processes
Article
First Law Optimization and Review of Double and Triple-Effect
Parallel Flow Vapor Absorption Refrigeration Systems
Md. Azhar
Citation: Azhar, M. First Law
Optimization and Review of Double
and Triple-Effect Parallel Flow Vapor
Absorption Refrigeration Systems.
Processes 2023, 11, 2347. https://
doi.org/10.3390/pr11082347
Academic Editor: Ambra Giovannelli
Received: 17 June 2023
Revised: 1 July 2023
Accepted: 3 August 2023
Published: 4 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Processes 2023, 11, 2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11082347
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Maulana Mukhtar Ahmad Nadvi Technical Campus,
Malegaon 423203, Maharashtra, India; md_azhar@zhcet.ac.in
Abstract: Parallel flow double and triple-effect vapor absorption cooling systems (VACS) are trying to
meet the challenges of vapor compression cooling systems due to their better performance. Therefore,
the present study deals with the review, thermodynamic analysis, and optimization of operating
parameters for both double and triple-effect VACS. Lithium bromide water was selected as the
working fluid, while liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) were taken
as the source of energy to drive both the VACS. Detailed First Law analysis, i.e., coefficient of
performance (COP), was examined along with the optimization of operating parameters (such as
salt concentration and operating generators temperature at different pressure levels) and the volume
flow rate of the gases. Optimization was carried out for maximum COP of the VACS using an
iterative technique. Our results show that the COP of the triple-effect system was approximately
32% higher than the double effect, while 15–20% less consumption of the gases (LPG and CNG) was
observed. The most optimum stage for the operation of triple-effect VACS was reached at Te = 4 ◦ C
and Tc = Ta = 30 ◦ C, Tg = 180 ◦ C, Tc4 = 104 ◦ C, Tc3 = 66 ◦ C, Z1 = 0.5, and Z2 = 0.45.
Keywords: triple effect; vapor absorption refrigeration system; parallel flow; thermodynamic analysis;
optimization
1. Introduction
VACS are receiving more attention in the published literature as a means of cool-
ing production from different renewable sources, such as solar energy [1], geothermal
energy [2], and clean energy [3,4], with many processes switching from energy-intensive
vapor compression cooling systems (VCCS). The only drawback of VACS over VCCS is
their lower coefficient of performance and high capital investment [5]. However, with
development of the systems, current VACS reach the performance of VCCS [6]. The per-
formance of VACS largely depends on the structure (e.g., single to fourth-effect or other)
as well as the properties of the working fluids [7]. Mixtures of VACS are environmentally
friendly, have less purchasing cost, and are easily available in the market. Additionally,
several mixtures have been tested, and a plethora of research has been reported on different
suitable mixtures [8]. A few mixtures have been investigated, such as LiBr/H2 O and
NH3 /H2 O [9], whereas other ionic liquids [10], inorganic salts [11], and organic [12] have
also been examined. Yanbin Qin et al. [13] used low-GWP mixtures R1234yf/R32 and
R170/R14/R50 to operate a cooling system integrated with the Linde-Hampson system.
In addition to the mixtures, the flowsheet structure also plays a crucial role in en-
hancing the performance of VACS [14]. In the past literature, single-effect (SE-VACS) and
double-effect VACS (DE-VACS) have been examined exhaustively along with different com-
binations of the working fluids [15]. Single-effect VACS have very low COPs compared to
double and triple-effect VACS (TE-VACS) under different cycle constructions [16]. Talpada
and Ramana [17] studied the detailed analysis of DE-VACS. Firstly, the TE-VACS concept
was proposed by [18]. A plethora of research has been carried out on the modification
of DE-VACS and TE-VACS [19,20]. Rasoul Nikbakhti et al. [21] reviewed in detail the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 2 of 20

