Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Thermo-economic performance evaluation and multi-objective optimization T

of a screw expander-based cascade Rankine cycle integrated with parabolic
trough solar collector
⁎
Hamed Habibia, Mohammad Zoghia, Ata Chitsazb, , Masood Shamsaieec
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
b
Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
c
School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

H I GH L IG H T S

• AA small-to medium-scale distributed solar power plant.

• Practical
screw expander-based cascade Rankine cycle driven by solar heat source.
• Aperture benefits of the system operating in temperatures around 300 °C.
• Net powerarea and PERC condensation temperature are the most effective parameters.
• output of 782 kW, and exergy efficiency of 18.61% in optimum case.

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

Keywords: In the present study, a cascade power generation system, consisting of a partial evaporation Rankine cycle
Parabolic trough solar collector (PERC), and an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) with a parabolic trough solar collector (PTSC) as the driver coupled
Partial evaporation rankine cycle with a storage tank, has been studied and optimized from energy and exergoeconomic viewpoints. Instead of
Screw expander using conventional steam turbine, a screw expander has been utilized in PERC, in order to facilitate coupling the
Organic rankine cycle
PERC with the PTSC and the storage tank, operating near the recommended temperature of 300 °C, as well as to
Exergoeconomic
Optimization
avoid producing superheated vapor in the upper Rankine cycle. This configuration is appropriate specifically
because of the pressure limit at the inlet of expander (4 MPa), corresponding to a saturation temperature of
250 °C for steam. With toluene as the selected organic fluid among 4 candidates, parametric analysis was per-
formed to investigate the effect of variations in solar radiation intensity, collector aperture area, PERC eva-
poration and condensation temperatures, and expander inlet steam quality on the thermoeconomic performance
of the system, followed by a tri-objective optimization using genetic algorithm considering net power output,
exergy efficiency and total cost rate as objective functions. The obtained results show that for the optimum
design point, the studied solar power plant with aperture area of 5540 m2 and storage tank volume of 184.7 m3
can produce 782 kW of power with exergy efficiency of 18.61% and total cost rate of 228 $·h−1. The optimum
design case indicates an improvement in net power output, exergy efficiency, and unit cost of electricity by 65%,
2.9%, and 27.26%, respectively, compared to the base case. Furthermore, at the optimal point, the power output
of ORC (440.6 kW) is higher than that of PERC (349.2 kW). However, the unit cost of electricity production is
lower for PERC (22.82 $·GJ−1) compared to ORC (37.19 $·GJ−1).

1. Introduction
Being clean, renewable and universally available, solar energy is
one of the most promising alternatives for the fossil fuels to generate
electricity. Up to the present point, several studies have been performed
on different types of solar collectors, e.g. flat plate [1], vacuum tube
[2], parabolic trough [3], power tower [4], etc., as drivers of various
power generation cycles, e.g. organic Rankine cycle (ORC) [5], Kalina
cycle [6], steam Rankine cycle (SRC) [7], gas turbine cycle [8] and
supercritical Brayton cycle [9]. Among all abovementioned collectors

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.chitsaz@urmia.ac.ir (A. Chitsaz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115827
Received 11 March 2020; Received in revised form 19 May 2020; Accepted 28 July 2020
Available online 01 August 2020
1359-4311/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Habibi, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

Nomenclature D Destruction
e Exit
A area(m2) eva Evaporator
c cost per exergy unit($/GJ) el Electricity
cp specific heat(kJ/kg. K) en Energy
Ċ cost rate($/h) ex Exergy
D diameter(m) f Fluid
Eẋ exergy flow rate(kW) fu Fuel
Exp Expander gi glass envelope inside surface
f exergoeconomic factor go glass envelope outside surface
h specific enthalpy(kJ/kg) i Inlet
i interest rate pi receiver pipe inside surface
Ib solar radiation intensity(W /m2) po receiver pipe outside surface
L Length (m) pr Product
ṁ mass flow rate(kg/s) pum Pump
M molar mass(kg/kmol) rad radiation heat transfer
n years of system operation st Storage
N annual number of system operating hours (h) sub Subcooled
objfun objective function tp two-phase
Q̇ heat transfer rate(kW) tur Turbine
q̇ ' heat transfer rate per receiver length(kW/m)
rp operating pressure ratio Abbreviations
rv, b built-in volume ratio
s specific entropy(kJ/kg. K) CRF capital recovery factor
T temperature (°C) GWP global warming potential
U overall heat transfer coefficient(W/m2. K) HTF heat transfer fluid
V volume (m3 ) HX heat exchanger
V̇ volumetric flow rate (m3/s ) ODP ozone depletion potential
Ẇ power(kW) ORC organic Rankine cycle
Zk component investment cost($) PERC partial evaporation Rankine cycle
Ż k component investment cost rate($/h) PTSC parabolic trough solar collector
SRC steam Rankine cycle
Subscripts TLC trilateral cycle

ap Aperture Greek letters

ave Average
bp bubble point γ isentropic index
col solar collector ΔTlmtd logarithmic mean temperature difference (°C)
con Condenser η Efficiency
cond conduction heat transfer φ maintenance factor
conv convection heat transfer
crit Critical

and cycles, the combination of parabolic trough solar collector (PTSC)
and SRC is responsible for almost 90% of the capacity of the solar plants
worldwide, installed or under construction [10], chiefly because of its
acceptable efficiency and competitive cost. Furthermore, in most of the
studies carried out on integration of PTSC with SRC, conventional
steam turbines have been employed so as to generate power [11,12].
This actually poses some drawbacks, which can be summarized as fol-
lows:
• In order to avoid formation of small water droplets at the outlet of
turbine, which can severely damage the turbine blades due to their
high speed, the steam needs to be superheated. The need for su-
perheated steam dramatically increases the required heat source
temperature, which is not accompanied by a considerable increase
in the system efficiency [10,13].
• Steam turbine inlet temperature typically reaches 550 °C [14];
therefore, more advanced solar technologies are needed in order to
actually drive a SRC with superheated vapor. Even achieving a
temperature of 400 °C using PTSC requires a concentration ratio of
60 or above, which cannot be achieved unless complex tracking
systems, which entail high maintenance cost, are used. In addition
to all this, a system including a high-temperature solar collector,
experiences high alterations in the operation temperature. A widely
employed sealing technique in the PTSC receiver, namely the glass-
to-metal sealing, is extremely vulnerable to operating temperature
fluctuations. Although mechanically strong and excellent in terms of
gas tightness, constant alteration in operating temperature from
400 °C at daytime and ambient temperature at nighttime would
result in rapid sealing degradation, mainly because of the difference
in thermophysical characteristics between metal and glass [10,13].
• The suitable performance of thermal storage tanks is crucial for a
stable and consistent performance of solar systems. Thermal storage
tanks have shown to induce a great improvement in overall per-
formance of the system at temperatures around 300 °C [15]. This is
while high-temperature thermal storage faces different drawbacks
[16]; at such high temperatures, the highly flammable oil used in
such storage tanks poses different concerns. In order to solve this
problem, molten salts have been proposed to replace thermal oil as
the carrier of solar energy. Low thermal conductivity and high
melting point, which results in potential freezing, are two main
problems of this working fluid. These problems require proper at-
tention before any further progress can be made.

