

R134a R32 R1270 R290 R1234yf R134a R32 R1270 R290 R1234yf

Q (kW) 689.04 689.04 689.04 689.04 689.04 597.94 602.61 601.26 601.21 609.70

A (m2) 219.01 169.81 201.69 197.14 144.12 57.29 47.06 57.77 62.17 65.82

C (k$) 169.49 152.36 163.66 161.75 140.91 108.12 106.61 109.95 111.50 112.58

w (kg) 2304.49 1786.83 2122.27 2074.40 1516.50 975.49 801.40 983.82 1058.71 1120.87

I (kW) 34.54 40.06 35.73 35.88 47.11 19.58 19.73 19.69 19.68 19.93

ECE (ton CO2,eq) 4.245 3.289 3.914 3.820 2.797 1.793 1.473 1.812 1.949 2.058

Turbine Pump

R134a R32 R1270 R290 R1234yf R134a R32 R1270 R290 R1234yf

W (kW) 110.87 105.70 113.96 113.48 101.21 19.76 19.26 26.17 25.65 21.87

C (k$) 192.58 185.03 197.04 196.35 178.37 42.34 45.18 49.87 48.46 42.26

w (kg) 3461.25 3299.94 3557.74 3542.87 3159.86 276.68 269.70 366.43 359.08 306.24

I (kW) 38.52 37.16 45.45 44.85 38.97 4.73 4.58 6.23 6.11 5.23

ECE (ton CO2,eq) 6.381 6.078 6.541 6.533 5.831 0.501 0.500 0.683 0.659 0.554

157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

165
166 Table 13 ECE (ton CO2, eq) from working fluids charging, leakage and disposal
Working mcharge (kg) mleakg (kg) f ECEcharging (ton ECE wf(ton CO2,eq)
mEOL (kg) g
fluid e CO2,eq)a ECEleakage (ton CO2,eq)b ECEEOL (ton CO2,eq)c

R134a 617.53 463.15 92.63 3.09 664.61 133.27 800.97

R32 588.75 441.56 88.31 4.24 301.23 60.34 365.81

R1270 634.74 476.06 95.21 0.32 1.19 0.22 1.73

R290 632.09 474.07 94.81 0.42 1.74 0.31 2.47

R1234yf 563.75 422.82 84.56 7.72 7.48 1.32 16.52

167 e Charging amount (kg), f Leakeage amount (5% of charging amount, kg), g End-of-life (EOL) emission amount (15% of remaining amount, kg)

168
169 Table 14 ECE (ton CO2, eq) of different phases
R134a R32 R1270 R290 R1234yf

Construction phase 15.58 15.20 12.83 12.95 18.59

Operation phase 664.61 301.23 1.19 1.74 7.48

Decommissioning phase 133.70 60.72 0.65 0.74 1.69

Total 813.90 377.15 14.68 15.43 27.76

170
171 Table 15 CO2 equivalent emission list (ton CO2, eq) during life-time
R134a R32 R1270 R290 R1234yf

Real emission Reduction Comprehensive effect -7519.93 -7529.60 -8015.40 8019.13 -7229.78

Emission Reduction Electricity -8333.83 -7906.75 -8030.08 -8034.56 -7257.54

Emissions System impact 813.9 377.15 14.68 15.43 27.76

Direct emissions 794.76 357.66 1.14 1.71 2.03

Fluid leakage 662.30 298.05 0.95 1.42 1.69

Fluid loss 132.46 59.61 0.19 0.28 0.34

Indirect emissions 19.14 19.49 13.53 13.72 25.73

Fluid manufacture 5.40 7.42 0.56 0.74 13.52

Fluid recovery 0.81 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.98

Component manufacture 12.49 10.96 12.52 12.53 10.87

Component recovery 0.43 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.37

172
173 Table 16 Normalization of energetic, exergetic, economic and environmental criteria
Energetic criteria Exergetic criteria Economic criteria Environmental criteria

Working E2 EX1 EC1 EC3

E1
fluid EX2 EC2 EN1

R134a 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9223 1.0000 1.0000 0.0180

R32 0.9488 1.0000 0.9589 0.9649 0.9694 0.9944 0.9930 0.0389

R1270 0.9636 1.0000 0.9092 0.9298 0.9091 0.9491 0.9339 1.0000

R290 0.9641 1.0000 0.9140 0.9298 0.9135 0.9542 0.9401 0.9514

R1234yf 0.8709 0.9231 0.8752 0.8947 1.0000 0.9411 0.9241 0.6288

174
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

175
176
177
178 Table 17 Indicators grading standards
Indicator grading standards

Indicator 1 2 3 4 5

E1 0.87-0.90 0.90-0.92 0.92-0.95 0.95-0.97 0.97-1.00

E2 0.92-0.94 0.94-0.95 0.95-0.97 0.97-0.98 0.98-1.00

EX1 0.88-0.90 0.90-0.93 0.93-0.95 0.95-0.98 0.98-1.00

EX2 0.89-0.92 0.92-0.94 0.94-0.96 0.96-0.98 0.98-1.00

EC1 0.91-0.93 0.93-0.95 0.95-0.96 0.96-0.98 0.98-1.00

EC2 0.94-0.95 0.95-0.96 0.96-0.98 0.98-0.99 0.99-1.00

EC3 0.92-0.94 0.94-0.95 0.95-0.97 0.97-0.98 0.98-1.00

EN1 0.02-0.21 0.21-0.41 0.41-0.61 0.61-0.80 0.80-1.00

179
180 Table 18 Grading values of indicators for different working fluids
Energetic criteria Exergetic criteria Economic criteria Environmental criteria

Working E2 EX1 EC1 EC3

E1
fluid EX2 EC2 EN1

R134a 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 1.0000 5.0000 5.0000 1.0000

R32 4.0000 5.0000 4.0000 4.0000 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000 1.0000

R1270 4.0000 5.0000 2.0000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000

R290 4.0000 5.0000 2.0000 2.0000 1.0000 2.0000 2.0000 5.0000

R1234yf 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000 1.0000 1.0000 4.0000

181
182
183 Table 19 Weights allocation of indicators for different cases in multi-factor assessment and results of
184 feasibility level with five working fluids
Criteria weights for each case, %
Criteria
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

Energy 100 0 0 0 25 0 0 0

Exergy 0 100 0 0 25 0 0 0

Economy 0 0 100 0 25 50 20 80

Environment 0 0 0 100 25 50 80 20

Estimated feasibility level FL

Working fluid Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8

R134a 4.67 4.67 3.97 2.38 3.95 3.24 2.79 3.68

R32 4.33 4.00 4.50 2.50 3.83 3.50 2.90 4.10

R1270 3.88 2.21 1.41 3.81 2.83 2.61 3.33 1.89

R290 3.96 2.29 1.97 3.94 3.04 2.95 3.54 2.36

R1234yf 1.26 1.25 2.44 3.38 1.83 2.41 2.39 2.43

185