absorption cooling system for the enhancement of COP. They discussed the different con-
structions of VACS under multiple effects. Multi-effect VACS have modifications in terms
of equipment connectivity and improving operating process performance indicators [22].
T.A. Mouneer et al. [23] performed a thermodynamic analysis of novel VACS integrated
with a vapor compression system.
DE-VACS and TE-VACS have two and three generators; therefore, different flow
configurations of the working fluids can be possible. The most common working fluid
configurations are reverse flow, parallel flow, and series flow [24]. In the previous litera-
ture, these flow configurations have been studied in detail [25]. Azhar and Siddiqui [26]
presented the thermodynamic analysis of a parallel flow DE-VACS and compared the same
system with its series flow configuration. They reported that parallel flow has approxi-
mately 6% more COP than series flow VACS. Additionally, they concluded that the rate of
exergy destruction for parallel flow VACS is 4% lower, and the energy to drive the system
is around 3% lower compared to series flow VACS. Chahartaghi et al. [27] presented two
novel arrangements of parallel and series flow DE-VACS. They again concluded that paral-
lel flow VACS have a higher COP. They defined the solution distribution ratio for parallel
flow cycles, and these were optimized for maximum COP. Konwar et al. [28] presented a
comparison analysis of series and parallel flow VACS. They used two different working flu-
ids, such as water–LiCl and water–LiBr, and optimized the system for maximum COP and
minimum irreversibility of both types of VACS. They concluded that the system operated
with water–LiCl had lower COP than water–LiBr; however, exergy efficiency was higher at
optimized conditions.
Bagheri et al. [29] performed detailed work on the basis of the second Law of
Thermodynamics to simulate parallel flow DE-VACS and optimize the performance
of maximum COP and exergy efficiency. They reported the maximum COP as 1.295
and maximum exergy efficiency as 22.5% at generator temperatures of 169.6 ◦ C and
142.7 ◦ C, respectively. Both endogenous and exogenous parts of exergy were discussed
in their analysis. Exergy is the best tool to determine the location, magnitude, and
sources of thermodynamic inefficiencies in any energy conversion devices [30]. Kelly
et al. [31] discussed that exergy destruction (irreversibilities) has two components such
as endogenous exergy destruction and exogenous exergy destruction. They discussed in
detail the importance and application of both parts of exergy for any energy conversion
devices, especially vapor absorption refrigeration systems. Garousi et al. [32] conducted
a thermodynamic study of all three types of DE-VACS, including reverse parallel flow
and parallel and series flow configurations. They discussed the pros and cons of the
results of all three configurations of the double-effect VACS. Arshad et al. [33] performed
optimization and thermodynamic analysis for series and parallel flow DE-VACS. It
was found that the exergy efficiency of parallel flow was 6.45% higher than the series
flow configuration under the same operating condition. Detail comparisons have been
presented between series and parallel flow systems [33].
Ferwati et al. [34] carried out a detailed thermodynamic analysis of parallel flow
double-effect VACS using an H2 O–[mmim][DMP] working pair and compared the system
with a conventional H2 O–LiBr pair. It was concluded that the ionic pair had higher COP
(around 6%) and ECOP (around 5%) than the H2O–LiBr pair. Arora et al. [35] performed
a calculation of energy and exergy of parallel flow DE-VACS and reported the optimum
solution distribution ratio (SDR) for maximum COP and maximum ECOP of the system.
The optimum temperatures in each component at optimum SDR are reported in their
paper. It can be concluded that the SDR also play an important role in the case of the
parallel flow absorption–refrigeration cycle. Ahmed and Gilani discussed the performance
of a commercial absorption chiller under a double-effect parallel flow arrangement [36].
They presented energy and exergy performance and provided information regarding
concentration, temperature, mass flow rate, entropy, and exergy flow at all state points of
the systems. However, they failed to optimize all operating parameters under optimum
SDR. Garousi et al. [32] performed interesting work to simulate the three flow configurations
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 3 of 20

(series, parallel, and reverse) of DE-VACS. They discussed the pros and cons in the results
of all three configurations of DE-VACS but failed to discuss the same flow configurations
of TE-VACS.
The source of energy also affects the exergy performance of VACS. Renewable sources
and waste heat become the best option when these sources are available; otherwise, direct-
fired sources (such as the burning of fuel in the generator) will meet the requirement of
multi-effect VACS when operated at night hours. Zakariya Kaneesamkandi et al. [37]
demonstrated an appropriate solar collector for the operation of single and double-effect
VACS. A multi-attribute decision-making model was adopted to determine the best option.
Mengxiao Yu et al. [38] used industrial low-level waste heat to operate cascade absorption
heat transformers and perform multi-objective optimization in terms of energy, exergy,
and economic analysis. A different, new configuration of VACS was reported by Gado
et al. [39]. They published a detailed review of the hybrid sorption–vapor compression
refrigeration system. They presented the integration of a desiccant cooling, adsorption, and
absorption system and carried out the energy, exergy, environmental, and economic analysis
of the said system. Mengxiao Yu et al. [40] also used low-grade waste heat to operate a
cascade absorption refrigeration system and calculate the exergy and exergoeconomic
analysis of the said system. Yinglong Wang et al. [41] designed the cascade absorption heat
transformer for the recovery of low-grade waste heat. They conducted advanced exergy
and exergoeconomic analyses for the said system. Table 1 summarizes the results obtained
for parallel flow DE-VACS and TE-VACS in the open literature.