2
H. Habibi, et al.
• Relatively large systems are required so as to justify the economic
viability of systems with turbines in the steam cycle. This is mainly
because of the fixed costs which are imposed on the system re-
gardless of system capacity [10]. It is clear that a solar field for such
enormous systems requires thousands of square meters of effective
area, which again entails additional expenses as well as a constraint
on the location of such plants.
All abovementioned problems can be cancelled by substituting a
two-phase screw expander with the traditional turbine in the steam
cycle. In this case, screw expander uses a saturated or two-phase flow at
the inlet, thus nullifying the need for a superheated vapor. Basically, a
screw expander is a type of volumetric expander which employs a ro-
tary type positive displacement mechanism in the absence of high-
speed fluid. Generally, these equipments consist of a pair of helical
screws and a shell casing. Fluid moves from the groove of relatively
smaller volume at the inlet toward other larger grooves, and thus drives
the twin helical screws in the opposite direction. During the process,
temperature and pressure of the fluid decline, and finally, the shaft
delivers the power. Compared to a conventional turbine, a screw ex-
pander is capable of handling two-phase fluid as well as saturated steam
and liquid. This equipment has several positive characteristics, such as
a quick start-up and shut-down, high tolerance for fluctuations in
pressure and volumetric flow of the heat source, simpler structure, low
rotation speed, low investment and maintenance cost, excellent mobi-
lity, easy assembly, and the capability to adjust the volume ratio with
utilization of a slide valve in order to maximize the device efficiency in
off-design conditions [17]. On the other hand, main disadvantages of
screw expanders are limitations in maximum performance pressure
(4 MPa), and their inlet–outlet pressure ratio [10,13].
Up to the present point, several studies have been conducted on
novel power generation systems, e.g. trilateral cycle (TLC) or partial
evaporation Rankine cycle (PERC) [18–20]. Some of them have em-
ployed screw expanders. Pantaleo et al. [21] performed thermo-eco-
nomic analysis and optimization of an ORC driven by exhaust gases of a
185 kW internal combustion engine using various organic fluids. They
employed reciprocating-piston or single/two-stage screw expanders for
expansion of the working fluid. Also, double-pipe model was simulated
as the heat exchangers of the system by using detailed heat transfer
relations. The results revealed that two-stage screw expander had the
capability of producing more power compared to other two expanders.
The maximum power output was calculated to be 17.7 kW allocating
acetone as working fluid. On the other hand, the least specific invest-
ment cost was obtained using piston expander and acetone as organic
fluid. Cipollone et al. [22] studied the performance of a TLC in order to
recover waste energy to power. They used a rotary positive displace-
ment machine instead of a turbine to generate power and their in-
vestigation covered the effect of built-in volume ratio and pressure ratio
on the performance of the system. The results demonstrated that for a
waste gas at a temperature equal to 100 °C, R1234ze and propane
generate more work per unit mass among a variety of working fluids.
However, their application is limited to volume ratios of 8 to 11, which
is beyond the capability of a rotary positive displacement machine.
Another study on energy aspects of a TLC with waste energy as heat
source was performed by Bianchi et al. [23]. Their results showed that a
120 kW power output with 6% efficiency can be achieved at a nominal
mode for heat source temperature of around 90 °C. Zhou et al. [24]
performed a study on the performance of a partial evaporation ORC
with a zeotropic mixture (R245fa/R227ea) as working fluid from en-
ergy and exergy points of view. They investigated the effect of varia-
tions in mass fraction of R227ea in the two-component fluid, as well as
the changes in the expander inlet vapor quality on the performance of
the system. The results lead to the conclusion that compared to the
single component R227ea as the working fluid, the proposed system
generates 27.4% more power at the optimal point. Moreover, using the
zeotropic mixture reduces the exergy destruction in the evaporator and
3
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827
the condenser of the organic cycle. Ajimotokan and Sher [25] in-
vestigated and compared different configurations of TLC including
simple TLC, recuperated TLC, reheat TLC and regenerative TLC by
employing n-butane as working fluid. The results showed that re-
cuperated TLC led to the best efficiency. Dumont et al. [26] studied the
energy, exergy, and economic performances of an ORC driven by the
waste heat of a biogas power generation system. In the ORC, three
states have been considered, namely subcritical, wet expansion and
transcritical, and a turbine or a screw expander were used to generate
power. Their results showed that using wet expansion cycle, the system
is able to generate 345 kW of power output with an exergy efficiency of
9%.
Due to the limit in the inlet to outlet pressure ratio associated with
screw expanders, the steam condensation temperature is still relatively
high, which means that such component can be used as a driver for a
variety of low-temperature cooling, heating or power generation sys-
tems. In this study, a common four-component ORC has been used to
recover the waste energy from the upper PERC. Cascade SRC-ORC or
cascade high temperature ORC-low temperature ORC are two relatively
new combinations used in combined power generation systems where
the effective utilization of the waste energy in the condenser of the
upper cycle leads to an increase in the overall efficiency of the system
[27,28]. Some researchers have carried out investigations on the cas-
cade systems. Choi and Kim [29] analyzed the performance of a dual
loop steam TLC and ORC from energy and exergy aspects. The exhaust
gas of a ship diesel engine was initially used as the heat source for upper
cycle while heat rejection in condenser of upper cycle operated as the
driver of lower ORC. It was shown that this combined cycle could
generate 2069.8 kW of power, with 10.93% energy efficiency and
58.77% exergy efficiency. This demonstrated an improvement in the
efficiency relative to the segregated upper TLC. Song and Gu [30] si-
mulated and studied a dual loop Rankine cycle from energy and exergy
points of view. With water as working fluid, the upper cycle used diesel
engine exhaust gas as heat source and with organic fluid as working
fluid, the lower cycle utilized jacket cooling water and waste heat of
upper cycle condenser as heat sources. In their design, water did not
completely vaporize in the upper cycle evaporator and two-phase fluid
entered upper cycle expander. At the end, effects of various parameters
such as turbine inlet steam quality and evaporation temperature of
water and organic fluid were analyzed on cycle performance from en-
ergy and exergy viewpoints. Maximum power output of this dual loop
cycle was 115.1 kW which enhanced net power output of diesel engine
by 11.6%. Li et al. [10] investigated the energy characteristics of a
cascade SRC-ORC with PTSC and a direct steam generation in the col-
lector. They employed a screw expander in order to receive the satu-
rated vapor in the steam cycle in their work, so as to generate power at
moderate driving temperature. They also used the waste heat of SRC as
the driver for ORC. The authors mentioned several advantages for their
proposed system, such as nullifying the need for high superheating
temperature, moderate operation temperature and pressure, and can-
celling out the need for high-temperature thermal storage systems. The
results indicated that the energy efficiency varied from 13.68% to
15.62% for 4 considered pairs of temperature in steam evaporator and
ORC condenser. Li et al. [13] compared the direct vapor generation in
the collector with the indirect method using thermal oil and storage
tank for a cascade SRC - ORC driven by a PTSC. Assuming saturated
vapor flow at the inlet of the screw expander, these researchers studied
the effect of variations in temperature of steam and organic evaporators
for both cases. Based on their results, for solar radiation intensity of
750 W·m−2 and for the case of direct steam generation in the collector,
the optimal temperature of the steam cycle evaporator was obtained to
be 240 °C with 14.3% efficiency. Also, for the indirect case, the optimal
steam cycle evaporator temperature is 230 °C with an efficiency of
13.2%. Habibi et al. [17] performed an investigation and optimization
on the exergoeconomic aspects of a cascade PERC-ORC-LNG system
driven by the exhaust gas of a diesel engine, aimed for simultaneous
H. Habibi, et al.
production of power and heating. Employing six different working
fluids in the ORC, they concluded that LNG system shows the best en-
ergy performance and that PERC shows the best performance from
thermoeconomic viewpoint. Habibi et al. [31] compared the optimized
performances of a four-component SRC as well as two different con-
figurations of combined SRC-ORC with a nanofluid based PTSC from
exergoeconomic viewpoint. They evaluated the performance of the
system using four organic working fluids. In the second configuration,
ORC was driven by the heat extracted from the steam condenser
whereas in the third one, the residual heat of the solar fluid was utilized
for the same purpose. Their simulations showed that toluene was the
best choice among the considered working fluids and that the third
configuration had the highest total cost rate and lowest exergy effi-
ciency, despite its higher power output among the three studied sys-
tems.
In the present study, a cascade PERC-ORC power generation system
employing a screw expander and a PTSC as the heat source provider is
studied from energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic viewpoints. A cas-
cade SRC-ORC including a screw expander and a direct generation of
steam in the PTSC was proposed and analyzed from energy aspect in
Ref. [10]. The direct method is currently under development and
therefore in the present study a more mature indirect approach towards
utilizing solar energy is employed, that is using common PTSC with
therminol VP-1 oil and a thermal storage tank to increase the stability
of the system. Because of the recommended temperature for a solar
collector-thermal storage tank combination (approximately 300 °C), as
well as the two-phase expander having limited inlet pressure (about
4 MPa corresponding to saturation temperature of 250 °C for steam)
coupling such systems is suitable and effective. As previously stated, the
proposed system in [10] was investigated only from energy viewpoint
whereas in the present paper, comprehensive energy, exergy, and ex-
ergoeconomic analyses have also been performed. Moreover, the effects
of variation in effective parameters such as solar radiation intensity,
collector aperture area, PERC evaporation and condensation tempera-
ture, and PERC expander inlet steam quality on the performance of the
cascade system are assessed. Finally, a tri-objective optimization is
carried out, with net power output, exergy efficiency, and total cost rate
as objective functions. To the best knowledge of the authors, an ex-
ergoeconomic analysis and optimization has not yet been performed for
the cascade Rankine cycle using a screw expander driven by a PTSC and
this study is considered as an endeavor to fill this gap.
2. System description
Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of cascade PERC-ORC system
Fig. 1. Schematic of the proposed system.
4
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827
driven by PTSC equipped with a storage tank. In the proposed layout,
the temperature of therminol VP-1 oil passing through collector tube
increases by receiving solar irradiance; therefore, it can be used as the
heat source of the system. On the other hand, due to the oil temperature
control at the outlet of collector and storage of the heat for increasing
the hours of system operation, a storage tank is employed and modeled
by using the thermal zones method [32]. The hot oil exiting upper zone
of storage tank is used as the heat source of PERC for wet steam pro-
duction. Then, two-phase fluid enters screw expander to generate the
output power of PERC. Due to expander pressure ratio limitation, the
temperature of expander exiting fluid is still high, which leads to its
employment as heat source of bottoming ORC in this research. In cas-
cade HX, organic fluid becomes saturated vapor and produces power by
passing through ORC turbine. In condenser, organic fluid transfers heat
to the water with ambient temperature and then its pressure is in-
creased by the pump. In order to have a clear picture of what happens
in each heat exchanger, the temperature distribution diagram is pre-
sented in Fig. 2.
3. System modeling
3.1. Thermodynamic modeling
The following assumptions are used to simplify the analysis
[33–36].
• System works in a steady state.
• In order to perform energy analysis, potential and kinetic energies
changes in different components are ignored.
• Heat loss and pressure drop in connecting pipes of components and
heat exchangers are negligible.
• Heat loss in turbomachines is negligible.
• PERC pump, ORC pump, and ORC turbine have constant isentropic
efficiency while isentropic efficiency of screw expander depends on
its parameters.
• The inlet fluid of PERC pump and ORC pump is saturated liquid.
• Working fluid entering ORC turbine is saturated vapor.
• For exergy analysis, reference temperature and pressure are equal to
those of ambient condition.
The balance equations of mass, energy, and exergy in various
components are as follows [37]:
∑ ṁ i = ∑ ṁ e (1)
H. Habibi, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

Table 1
Fuel-product definition for the components of the combined system.
Component Fuel Product

Collector Aap Ib (1 − T0/ Tsun ) Eẋ 1 − Eẋ 3

Storage tank Eẋ 1 − Eẋ 2 Eẋ 4 − Eẋ 5
PERC evaporator Eẋ 4 − Eẋ 5 Eẋ 6 − Eẋ 9
PERC expander Eẋ 6 − Eẋ 7 ẆPERC , exp
Cascade HX Eẋ 7 − Eẋ 8 Eẋ 10 − Eẋ 13
PERC pump Ẇ PERC,Pum Eẋ 9 − Eẋ 8
ORC turbine Eẋ 10 − Eẋ 11 ̇
WORC , tur
ORC condenser Eẋ 11 − Eẋ 12 Eẋ 15 − Eẋ 14
ORC pump ̇
WORC.Pum Eẋ 13 − Eẋ 12

ex = h − h 0 − T0 (s − s0) (6)
where subscript “0″ refers to ambient condition. In order to assess the
thermodynamic performance of each cycle component, exergy effi-
ciency is defined as [39]:
Eẋ Pr Eẋ D
ηex = =1−
̇
Ex fu Eẋ fu (7)
Eẋ pr and Eẋ fu are respectively rate of exergy product and rate of
exergy fuel for each component. They are calculated according to
Table 1 for each component of the cascade system. The product exergy
represents the desired output by the component or the system and the
fuel exergy represents the resource expended to generate the product.

3.2. Parabolic trough solar collector

In this study PTSC is used to heat the therminol VP-1 as heat transfer
fluid. The validated one-dimensional modeling of LS-2 collector by
Habibi et al. [40] was used in this work. The modeling consists of
comprehensive items such as properties of selected material for each
part of collector and detailed heat transfer process between the com-
ponents of the collector. Fig. 3(a) illustrates one-dimensional schematic
of collector receiver for energy balance in different parts and Fig. 3(b)
shows heat transfer resistances for various parts of collector receiver
[41]. In order to calculate temperature of each surface the following
major equations should be solved simultaneously.

q'̇ f − pi,conv = q'̇ pi − po,cond (8)

q'̇ po,SolAbs = q'̇ pi − po,cond + q'̇ po − gi,conv + q'̇ po − gi,rad (9)

q'̇ po − gi,rad + q'̇ po − gi,conv = q'̇ gi − go,cond (10)

q'̇ gi − go,cond + q'̇ go,SolAbs = q'̇ go − a,conv + q'̇ go − s,rad (11)

q'̇ HeatLoss = q'̇ go − a,conv + q'̇ go − s,rad (12)

Fig. 2. Temperature distribution within heat exchangers.
The energy efficiency of solar collector can be obtained by Eq. (13).
Q̇ + By using the calculated efficiency, the relationship between the aper-
∑ ṁ i hi = Ẇ + ∑ ṁ e he (2)
ture area and collector inlet–outlet enthalpy difference is according to
Eq. (14).
Eẋ Q + ∑ ṁ i ex i = Eẋ w + ∑ ṁ e ex e + Eẋ D (3)
q'̇ f − pi,conv
where subscripts ‘i’ and ‘e’ stand for the inlet and outlet of control ηen,col =
q'̇ Sol (13)
volume and Eẋ D is exergy destruction in each component. Eẋ Q and Eẋ w
are exergies corresponding to heat transfer and power, respectively, and ṁ HTF Δhcol
‘ex’ stands for each stream physical exergy which can be calculated ηen,col =
Aap . Ib (14)
according to the following equations [38].

T
Eẋ Q = ⎛1 − 0 ⎞ Q̇ K
⎜ ⎟ 3.3. Storage tank
⎝ TK ⎠ (4)
The thermal zones method can be employed to simplify the mod-
Eẋ W = Ẇ (5) eling of a thermal storage tank. In this work, the storage tank is

5
H. Habibi, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

Fig. 3. Collector receiver model (a) nomenclature, (b) Thermal resistance network for the cross-section of the receiver [41].