Table 1. Result Summary of parallel flow DE-VACS and TE-VACS.

Type of VACS Working Fluid(s) Flow Configuration Remark on Findings Reference

Comparison between series and
Double effect H2 O–LiBr Series and Parallel [26]
parallel flow cycles.
Comparison of parallel flow with
Double effect H2 O–LiBr Series and Parallel series flow and optimized the [27]
operating parameters.
Two pairs are used;
Detailed comparison between
Double effect H2 O–LiBr and Series and Parallel [28]
series and parallel flow.
H2 O–LiCl
Detailed exergy analysis and
reported maximum COP and their
Double effect H2 O–LiBr Parallel Flow [29]
corresponding generator’s
temperature.
Series, Parallel, and Performance of all three cycles and
Double effect H2 O–LiBr [32]
Reverse Flow compared them.
Reported thermodynamic
H2 O–[mmim][DMP]
Double effect Parallel Flow properties of H2 O–[mmim][DMP] [34]
and H2 O–LiBr
mixture.
COP and exergy destruction rate
Double effect H2 O–LiBr Parallel [36]
of each component.
COP and exergy efficiency and
Triple effect H2 O–LiBr Series Flow exergy destruction rate of each [7]
component.
Triple effect NH3 –LiNO3 mixture Series and Inverse Flow COP and optimized parameters. [19]
Triple effect H2 O–LiBr Series Flow COP and optimized temperatures. [6]
COP, maximum pressure, and
Series Flow, Parallel, maximum temperature of the cycle
Triple effect H2 O–LiBr [42]
and Reverse Flow under different environmental
conditions.
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 4 of 20

In the open literature, exhaustive work on vapor absorption refrigeration systems

has been reported for single-effect to triple-effect cycles. However, the majority of works
have reported on series flow configuration. The analysis of parallel flow TE-VACS seems
to be missing in the literature and also requires critical review and comprehensive study.
However, parallel flow DE-VACS have been discussed in previous studies. In contrast, a
few works have been reported on the direct-fired arrangement in the main generator. It is
known that DE-VACS and TE-VACS operated at significantly higher generator temperatures
can be achieved easily through the direct-fired arrangement. In view of this, the present
study has addressed the following research gaps:
1. Review of DE-VACS and TE-VACS under different flow configurations and different
heat sources.
2. Detailed energy analysis for parallel flow TE-VACS.
3. A direct-fired system has been selected for the operation of the main generator. More-
over, LPG and CNG have been taken as sources of energy because they are cheaper,
less toxic, and easily available.
4. Calculation of gases required to operate the parallel flow DE-VACS and TE-VACS.
5. Optimization of operating temperature and SDRs for maximum COP.

2. System Description of VACS

Here, the modeling and working principle of both parallel flow DE-VACS and TE-
VACS are discussed in detail.

2.1. Parallel Flow DE-VACS

A schematic diagram of a typical parallel flow DE-VACS is shown in Figure 1a. The
absorber, evaporator, main condenser, main generator, and condenser–generator set (i.e.,
C3-G2) are the major parts of DE-VACS. The working of parallel flow DE-VACS is quite
simple and discussed in detail by Azhar and Siddiqui [43]. In this system, the input
energy is supplied only in the main generator; the other generator (G2) is operated with
internal heat recovery by condenser ‘C3’. Refrigerant is generated in both generators
simultaneously. The solution is divided into both generators after the absorber outlet.
Initially, the solution (combination of refrigerant and absorbent) is prepared in the
absorber and pumped to both generators through the preheater. In both generators, the
solution is heated, and the refrigerant vapor that has been collected is released in the
main condenser and transfers the phase from vapor to liquid. The liquid refrigerant is
sent to the evaporator via a throttle valve. In the evaporator, the refrigerant boils and
takes heat from the cooled space and then sends it to the absorber to make it a cyclic
process.

2.2. Parallel Flow TE-VACS

A schematic plot of parallel flow TE-VACS is depicted in Figure 1b. The working
principle is quite similar to parallel flow DE-VACS. However, in this arrangement, there
are three generators; therefore, the solution is distributed in two places. Firstly, the solution
is divided at the outlet of preheater 1 (i.e., PH1) and then again distributed at the outlet of
preheater 2 (i.e., PH2). The refrigerant vapor is generated in all three generators and finally
merged in condenser ‘C’. However, the remaining strong solution (the solution prepared
after boiling the refrigerant) flows back to the absorber to complete the cycle. In the same
way, the main generator is driven by the external heat source, while the other two are
operated through internal heat recovery (G3 is operated through C4, and G2 is operated
through C3). The cooling effect is produced at the evaporator.
ProcessesProcesses
2023, 11, x FOR
2023, PEER REVIEW
11, 2347 5 of 20 5 of