separated into three horizontal zones in which each zone includes

thermal oil with uniform temperature. By considering each zone as a 3.4. Screw expander
control volume and transfer of heat and mass between them, the tem-
perature stratification takes place inside the tank. The upper zone Given the properties of the fluid at the inlet of the expander, the
contains hotter thermal oil while the lower one is colder. The energy following equation is used to calculate the outlet fluid properties:
balance equations for the three mixing zones are solved to obtain the
h6 − h 7
temperature of each zone [42]: ηPERC ,exp =
h6 − h7s (24)
ṁ 1 cp, ave,1 (T1 − Tst ,1) + ṁ 4 cp, ave,2 (Tst ,2 − Tst ,1) − UL Ast ,1 (Tst ,1 − T0) = 0
where ηPERC,exp is the isentropic efficiency of the screw expander and its
(15) value depends on some items such as expander structure and char-
ṁ 1 cp, ave,2 (Tst ,1 − Tst ,2) + ṁ 4 cp, ave,3 (Tst ,3 − Tst ,2) − UL Ast ,2 (Tst ,2 − T0) = 0 acteristic, pressure ratio, etc. For a screw type expander, ηPERC,exp can be
calculated as bellow [45]:
(16)
rv, b
ṁ 1 cp, ave,3 (Tst ,2 − Tst ,3) + ṁ 4 cp, ave,4 (T5 − Tst ,3) − UL Ast ,3 (Tst ,3 − T0) = 0 (1 − rv, b1 − γ ) + (γ − 1)(1 − rp
)
ηPERC,exp = ηexp, peak (1 − γ )/ γ )
(17) γ (1 − rp (25)
where UL = 0.5W ·m−2 ·K is heat transfer coefficient related to sto- where ηexp, peak = 0.75 is the peak isentropic efficiency of screw expander
rage tank thermal loss to environment, and the surface area related to and γ = 1.13 stands for isentropic index. Also, rv, b = 5 is built-in volume
each zone is calculated as follows [43]: ratio, and rp (operating pressure ratio) is defined as [45]:
Ast ,1 = πDst 2 /4 + πDst Lst /3 (18) rp = P6/ P7 (26)
Ast ,2 = πDst Lst /3 (19)
3.5. Exergoeconomic analysis
Ast ,3 = πDst 2 /4 + πDst Lst /3 (20)
where Dst and Lst respectively stands for diameter and height of storage In order to obtain the specific cost of each exergy stream, the SPECO
tank. method is used based on the following balance equation [39]:

Dst = 2Lst (21) ∑ (ce Eẋ e)k + c w,k Ẇ k = cQ,k Eẋ Q,k + ∑ (ci Eẋ i)k + Zk̇
e i (27)
According to the following equations, mass flow rate of oil in col-
lector and PERC evaporator are assumed to be equal; moreover, the In fact, summation of the entering exergy streams cost rates and the
volume of storage tank is estimated based on collector aperture area investment cost rate determines the cost rates of exiting exergy streams
[44]. for each component. In Eq. (27) ‘c’ stands for unit cost of each exergy
stream and Zk̇ is the investment cost rate which is defined as [46]:
ṁ 1 = ṁ 4 (22)
Zk CRFφ
Vst = Aap /30 Zk̇ =
(23) N (28)

6
H. Habibi, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

where Zk is the purchase cost of kth component and φ = 1.06 is the Table 3
maintenance factor. N = 3000 h refers to annual number of system Input values for validation [10].
operating hours, and CRF is the Capital Recovery Factor which is ob- Parameter Value
tained as bellow [39]:
Ambient temperature 30 °C
i (1 + i)n Ambient pressure 101 kPa
CRF =
(1 + i)n − 1 (29) PERC evaporation temperature 250 °C
PERC expander inlet steam quality 1
where i = 10% shows the interest rate, and n = 20 is the years of PERC condensation temperature 129 °C
system operation [47]. To calculate the investment cost of each com- ORC condensation temperature 40 °C
Pinch temperature difference in heat exchangers 5 °C
ponent, the related correlations are presented in Appendix A. By means Isentropic efficiency of expander 0.75
of suitable auxiliary equations obtained from the SPECO method [48], Isentropic efficiency of pumps 0.8
cost balances for all the combined cycle components are solved si- Isentropic efficiency of ORC turbine 0.75
multaneously. Table 2 presents the cost balance and the corresponding
auxiliary equations for each component. By solving the linear equations
system existing in Table 2, the undefined specific cost values can be 4. Results and discussion
obtained. The key parameters in exergoeconomic analysis of thermal
systems including the average cost per unit exergy of fuel (cfu, k ), the 4.1. Validation
average cost per unit exergy of product (cpr , k ), the cost rate associated
with the sum of exergy destruction and exergy loss (CḊ , k ), and the ex- In this section, temperature and pressure of various state points in
ergoeconomic factor ( fk ) are defined as follows [39]: the system are compared with those reported in Ref. [10] for the same
inlet conditions so as to verify the accuracy of the developed simula-
Cfu̇ ,k tions. The input values for validation is presented in Table 3 and the
cfu, k =
Eẋ fu, k (30) validation results are given in Table 4. It is to be noted that cyclohexane
is used as the organic fluid in ORC.
Cpṙ ,k
cpr , k =
̇
Ex pr , k (31) 4.2. Base case results for selecting the best ORC fluid

CḊ , k = cfu, k Eẋ D, k (32) The values of input parameters in base case are presented in Table 5
[31,35,49]. In order to have an overall estimation of the performance of
Zk̇ the system, four organic fluids with different thermophysical properties
fk = have been used in ORC. The suitable selection of these fluids is based on
Zk̇ + CḊ , k (33)
the following criteria.

3.6. Output parameters • The critical temperature of the selected fluid should exceed the
evaporation temperature of the organic fluid in cascade heat ex-
Net power output and total exergy efficiency of the proposed system changer.
is obtained as follows: • The fluids should be environmentally friendly with low global
warming potential (GWP) and zero ozone layer depletion potential
̇ = (ẆPERC , exp − ẆPERC, pum) + (WORC
Wnet ̇ , tur − WORC
̇ , pum ) (34) (ODP).

̇
• Fluid with low or no toxicity and the lowest probable corrosion are
Wnet preferred.
ηex , tot =
̇
Ex fu, col (35)
Based on all above points, four fluids were selected, presented in
To assess the exergoeconomic performance of the proposed system, Table 6 along with their thermodynamic properties.
total cost rate and unit cost of electricity production are calculated as Using the equations given in Sections 3.1 to 3.6, as well as the data
bellow: reported in Tables 5 and 6, the output parameters are presented in
̇ = Table 7. Based on these results, toluene clearly shows the best perfor-
Ctot ∑ Zk̇ + ∑ CḊ ,k (36) mance among the considered organic fluids. The same conclusion ap-
plies when the input parameters vary, leading to the best outputs for
cel,PERC ẆPERC + cel,ORC WORC
̇
toluene as the working fluid. Therefore, toluene is chosen as the
cel, tot =
̇
Wnet (37) working fluid for ORC in the subsequent analysis.

Table 2
Cost balance and auxiliary equation for exergoeconomic analysis.
Component Cost balance equation Auxiliary equation

Collector C3̇ + csun Eẋ fu, col + Zcol

̇ = C1̇ csun = 0
Storage tank C1̇ + C5̇ + Zsṫ = C4̇ + C2̇ c2 = c4
PERC evaporator C4̇ + C9̇ + ZPERC,eva
̇ = C5̇ + C6̇ c4 = c5
PERC expander C6̇ + ZPERC,exp
̇ = C7̇ + cel,PERC. Ẇ PERC,exp c6 = c 7
Cascade HX C7̇ + C13
̇ + ZCas,HX
̇ = C8̇ + C10
̇ c 7 = c8
PERC pump C8̇ + cel,PERC. Ẇ PERC,Pum + ZPERC,Pum
̇ = C9̇
ORC turbine ̇ + ZORC,tur
C10 ̇ = C11̇ + cel,ORC. WORC,tur
̇ c10 = c11
ORC condenser ̇ + C14
C11 ̇ + ZORC,con
̇ ̇ + C15
= C12 ̇ c11 = c12, c14 = 0
ORC pump ̇ + cel,ORC. WORC,Pum
C12 ̇ ̇
+ ZORC,Pum ̇
= C13

7
H. Habibi, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

Table 4
Results of validation.
State point Working fluid Temperature (°C) Pressure (kPa)

This work Ref. [10] Deviation (%) This work Ref. [10] Deviation (%)

6 Water 250 250 0 3974 3980 −0.15

7 Water 129 129 0 262 261 +0.38
8 Water 129 129 0 262 261 +0.38
9 Water 129.6 130 −0.3 3974 3980 −0.15
10 Cyclohexane 124 124 0 316.1 320 −1.2
11 Cyclohexane 77.26 77 + 0.3 24.63 21 +14.7
12 Cyclohexane 40 40 0 24.63 21 +14.7
13 Cyclohexane 40.13 40.1 + 0.07 316.1 320 −1.2

Table 5 other input parameters are fixed at the values reported in Table 5.
Input data in base case [31,35,49].
Parameter value 4.3.1. The effects of variation in solar radiation intensity
Ambient temperature 25 °C
Fig. 4 shows the effect of changes in solar radiation intensity from
Ambient pressure 101.3 kPa 200 to 1000 W·m−2 on the performance of the system. For fixed HTF
Solar radiation intensity 800 W·m−2 mass flow rate, an increase in the solar radiation intensity leads to
Collector area 4000 m2 higher HTF temperature exitting the collector and the storage tank.
HTF mass flow rate 24 kg·s−1
With the energy balance in PERC evaporator and cascade HX, this
Number of collector rows 12
Wind speed 2 m·s−1 higher temperature results in a considerable increase in the mass flow
PERC evaporation temperature 230 °C rate of PERC and ORC working fluids. Because of this higher mass flow
PERC expander inlet steam quality 0.5 rate, power outputs of both cycles experience an increase, as shown in
PERC condensation temperature 102 °C Fig. 4 (a), leading to the net power output for the highest solar radiation
ORC condensation temperature 40 °C
Pinch temperature difference in heat exchangers 10 °C
intensity being roughly 6.1 times that for the lowest solar radiation
Isentropic efficiency of pumps 0.8 intensity. Although an increment in solar radiation intensity leads to a
Isentropic efficiency of ORC turbine 0.85 higher inlet fuel exergy, because of the sharper increase in the net
power output, the total exergy efficiency shows a 3% improvement as
the solar radiation intensity varies in the considered range. Looking at
Table 6 Fig. 4(b), it can be seen that as the solar radiation intensity varies from
Properties of the selected working fluids. 200 to 1000 W·m−2, the exergy destruction cost rate experiences a
Working fluid M (kg. kmol−1) Tbp, norm (°C) Tcrit (°C) Pcrit (kPa) ODP GWP slight decrease, while the unit cost of electricity drops considerably.
This can be attributed to the lower unit cost of exergy for all state points
n-Pentane 72.15 35.78 196.5 3364 0 <6 despite the increase in exergy destruction rate due to the higher
n-Hexane 86.17 69.18 234.7 3058 0 <6
working fluid mass flow rates. In contrast, the total cost rate shows a
n-Heptane 100.2 98.37 267 2727 0 <6
Toluene 92.14 110.3 318.6 4126 0 <6 16% increase which is because of the increase in the investment cost of
different components of the system. It can be concluded that the ther-
moeconomic performance of the system is rather unsatisfactory for very
Table 7 low radiation intensities.
Output results allocating various organic fluids.
Working fluid ̇ (kW)
Wnet ηex,tot (%) ̇ ($/h)
Ctot cel,tot ($/GJ) 4.3.2. The effects of variation in collector aperture area
Fig. 5 considers the variation in the collector aperture area and its
n-Pentane 459.2 15.3 186.8 43.03 effect on the performance of the system. According to Fig. 5(a), an in-
n-Hexane 461.1 15.19 186.3 42.81
n-Heptane 461.5 15.21 186.1 42.72
crease in the collector aperture area from 2000 to 8000 m2 results in a
Toluene 473.9 15.62 185.7 42.47 considerable increase in the net power output (from 238 to 935 kW)
and a slight decrease in total exergy efficiency (roughly 0.3 percentage
point). For a constant HTF mass flow rate in both collector and storage
4.3. Parametric analysis tank, higher collector aperture area leads to a higher HTF output
temperature for both these devices, resulting in a rise in the mass flow
In this section, the effect of variations in input parameters of the rate for PERC and ORC working fluids. This consequently leads to
system, such as solar radiation intensity, collector aperture area, PERC higher power output for both cycles as well as for the whole system.
evaporation and condensation temperature, and expander inlet steam From exergy efficiency point of view, this dramatic increase in the net
quality are studied on output parameters of the system. The considered power output is compensated by the higher collector aperture area
collector aperture area range, 2000 to 8000 m2, is chosen for a suitable required.
HTF temperature as the heat source of PERC. The upper limit for PERC Looking at Fig. 5(b), one can associate the increase in investment
evaporation temperature, 250 °C, corresponds to the maximum allow- cost rate as well as in exergy destruction cost rate in all components of
able inlet pressure for the expander (4 MPa) while its lower limit, the cascade system with higher mass flow rates for PERC and ORC
210 °C, is considered in accordance with the variations in PERC con- working fluids, induced by the increase in the collector aperture area.
densation temperature (80 to 170 °C). The reason behind a relatively Varying collector aperture area in the considered range also greatly
broader range for the PERC condensation temperature compared to the increases the investment and exergy destruction cost rates. On the other
PERC evaporation temperature is the stronger influence of changes in hand, an increase in collector aperture area results in a drop in unit cost
the former on the output parameters. It is worth noting that in the of electricity in PERC and ORC and the consequent decrease in unit cost
parametric analysis, only a single considered parameter varies, while of electricity for the whole system.