14 Product gases

4a 4
Combustion
Chamber Reactant
Condenser Qg = mf Qgas
(C3)
(Fuel+Air)
13
TV2 Main Generator (G)
15
4b Qg2 8 3
Main
Generator
Condenser
(G2)
Qc (C) 4c PH2

2d TV1 2c TV4 8a
2b
16 5
8b 2a
8c 8d
TV3 PH1

Weak solution stream 9

Primary generator solution stream 2
6 TV5
Secondary generator solution stream
Mixture of G and Gs solution stream 10
Refrigerant stream
Evaporator Absorber
(E) (A)
1 Wp
7

17 Qe 18 11 Qa 12

(a)
14 Product gases

Combustion
Chamber Reactant
4a Condenser 4 Qg = mf Qgas (Fuel+Air)
13
(C4)
TV1 Main Generator
4b Qg3 8 3
4d
Condenser Generator
PH3
(C3) 4c (G3)
TV2
8a 2f
15 TV6
4e Qg2
2h TV5 2g 8b
Main
Generator 2e
Qc Condenser
(G2) 8c 8d
(C) 4f
PH2

16 8e
5 8g TV7 2b
2d TV4 2c 8f
TV3 8h 2a
Weak solution (absorber-out)
Strong solution (generator G) PH1
6 Strong solution (generator G2) 9 2
Strong solution (generator G3) TV8
Strong solution (absorber-in)
10
Evaporator Refrigerant
(E) Absorber (A)
7 1
Wp
17 18 11 12
Qe Qa
(b)
Figure 1.1.(a)
Figure (a)Schematic plotofofdirect-fired
Schematic plot direct-fired parallel
parallel flowflow DE-VACS.
DE-VACS. (b) Schematic
(b) Schematic plot of direct-fire
plot of direct-fired
parallel flow TE-VACS.
parallel flow TE-VACS.

2.2. Parallel Flow TE-VACS

A schematic plot of parallel flow TE-VACS is depicted in Figure 1b. The workin
principle is quite similar to parallel flow DE-VACS. However, in this arrangement, the
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 6 of 20

3. System Modeling
To evaluate the thermodynamic performance of DE-VACS and TE-VACS, the energy
balance for all components must be written through the below expression:

. . dmcv
Mass balance: ∑in m − ∑out m = dt
, (1)

dEsystem . .
Energy balance : Ein − Eout = . (2)
dt
After referring to Figures 1 and 2, the expression for different components can be
written under steady-state conditions:
. . . . .
Absorber : m7 h7 + m10 h10 + m11 h11 − m1 h1 − m12 h12 = 0, (3)
. .
Solution pump : m1 h1 − m2 h2 + Wpump = 0, (4)
. . . .
Evaporator : m6 h6 + m17 h17 − m7 h7 − m18 h18 = 0, (5)
. . . . .
Main generator : m3 h3 + m13 h13 − m4 h4 − m8 h8 − m14 h14 = 0. (6)
For DE and TE-VACS, the equations shall be different for a few components.
Parallel Flow DE-VACS (see Figure 1):
. . . . .
Condenser ‘C’ : m4b h4b + m4c h4c + m15 h15 − m5 h5 − m16 h16 = 0. (7)

Generator-Condenser set (G2-C3):

. . . . .
m4 h4 + m2d h2d − m4a h4a − m4c h4c − m8c h8c = 0, (8)
m2b m
SDR : Z = = 2b .
m2a m1
Concentration at 8d:
1.0
X8d =
. (9)
Z/Xg + (1.0–Z )/Xgs

Parallel Flow TE-VACS (see Figure 2):

. . . . .
Condenser ‘C’ : m4b h4b + m4c h4c + m15 h15 − m5 h5 − m16 h16 = 0. (10)

Generator–condenser set G3 and C4:

. . . . .
m4 h4 + m2h h2h − m4a h4a − m4c h4c − m8c h8c . (11)

Generator–condenser set G2 and C3:

. . . . . .
m4b h4b + m4c h4c + m2d h2d − m4d h4d − m4f h4f − m8g h8g = 0. (12)

Solution distribution ratio:

solution entering in PH2 m solution entering in main generator m2 f

Z1 = = 2b , Z2 = = . (13)
solution leaving from PH1 m2a solution leaving from PH2 m2e