8
H. Habibi, et al.
Fig. 4. The effects of variation in solar radiation intensity on output parameters.
4.3.3. The effects of variation in PERC evaporation temperature
The analysis performed on the effect of variation in PERC eva-
poration temperature on output parameters showed a great dependency
on the PERC condensation temperature. Fig. 6 demonstrates the results
for minimum and maximum PERC condensation temperatures, namely
80 °C and 170 °C. An increase in evaporation temperature from 210 °C
to 250 °C leads to higher HTF temperatures at the collector exit as well
as at evaporator inlet and outlet. According to Fig. 6 (a), at low con-
densation temperatures, minimal changes in the mass flow rates of
PERC and ORC working fluids are expected as the evaporation tem-
perature rises, which results in slight changes in power output for both
cycles. At high condensation temperatures, the drop in the mass flow
rate for ORC working fluid results in a drop in its generated power. The
opposite can be stated for the PERC generated power, according to
Fig. 6(a), which experiences a sharp increase since the difference in
enthalpy between the inlet and outlet of the expander increases
Fig. 5. The effects of variation in collector apperture area on output parameters.
9
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827
dramatically, cancelling the drop in its working fluid mass flow rate. It
is worth mentioning that ORC generates more power compared to the
PERC at higher PERC condensation temperatures. Since the collector
aperture area is fixed, the net power output and the exergy efficiency
both follow an increasing pattern as the PERC evaporation temperature
increases. Looking at Fig. 6(b), for low condensation temperature,
negligible decrement in both mentioned parameters are observed
whereas for high condensation temperature, higher generated power
and exergy efficiencies are expected for higher PERC evaporation
temperatures. The variation of total investment and exergy destruction
cost rates for the considered range of PERC evaporation temperature
are presented in Fig. 6(c). As one can clearly see, raising the PERC
evaporation temperature results in lower costs for both considered
condensation temperatures, with the changes being sharper at higher
condensation temperatures. A drop in the heat transfer rate induced by
higher evaporation temperature leads to lower required PERC
H. Habibi, et al.
Fig. 6. The effects of variation in PERC evaporation temperature on output parameters.
evaporator area. This, in addition to the decrease in the investment cost
of ORC turbine, leads to a slight fall in the initial cost rate. The same
trend is followed by the exergy destruction cost rate, which is mainly
attributable to the drop in the exergy destruction in the collector and
the consequent reduction in its cost rate. This decrease in the total
exergy destruction cost rate ultimately lowers the total cost rate. Fi-
nally, looking at Fig. 6(d), one can see that as the evaporation tem-
perature rises, a sharp reduction in the unit cost of electricity produced
by PERC can be noticed for high condensation temperatures, which is
responsible for the decrease in unit cost of total products. However, the
changes in evaporation temperature results in an insignificant change
in unit cost of electricity production when the condensation tempera-
ture is low.
10
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827
4.3.4. The effects of variation in PERC expander inlet steam quality
In Fig. 7, the effect of varying PERC expander inlet steam quality on
the system performance is presented. For vapor qualities from 0.1 to 1,
a considerable increase in the evaporator inlet–outlet enthalpy differ-
ence is expected. Based on the conservation of energy in the evaporator,
this increase in the enthalpy difference leads to lower steam mass flow
rate. From the generated power point of view, the decrease in mass flow
rate of the expander is compensated by the increase in the enthalpy
difference of expander, thus resulting in higher PERC output power, as
shown in Fig. 7(a). Based on the conservation of energy in the cascade
HX, the decrease in the steam cycle mass flow rate leads to a fall in ORC
working fluid mass flow rate and consequently a slight drop in its
generated power. An increment in PERC power output is the main cause
for the increase in the net power output as well as the total exergy
efficiency. From the economic point of view, increasing PERC expander
H. Habibi, et al.
Fig. 7. The effects of variation in PERC expander inlet steam quality on output parameters.
inlet steam quality leads to an insignificant decrease in the total in-
vestment cost rate for all components of the cascade system (except for
the collector which is constant). Also, due to the drop in the exergy
destruction rate in all components of the cascade system (except in the
expander which experiences the opposite trend), investment and exergy
destruction cost rates drop as the PERC expander inlet steam quality
increases (see Fig. 7(b)). These reductions lead to lower total cost rates.
The same trend can be seen for the case of unit cost of electricity for
both cycles, as well as for the total unit cost of electricity production, as
the steam quality increases. This means that the system performs the
best at highest expander inlet steam quality.
4.3.5. The effects of variation in PERC condensation temperature
Fig. 8 shows the influence of changing the PERC condensation
temperature on the performance of the whole system. As seen in
Fig. 8. The effects of variation in PERC condensation temperature on output parameters.
11
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827
Fig. 8(a), due to the increase in the PERC condensation temperature
from 80 to 170 °C, the inlet–outlet enthalpy difference of the PERC
evaporator, and consequently, the steam mass flow rate decrease. On
the other hand, this increase in condensation temperature leads to a
substantial drop in the enthalpy difference between inlet and outlet of
the expander, resulting in less PERC power output. For the ORC system,
because of the fixed pinch temperature difference in the cascade HX,
increasing the steam condensation temperature results in higher ORC
turbine inlet temperature and also a higher enthalpy difference. This
consequently leads to higher ORC output power. Because of the oppo-
site changes in PERC and ORC output powers, an optimal PERC con-
densation temperature is observed in Fig. 8(a) for the net power output
and exergy efficiency. Regarding the cost rates, the increase in the
steam condensation temperature, leads to lower expander power output
which results in a drop in its investment cost. Similarly, higher ORC
H. Habibi, et al.
turbine output power and higher heat transfer rate in the PERC eva-
porator, induced by higher PERC condensation temperature, lead to
higher ORC turbine and PERC evaporator investment cost. The exergy
destruction rate in the expander and the PERC evaporator experience a
considerable drop as the condensation temperature rises, but in the
cascade HX and the ORC turbine, the opposite trend is observed for the
exergy destruction rate. All these effects result in a minimum point for
investment cost rate, exergy destruction cost rate and total cost rate, as
seen in Fig. 8(b). Furthermore, increasing the condensation tempera-
ture results in a steady fall in the ORC unit cost of electricity produc-
tion; while, an optimal point for PERC and total unit cost of electricity
production can be observed at the considered range.
4.4. Optimization of the system
Genetic algorithms recover from any probable early errors by em-
ploying an initial random population and probabilistic transition prin-
ciples. Consequently, genetic algorithms can solve a wide class of pro-
blems. In this work, Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm - II
(NSGA-II) was used to optimize the system. This algorithm employs the
crowding comparison procedure which is used with the tournament
selection. Since solutions compete with their crowding distances (a
measure of the density of solutions in the neighborhood), no extra
niching parameters (used in other types of genetic algorithm methods)
is required [50].
Based on the parametric study performed in Section 4.3, the best
scenario for the optimization of the whole system is to consider the net
power output, exergy efficiency, and total cost rate as objective func-
tions. Optimization parameters and the variation range for the design
parameters are presented in Table 8.
̇ )
Objfun1 = max(Wnet
Objfun2 = max(ηex , tot )
̇ )
Objfun3 = min(Ctot
The 3-D Pareto front plot, as well as 2-D plots related to variations
in one objective function versus another are given in Fig. 9. In order to
report the optimal performance of the system and its different compo-
nents, a single point of Pareto front, resulted from the system optimi-
zation is chosen as follows:
First, the values for Wneṫ and ηex , tot , whose maximums are desired, are
transformed to − Ẇ
net and − ηex , tot . Then, the values for each of the
objective functions are normalized based on their upper and lower
limits, as shown in Eq. (41). In the plot, the nearest point to the origin is
chosen as the optimal point of the system with the highest values of Wnet
̇ .
and ηex , tot , and lowest Ctot
objfun − objfunmin
objfunnorm =
objfunmax − objfunmin
The obtained values for the design parameters and objective func-
tions at the optimal point are given in Table 9 along with a comparison
between the performance of the system at its optimal condition and that
for the base case results. It shows that in addition to a 65% increase in
the net power output and a 2.9% increase in the exergy efficiency, cel,tot
shows a 27.26% improvement. This is while the total cost rate experi-
ences a 22.7% increment. It is worth mentioning that at the optimal
point, the values of collector aperture area and storage tank volume are
5540 m2 and 184.7 m3, respectively.
The energy and exergy results related to each component of the
cascade system at the optimal point are presented in Table 10. In op-
timum point, the cascade system produces 782 kW net power, with ORC
turbine and PERC expander contributions equal to 440.6 and 349.2 kW.
This shows the importance of employing ORC as the bottoming cycle to
recover the waste heat of PERC condensation process. The total value of
exergy destruction is 3402 kW, with 84% of this value (2863 kW)
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827
related to the collector. Among the components of the cascade system,
the highest exergy destructions occur in cascade HX (4%) and PERC
evaporator (3.2%). Moreover, the best exergy efficiency belongs to
storage tank and PERC evaporator while the least value of exergy ef-
ficiency occurs in collector and ORC condenser, indicating the weak
performance of these two components from exergy viewpoint.
Table 11 shows the exergoeconomic performance of different
components of the system at its optimal condition. The total cost rate of
the system is 228 $·h−1. As expected, the solar collector is responsible
for 54.8% of the total cost rate, having the highest investment cost rate
(39.84 $·h−1) as well as the highest exergy destruction cost rate (85.08
$·h−1) among all components. Next, the PERC evaporator and ORC
turbine with investment cost rates, respectively, equal to 23.27 $·h−1
and 18.2 $·h−1 play a great role in total cost rate. In the cascade system,
the lowest exergoeconomic factor belongs to the ORC condenser
(5.5%). This relatively low value for exergoeconomic factor means that
the exergy destruction cost rate is much higher than the investment cost
rate. For such components, increasing the investment cost rate is ad-
vised. In the case of a heat exchanger, this can be achieved by in-
creasing the heat exchanger area, which is followed by the decrease in
the temperature difference between two streams and therefore a drop in
the exergy destruction in the heat exchanger and a consequent im-
provement in the investment cost rate. Furthermore, unit cost of elec-
tricity production for PERC and ORC are 22.82 $/GJ and 37.19$/GJ,
respectively. The lower unit cost for PERC is an indication for the fact
that partial evaporation cycles perform better than ORCs from ex-
ergoeconomic point of view. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the
total exergoeconomic factor for the cascade system is 49.27%. This
means that a good balance is present between total exergy destruction
cost rate and total investment cost rate in the cascade system.
(38)
5. Conclusions
(39)
(40) A cascade power generation system, consisting of a PERC and ORC
and utilizing a PTSC with storage tank, has been first studied from
thermoeconomic viewpoint, and later optimized for three objective
parameters. A screw expander was used in the PERC, with a saturated
flow as inlet. The application of a PERC is specifically beneficial since it
allows for lower scale systems with lower operation temperatures, thus
enhancing the efficiency while lowering the costs. In this study, first a
parametric study was performed so as to investigate the effect of
changes in various effective input parameters, and then an optimization
was performed followed by a comprehensive discussion on the perfor-
mance of each component, as well as the system as a whole. Parametric
̇ study showed that the thermoeconomic performance of the proposed
system is not viable at low solar radiation intensities. Moreover, at high
steam condensation temperatures, the performance of the system is
highly sensitive to changes in PERC evaporation temperature. It was
(41)
also observed that varying collector aperture area greatly influences the
output parameters of the system. The result of the tri-objective opti-
mization, considering net power output, exergy efficiency, and total
Table 8
Parameters of optimization.
Parameter Value
Population size 120
Crossover probability 0.8
Mutation function Constraint dependent
Selection process Tournament
Collector aperture area range (m2) 2000 to 8000
PERC evaporation temperature range (˚C) 210 to 250
PERC expander inlet steam quality range 0.1 to 1
PERC condensation temperature range (˚C) 80 to 170
Generations Inf
Stall generations 100
12
H. Habibi, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

Fig. 9. Pareto optimal solution for the cascade system.