LiBr–salt concentration:
1.0 1.0
XJ1 = X8d =
, XJ2 = X8h =
, (14)
Z2 /Xg + (1.0 − Z2 )/Xg3 Z2 /Xg + (1.0–Z2 )/Xg3
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 7 of 20
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

e Q
COP = COP =; Q + W (15)(15)
g p

where
where
𝑄 = 𝑚 ℎ Q−e =
𝑚 mℎ
. = 𝑚. ℎ − . 𝑚 h ℎ17−and m17𝑄
.
h17 = 𝑚Qℎg =−m.𝑚h ℎ − +
m3𝑚
.
h3 ℎ+ m=8 h𝑚
. ℎ. − 𝑚 ℎ . .
7 h7 − m186 h618= m1817 18 and 4 4 8 = m14 h14 − m13 h13 .

START

Initialize Te = 278 K, Tc = 303 K, Tc3 = 333 K, Tc4 = 373 K,

Ta=Tc, Qe=300 kW

Is
Te ≤ 285 K No
Tc ≤ 312 K STOP
Tc3 ≤ 383 K
Tc4 ≤ 433 K

Yes
Calculate X a=f(Te,Ta) using concentration equation.
Initialize Xg1=Xa+0.1, Xg2=Xa+0.1 and X g3=Xa+0.1
Calculate Saturation Pressure, density, Specific Enthalpy of refrigerant
by using subroutines

Xg1=Xg1+0.1 Xg2=Xg2+0.1 Xg3=Xg3+0.1

Calculate Tg=f(Tc4,Xg), Tg3=f(Tc3 , Xg3) and Tg2=f(Tc , Xg2) using

concentration equation
and then calculate specific enthalpy/density/specific heat of solutions

Calculate heat load at each components

Check Energy
No Balance
Qc3 – Qg2 ≤ 0.001 kW
&
Xg3<Xc

Yes

Calculate heat load at condenser ‘C4'

Check Energy No
Balance
Qc4 – Qg3 ≤ 0.001 kW

Yes

Solve COP/ECOP/EDR and Volume flow rate of gases

Te=Te+2 K, Tc=Tc+3 K
Tc3=Tc3+1K, Tc4=Tc4+1K

Figure 2. Flow
Figure chart
2. Flow for the
chart for triple-effect parallel
the triple-effect flowflow
parallel cycle.
cycle.
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 8 of 20

3.1. Modeling of Energy Sources (LPG and CNG)

In the present work, the two gases were selected as the source to operate the main
generator of the VACS. These gases are eco-friendly, economical, and less toxic. The detailed
calculation of the volume flow rate of each gas was carried out in previous articles [6,44].
Here, only heat release is written through each gas, such as CNG (QC ) and LPG (QL ) and
their volume flow rate (Vfuel ):

2
QL = 51, 615.8 − 17.68 × Tp + 273.15 − 2.52 × 10−3 × Tp + 273.15 ,


(16)

2
QC = 53, 364.84 − 18.87 × Tp + 273.15 − 2.0 × 10−3 × Tp + 273.15 ,


(17)

Qg
Vfuel = × vgas ; m3 s−1 . (18)
Qfuel
For different gases such as CNG and LPG, Equation (18) will change accordingly.

3.2. Assumption and Solution Technique of the Present Work

In the present manuscript, certain assumptions were taken from [45], who simplified
the simulation under steady-state conditions. Table 2 shows the operating conditions for the
simulation of DE-VACS and TE-VACS. LiBr–water solution and refrigerant properties are
taken from [46–48]. To execute the simulation of both DE-VACS and TE-VACS, computer
codes were developed and written in FORTRAN 90. The calculation process is very
simple, first considering fixed parameters described in Table 2. The generator concentration
is increased in the loop, and the generator temperature is calculated with the help of
the respective condenser temperature. After that, heat loads at the main generator and
intermediate condenser are calculated. This calculation is repeated with increasing values
of LiBr concentration of both the generator, which makes the energy balance between the
intermediate generator and condenser lie within an error of ± 0.1 kJ/h. The coefficient of
performance and volume flow rate of both gases are estimated for different values of the
main generator temperature for fixed values of Te and Tc = Ta . For clarity of the calculation
process, the algorithm of the program is shown in Figure 2.

Table 2. Fixed operating conditions for DE-VACS and TE-VACS.

Properties Values
Evaporator Load 300 kW
Evaporator Temperatures (Te ) 4, 6, 8 and 10 ◦ C
Tcold Te + 5.0
Absorber/main condenser temperatures 30, 33, 36 and 39 ◦ C
Intermediate condenser/generator temperature, Tc3 From 45 ◦ C to 105 ◦ C
Intermediate condenser/generator temperature, Tc4 70 ◦ C to 135 ◦ C
Pump Efficiency, ηp , and Effectiveness, ε 85% and 70%
Z, Z1 , and Z2 0.1–0.7

4. Result and Discussion

LiBr–salt concentration plays an important role in the generator temperature and,
ultimately, the performance of VACS. In view of this, the variation in salt concentration
must be depicted. Figure 3 shows the variations in absorber concentration (Xa ), all gen-
erator concentrations (Xg , Xg2 , and Xg3 ), and crystallization concentration (Xc ) with Tg at
different Te of DE-VACS and TE-VACS. In Figure 3, all the condenser temperatures are
fixed (Tc4 = 110 ◦ C Tc3 = 65 ◦ C and Tc = Ta = 30 ◦ C), and the SDR of DE-VACS is Z = 0.36,
while in triple effect, it is Z1 = 0.3 and Z2 = 0.5. It is observed from the plots of Figure 3
that Xa remains constant with the increase in Tg . The concentration of LiBr–H2 O solution
 absorber is the function of the saturation temperature (Te) of the refrigerant vapo
LiBr–H2O solution temperature (Ta). Therefore, with the rise in Te, the values
decrease, while on increasing the temperature Ta, the values of Xa increase. In DE-V
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 the salt concentration of generator G2 (Xg2) is lower than the salt concentration 9 of 20 in the
generator (Xg), which is unlike the result obtained in series flow DE-VACS [43]. T
because the solution entering both generators has the same concentration (that is, Xa)
in theGabsorber
generator operates is the
atfunction
a higher of the saturation temperature
temperature; (Te ) of higher
as a result, the refrigerant
heat vapor
is supplied
and LiBr–H2 O solution temperature (Ta ). Therefore, with the rise in Te , the values of Xa
compared to generator
decrease, G2. This
while on increasing theis why more
temperature refrigerant
Ta, the values of Xvapor is generated in the
a increase. In DE-VACS,
generator compared
the salt to generator
concentration of generator G2.
G2 A similar
(Xg2 ) is lowereffect
than is
theobserved in the parallel
salt concentration in the flow
main generator (X ), which is unlike the result obtained in series
VACS cycle: Xg > Xg2 g> Xg3, which is again unlike the result obtained for series flow flow DE-VACS [43]. This
is because the solution entering both generators has the same concentration (that is, Xa ),
VACS [7].
and, generator G operates at a higher temperature; as a result, higher heat is supplied
Additionally,
to it compared LiBr–H
to generator2O solution
G2. This iscoming
why more from generators
refrigerant vapor is Ggenerated
and G2 mix in theat state
8d in parallel flow DE-VACS,
main generator while inG2.
compared to generator TE-VACS, the issolutions
A similar effect observed inmix at stateflow
the parallel points 8d
TE-VACS cycle: Xg > Xg2 > Xg3 , which is again unlike the result obtained for series flow
8h, respectively. The LiBr–salt concentration at state point 8d (X8d) lies between Xg an
TE-VACS [7].
in the caseAdditionally,
of parallelLiBr–H flow2 ODE-VACS.
solution coming Similarly, in theG case
from generators and G2of TE-VACS,
mix at state pointthe LiB
concentration at state
8d in parallel point 8d while
flow DE-VACS, (X8d)inwill lie between
TE-VACS, Xg and
the solutions mixX , while
atg3state at8d
points 8hand(X8h) it w
between 8h,Xrespectively. The LiBr–salt concentration at state point 8d (X8d ) liesat
g2 and Xg3, respectively. The LiBr–salt concentration
between Xg and
different mixing p
Xg2 in the case of parallel flow DE-VACS. Similarly, in the case of TE-VACS, the LiBr–salt
(that is,concentration
X8d and Xat 8h) is shown in Figure 4. Additionally, the salt concentration X8d o
state point 8d (X8d ) will lie between Xg and Xg3 , while at 8h (X8h ) it will lie
VACS andbetweenX8hXof TE-VACS
g2 and have the
Xg3 , respectively. Thesame trend
LiBr–salt because at
concentration they exit mixing
different at thepoints
same locati
(that is, X and X ) is shown in Figure 4. Additionally,
their respective8dcycles.8hThe trend of the salt concentration at state point X8d the salt concentration X 8d of
(parallel
DE-VACS and X8h of TE-VACS have the same trend because they exit at the same location
TE-VACS) is the same as found for Xg2. Moreover, with an increase in the evapo
of their respective cycles. The trend of the salt concentration at state point X8d (parallel
temperature,
flow TE-VACS)the operating
is the same asrange
found forofXg2the LiBr–salt
. Moreover, with anconcentration of each gene
increase in the evaporator
increases.
temperature, the operating range of the LiBr–salt concentration of each generator increases.