Table 9 Table 11
Optimum performance in comparison with base case results. Exergoeconomic results for the system at the optimal point.
Parameter Base case Optimum Improvement (%) Component cf ($/GJ) cp ($/GJ) Z ̇ ($/h) CḊ ($/h) Z ̇ + CḊ ($/h) f (%)
point
Collector 0 8.25 39.84 85.08 124.92 31.89
Ẇnet (kW) 473.9 782 +65 Storage tank 8.25 9.49 4.23 1.51 5.74 73.68
ηex, tot (%) 15.62 18.61 +2.9 PERC evaporator 9.49 15.86 23.27 3.77 27.04 86.05
Ċtot ($/ h) 185.7 228 –22.7 PERC expander 15.98 22.82 3.85 4.75 8.6 44.8
42.47 30.89 +27.26 Cascade HX 15.98 22.09 5.6 7.94 13.54 41.35
cel, tot ($/ GJ)
PERC pump 22.82 42.27 0.3 0.07 0.37 80.98
Collector aperture area (m2) 4000 5540
ORC turbine 22.26 37.19 18.2 5.48 23.68 76.85
PERC evaporation temperature 230 250
ORC condenser 22.26 127.9 0.41 7.02 7.43 5.5
(˚C)
ORC pump 37.19 99.02 0.25 0.04 0.29 85.86
PERC expander inlet steam 0.5 1
quality
PERC condensation temperature 102 155.4
(˚C) and 18.61%, respectively, which are 65% and 2.9% higher than
those at the base case.

Table 10
• At the optimal condition, output power of the ORC turbine is
440.6 kW, which is higher than the generated power by the ex-
Energy and exergy results for the system at the optimal point. pander, 349.2 kW. This shows the aptness of the bottoming ORC in
Component Ẇ or Q̇ (kW) Eẋ fu (kW) Eẋ pr (kW) Eẋ D (kW) ηex (%) order to recover the energy loss in the cascade HX. The unit cost of
electricity is however lower for PERC (22.82 $/h) compared to that
Collector 2839 4203 1340 2863 31.9 of ORC (37.19 $/h).
Storage tank
PERC evaporator
–
2814
1340
1290
1290
1179
50
111
96.2
91.4
• As expected, solar collector is responsible for the biggest share of
exergy destruction as well as the total cost rate. In addition to this,
PERC expander 349.2 431.7 349.2 82.5 80.9
Cascade HX 2471 752.7 614.8 137.9 81.7 ORC condenser showed the worst performance among the compo-
PERC pump 6.2 6.2 5.3 0.9 86.1 nents of the system by marking the lowest exergy efficiency and
ORC turbine 440.6 509 440.6 68.4 86.6 exergoeconomic factor. Moreover, the highest exergy efficiency
ORC condenser 2032 107.1 19.5 87.6 18.2
belongs to storage tank and PERC evaporator.
ORC pump 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.3 80.9

Declaration of Competing Interest

cost rate showed that:
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
• At the optimal case, the total cost rate is 228 $/h. At the same interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
conditions, the net power output and exergy efficiency are 782 kW ence the work reported in this paper.

13
H. Habibi, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827

Appendix A. Economic model

In this study, the following equations are employed to compute the investment cost of each component. Moreover, cost index from Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) is used to update all costs to year 2018 [51].
Heat transfer fluid system and solar collector [31]:
Zcol = 170Aap (A.1)
ZHTF = 70Aap (A.2)
Storage tank [52]:
Zst = 552Vst (A.3)
PERC screw expander [17]:
ZPERC,exp = 3143.7 + 217423(Vė , exp) (A.4)
where Vė , exp is volumetric flow rate of fluid exiting screw expander.
PERC pump [17]:

⎡ ⎛ 0.2 ⎞⎤
ZPERC,pum = 705.48(ẆPERC,pum )0.71·⎢1 + ⎜
1 − ηPERC,pum ⎟ ⎥ (A.5)
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦
PERC evaporator [17]:
0.8 0.8
⎡ qtṗ ⎞ + ⎜⎛ qsub ̇
ZPERC,eva = 6570 ⎢ ⎜⎛ ⎞ ⎤ + 21276ṁ 1.2
⎟ ⎟
⎥ PERC + 1184.4ṁ HTF
ΔT ⎝ ΔTlmtd,sub ⎠ ⎦
⎣ ⎝ lmtd,tp ⎠ (A.6)
Cascade HX [53]:
ZcascadeHX = 588(AcascadeHX )0.8 (A.7)
ORC turbine [54]:
̇
ZORC,tur = 6000(WORC,tur )0.7 (A.8)
ORC pump [54]:
̇
ZORC,pum = 3540(WORC,pum )0.71 (A.9)
ORC condenser [55]:
ZORC,con = 1773ṁ ORC (A.10)
The below equation is used to update each component cost:
Cost index at reference year
Cost at reference year = original cost ×
Cost index at original year (A.11)

References
[1] M. Wang, et al., Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a solar-driven re-
generative organic Rankine cycle (ORC) based on flat-plate solar collectors, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 50 (1) (2013) 816–825.
[2] A. Atiz, et al., Assessment of electricity and hydrogen production performance of
evacuated tube solar collectors, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (27) (2019)
14137–14144.
[3] S. Adibhatla, S. Kaushik, Energy, exergy and economic (3E) analysis of integrated
solar direct steam generation combined cycle power plant, Sustainable Energy
Technol. Assess. 20 (2017) 88–97.
[4] C. Xu, et al., Energy and exergy analysis of solar power tower plants, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 31 (17–18) (2011) 3904–3913.
[5] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, Parametric analysis and optimization of an Organic Rankine
Cycle with nanofluid based solar parabolic trough collectors, Renewable Energy
114 (2017) 1376–1393.
[6] F. Sun, et al., Energy–exergy analysis and optimization of the solar-boosted Kalina
cycle system 11 (KCS-11), Renew. Energy 66 (2014) 268–279.
[7] M. Ameri, M. Mohammadzadeh, Thermodynamic, thermoeconomic and life cycle
assessment of a novel integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) power plant, Sustain.
Energy Technol. Assess. 27 (2018) 192–205.
[8] A. Giostri, et al., Small scale solar tower coupled with micro gas turbine, Renew.
Energy 147 (2020) 570–583.
[9] O. Sharma, S. Kaushik, K. Manjunath, Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of
a supercritical CO2 regenerative recompression Brayton cycle coupled with a
marine gas turbine for shipboard waste heat recovery, Therm. Sci. Eng. Progress 3
(2017) 62–74.
[10] J. Li, et al., Analysis of a novel solar electricity generation system using cascade
Rankine cycle and steam screw expander, Appl. Energy 165 (2016) 627–638.
[11] F.A. Al-Sulaiman, Energy and sizing analyses of parabolic trough solar collector
integrated with steam and binary vapor cycles, Energy 58 (2013) 561–570.
[12] U. Sahoo, et al., Resource assessment for hybrid solar-biomass power plant and its
thermodynamic evaluation in India, Sol. Energy 139 (2016) 47–57.
[13] J. Li, et al., Thermodynamic and economic investigation of a screw expander-based
direct steam generation solar cascade Rankine cycle system using water as thermal
storage fluid, Appl. Energy 195 (2017) 137–151.
[14] M.S. Shahin, M.F. Orhan, F. Uygul, Thermodynamic analysis of parabolic trough
and heliostat field solar collectors integrated with a Rankine cycle for cogeneration
of electricity and heat, Sol. Energy 136 (2016) 183–196.
[15] J. Li, et al., A novel approach to thermal storage of direct steam generation solar
power systems through two-step heat discharge, Appl. Energy 236 (2019) 81–100.
[16] D. Lei, Z. Wang, F. Du, The glass-to-metal sealing process in parabolic trough solar
receivers, Springer, 2008.
[17] H. Habibi, et al., Thermo-economic analysis and optimization of combined PERC-
ORC-LNG power system for diesel engine waste heat recovery, Energy Convers.
Manage. 173 (2018) 613–625.
[18] S.M. Milani, R.K. Saray, M. Najafi, Exergo-economic analysis of different power-
cycle configurations driven by heat recovery of a gas engine, Energy Convers.
Manage. 186 (2019) 103–119.
[19] A. Zeynali, A. Akbari, M. Khalilian, Investigation of the performance of modified
organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) and modified trilateral flash cycles (TFCs) assisted
by a solar pond, Sol. Energy 182 (2019) 361–381.
[20] P. Li, et al., Thermo-economic evaluation of an innovative direct steam generation
solar power system using screw expanders in a tandem configuration, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 148 (2019) 1007–1017.
[21] A. Pantaleo, et al., Thermoeconomic optimisation of small-scale organic Rankine
cycle systems based on screw vs. piston expander maps in waste heat recovery
applications, Energy Convers. Manage. 200 (2019) 112053.
[22] R. Cipollone, et al., Low grade thermal recovery based on trilateral flash cycles