80
Tc=Ta=30oC Tc3=65oC,Tc4=110oC Te=4°C Te=6°C
Te=8°C Te=10°C
Concentration of LiBr salt, X (%)

75
Xc
Xc
70

65 Xg
Triple Effect
Double Effect Z1=0.3 and Z2=0.5
Z=0.36 Xg
60
Xg2
Xg2
55
Xg3
50
Xa Xa

45
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Main Generator Temperature, Tg in oC

Figure 3. Variation
Figure in LiBr–salt
3. Variation in LiBr–saltconcentration at different
concentration at different locations
locations offlow
of parallel parallel flow
DE-VACS DE-VAC
and
TE-VACS with T g.
TE-VACS with Tg .
 60 Tc=Ta=30oC Tc3=65oC,Tc4=110oC
X8d
X8d

Concentration of LiBr salt, X (%)

Processes
Processes 2023,
2023, 11, 11, 2347
x FOR PEER REVIEW Double Effect 10 of 10
20 of 20
Z=0.36
55
X8h
60 Tc=Ta=30oC Tc3=65oC,Tc4=110oC
X8d
X8d
Concentration of LiBr salt, X (%)

50 Double Effect
Z=0.36 Triple Effect
Z1=0.3 and Z2=0.5
55
X8h
Te=4°C Te=6°C
Te=8°C Te=10°C
45
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
50 Main Generator Temperature, Tg in oC
Triple Effect
Z1=0.3 and Z2=0.5
Figure 4. Variation in concentration of the LiBr–salt at mixing points of DE-VACS and TE-VACS
with TTe=4°C
g at different Te. Te=6°C
Te=8°C Te=10°C
45 4.1. Coefficient of Performance
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
The variation in COP of DE-VACS and TE-VACS with Tg is shown in Figure 5. The
intermediateMaincondensers
Generator Temperature,
temperature in both in oC is Tc3 = 65 °C (for DE-VACS and TE-
Tg cycles
VACS), Tc4 = 110 °C (for TE-VACS), and the main condenser temperature Tc = Ta = 30 °C is
Figure
fixed. 4.The
Variation
SDR ininparallel
concentration of the LiBr–salt
flow DE-VACS is takenatasmixing points
Z = 0.36, of DE-VACS
while in paralleland TE-VACS
flow TE-
Figure 4. Variation in concentration of the LiBr–salt at mixing points of DE-VACS and TE-VACS with
with
VACS Tg at
it different
is Z1 = 0.3Teand
. Z2 = 0.5. However, Te is varied from 4 °C to 10 °C.
Tg at different Te .
It is observed from Figure 5 that the values of COP initially increase with the rise in
Tg andCoefficient
4.1.4.1. reach aofof
Coefficient Performance
Performance
maximum. This is due to a decline in the generator load for fixed Qe and
Te. WithThe further increase
variation
The variation in COP ofin COPin T
ofg,DE-VACS
COP terminates
DE-VACS and becausewith
andTE-VACS
TE-VACS the
withsystem
T g is ismust
Tgshown showninhave in either
Figure faced
5. The
Figure 5. The
intermediate condensers temperature in both cycles is T = 65 ◦ C (for DE-VACS and TE-
crystallization or
intermediate condensers energy balance
temperature must in be
bothattained
cycles in
is the condenser–generator
c3Tc3 = 65 °C (for DE-VACS and TE- set(s).
VACS), Tc4 = with
Additionally, 110 ◦ Ca (for TE-VACS),
decrease in the and the main
values of Tcondenser
e, the COP temperature
of both systems = 30 ◦ C
Tc = Ta decreases.
VACS), Tc4 = 110 °C (for TE-VACS), and the main condenser temperature Tc = Ta = 30 °C is
is fixed. The
Maximum COPSDR for inSDRs
parallel
andflow DE-VACS
fixed temperaturesis takenareas marked
Z = 0.36,with whilecircles
in parallel flow 5.
in Figure
fixed. The SDR
TE-VACS it isthe
in parallel
Z1 COP
= 0.3 ofand
flow DE-VACS
Z2 = 0.5. is
However,
is taken as
Te is varied
Z = 0.36,
from ◦
4that
while
C to 10
in◦ parallel
C.
flow TE-
Furthermore, TE-VACS significantly higher
VACS it is Z1 = 0.3 and Z2 = 0.5. However, Te is varied from 4 °C to 10 °C. than of DE-VACS.
It is observed from Figure 5 that the values of COP initially increase with the rise in
2.2
Tg andTe=4°C
reach a maximum.
Tc=Ta=30oC,This
Tc3=65is due
oC,T tooCa decline in the generator load for fixed Qe and
c4=110
Te=6°C
Te. With further increase in Tg, COP terminates because the system must have either faced
Te=8°C
2 crystallization
Te=10°C or energy balance must be attained in the condenser–generator set(s).
Coefficient of Perfromance