14
H. Habibi, et al.
using recent pure fluids and mixtures, Energy Procedia 123 (2017) 289–296.
[23] G. Bianchi, et al., Development and analysis of a packaged Trilateral Flash Cycle
system for low grade heat to power conversion applications, Therm. Sci. Eng.
Progress 4 (2017) 113–121.
[24] Y. Zhou, F. Zhang, L. Yu, Performance analysis of the partial evaporating organic
Rankine cycle (PEORC) using zeotropic mixtures, Energy Convers. Manage. 129
(2016) 89–99.
[25] H. Ajimotokan, I. Sher, Thermodynamic performance simulation and design opti-
misation of trilateral-cycle engines for waste heat recovery-to-power generation,
Appl. Energy 154 (2015) 26–34.
[26] O. Dumont, et al., Technical and economic optimization of subcritical, wet ex-
pansion and transcritical Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) systems coupled with a
biogas power plant, Energy Convers. Manage. 157 (2018) 294–306.
[27] G. Kosmadakis, D. Manolakos, G. Papadakis, Parametric theoretical study of a two-
stage solar organic Rankine cycle for RO desalination, Renew. Energy 35 (5) (2010)
989–996.
[28] X.X. Xia, et al., Working fluid selection of dual-loop organic Rankine cycle using
multi-objective optimization and improved grey relational analysis, Appl. Therm.
Eng. (2020) 115028.
[29] B.C. Choi, Y.M. Kim, Thermodynamic analysis of a dual loop heat recovery system
with trilateral cycle applied to exhaust gases of internal combustion engine for
propulsion of the 6800 TEU container ship, Energy 58 (2013) 404–416.
[30] J. Song, C.-W. Gu, Performance analysis of a dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC)
system with wet steam expansion for engine waste heat recovery, Appl. Energy 156
(2015) 280–289.
[31] H. Habibi, et al., Thermo-economic performance comparison of two configurations
of combined steam and organic Rankine cycle with steam Rankine cycle driven by
Al2O3-therminol VP-1 based PTSC, Sol. Energy 180 (2019) 116–132.
[32] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, K.A. Antonopoulos, Exergetic, energetic and financial
evaluation of a solar driven absorption cooling system with various collector types,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 102 (2016) 749–759.
[33] B. Ghorbani, R. Shirmohammadi, M. Mehrpooya, Development of an innovative
cogeneration system for fresh water and power production by renewable energy
using thermal energy storage system, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 37 (2020)
100572.
[34] J. Bao, et al., Comparative study of combined organic Rankine cycle and vapor
compression cycle for refrigeration: Single fluid or dual fluid? Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 37 (2020) 100595.
[35] N. Shokati, F. Ranjbar, M. Yari, Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of basic,
dual-pressure and dual-fluid ORCs and Kalina geothermal power plants: A com-
parative study, Renew. Energy 83 (2015) 527–542.
[36] I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Exergy: energy, environment and sustainable development,
Newnes, 2012.
[37] I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Exergy analysis of heating, refrigerating and air conditioning:
methods and applications, Academic Press, 2015.
[38] İ. Dinçer, A. Midilli, H. Kucuk, Progress in exergy, energy, and the environment,
Springer, 2014.
[39] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, M.J. Moran, Thermal design and optimization, John Wiley
15
Applied Thermal Engineering 180 (2020) 115827
& Sons, 1995.
[40] H. Habibi, et al., Thermo-economic analysis and optimization of a solar-driven
ammonia-water regenerative Rankine cycle and LNG cold energy, Energy 149
(2018) 147–160.
[41] S.A. Kalogirou, A detailed thermal model of a parabolic trough collector receiver,
Energy 48 (1) (2012) 298–306.
[42] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, Energetic and exergetic evaluation of a novel trigeneration
system driven by parabolic trough solar collectors, Therm. Sci. Eng. Progress 6
(2018) 41–47.
[43] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, G. Tsifis, Energetic, Exergetic, Economic and Environmental
(4E) analysis of a solar assisted refrigeration system for various operating scenarios,
Energy Convers. Manage. 148 (2017) 1055–1069.
[44] C. Tzivanidis, E. Bellos, K.A. Antonopoulos, Energetic and financial investigation of
a stand-alone solar-thermal Organic Rankine Cycle power plant, Energy Convers.
Manage. 126 (2016) 421–433.
[45] P. Li, et al., Modeling and optimization of solar-powered cascade Rankine cycle
system with respect to the characteristics of steam screw expander, Renew. Energy
112 (2017) 398–412.
[46] M. Zoghi, et al., Thermo-economic assessment of a novel trigeneration system based
on coupling of organic Rankine cycle and absorption-compression cooling and
power system for waste heat recovery, Energy Convers. Manage. 196 (2019)
567–580.
[47] M. Zoghi, et al., Exergoeconomic analysis of a novel trigeneration system based on
organic quadrilateral cycle integrated with cascade absorption-compression system
for waste heat recovery, Energy Convers. Manage. 198 (2019) 111818.
[48] A. Lazzaretto, G. Tsatsaronis, SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems, Energy 31 (8–9) (2006)
1257–1289.
[49] F.A. Al-Sulaiman, Exergy analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors integrated
with combined steam and organic Rankine cycles, Energy Convers. Manage. 77
(2014) 441–449.
[50] K. Deb, Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, John Wiley &
Sons, 2001.
[51] ChemEng, CEPCI. Chemical engineering plant cost index, 2018, pp. 76.
[52] F.A. Boyaghchi, M. Chavoshi, Multi-criteria optimization of a micro solar-geo-
thermal CCHP system applying water/CuO nanofluid based on exergy, ex-
ergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental concepts, Appl. Therm. Eng. 112 (2017)
660–675.
[53] N. Nazari, P. Heidarnejad, S. Porkhial, Multi-objective optimization of a combined
steam-organic Rankine cycle based on exergy and exergo-economic analysis for
waste heat recovery application, Energy Convers. Manage. 127 (2016) 366–379.
[54] N. Shokati, F. Ranjbar, M. Yari, Comparative and parametric study of double flash
and single flash/ORC combined cycles based on exergoeconomic criteria, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 91 (2015) 479–495.
[55] A. Nemati, H. Nami, M. Yari, Assessment of different configurations of solar energy
driven organic flash cycles (OFCs) via exergy and exergoeconomic methodologies,
Renew. Energy 115 (2018) 1231–1248.