Additionally, with a decrease in the values of Te, the COP of both systems decreases.
Maximum COP for SDRs and fixed temperatures are marked with circles in Figure 5.
1.8
Furthermore, the COP of TE-VACS is significantly higher than that of DE-VACS.
Double Effect
2.21.6 Z=0.36
Te=4°C Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC,Tc4=110oC
Te=6°C
Te=8°C
21.4 Te=10°C
Coefficient of Perfromance

1.81.2 Triple Effect

Z1=0.3 and Z2=0.5
Double Effect
1.6 1 Z=0.36
85 100 115 130 145 160 175
Main Generator Temperature (Tg in oC)

1.4
Figure 5. Variation in COP with Tg in DE-VACS and TE-VACS (all SDRs and generators temperatures
are fixed).
1.2
Triple Effect
Z1=0.3 and Z2=0.5

1
 Processes 2023, 11, 2347 11 of 20

It is observed from Figure 5 that the values of COP initially increase with the rise
in
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Tg and reach a maximum. This is due to a decline in the generator load for fixed Qe20
11 of
and Te . With further increase in Tg , COP terminates because the system must have either
faced crystallization or energy balance must be attained in the condenser–generator set(s).
Additionally, with a decrease in the values of Te , the COP of both systems decreases.
Figure 5. Variation in COP with Tg in DE-VACS and TE-VACS (all SDRs and generators
Maximum COP for SDRs and fixed temperatures are marked with circles in Figure 5.
temperatures are fixed).
Furthermore, the COP of TE-VACS is significantly higher than that of DE-VACS.
4.2.
4.2.LPG
LPGand
andCNG
CNGFlow
Flow Rate Rate
The
Theflow
flowrates
rates of
of LPG
LPG and and CNG
CNG withwith TTgg for parallel flow
for parallel flowDE-VACS
DE-VACSand andTE-VACS
TE-VACSare are
depicted
depictedin inFigure
Figure 6.6. ItIt is
is observed
observed that the LPG LPG and
and CNG
CNGvolume
volumeflow
flowrate
rateofofboth
bothVACS
VACS
decreases
decreaseswithwithaa rise
rise in Tgg,, attaining a minimum
minimum value value and
andthen
thenbecoming
becomingconstant
constantduedue
totocrystallization
crystallizationoror energy
energy balance between between the the condenser
condenserand andgenerator
generatorsets.sets.Further,
Further,it it
isisalso
alsoobserved
observedthatthat the
the flowflow rate of LPG
LPG andand CNG
CNGdeclines
declineswith
withaarise
riseininthe
theTeTand
e andthe
the
minimumflow
minimum flow rate
rate shift towards low low TTgg.. At high
high TTee, the
the concentration
concentrationininthe theabsorber
absorber
becomeslow,
becomes low, which
which provides
providesaalarge largeoperating
operatingrangerange ofof
thethe
main generator
main generator temperature.
temperature.It
is further observed that the flow rate of TE-VACS is lower compared
It is further observed that the flow rate of TE-VACS is lower compared to DE-VACS; the to DE-VACS; the COP
of TE-VACS
COP is higher
of TE-VACS than the
is higher COP
than theofCOP
DE-VACS. The trends
of DE-VACS. Theof the gas
trends of flow rateflow
the gas are exactly
rate are
the reverse of variation in the COP.
exactly the reverse of variation in the COP.

0.01
Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC,Tc4=110oC Te=4°C
Te=6°C
0.009 Te=8°C
Te=10°C
0.008
Volume Flow Rate (in m3 s-1)

0.007

0.006 CNG

0.005
Double Effect LPG Triple Effect
0.004 Z=0.36 Z1=0.3 and Z2=0.5
0.003

0.002

0.001
80 100 120 140 160 180
Main Generator Temperature, Tg in °C
Figure 6. LPG and CNG volume flow rates with Tg.
Figure 6. LPG and CNG volume flow rates with Tg .
It was observed through the literature that the operation of VACS is affected by
It was observed through the literature that the operation of VACS is affected by
generator
generatortemperature;
temperature; therefore, it is
therefore, it is necessary
necessary toto use
use all
all temperatures
temperaturesofofthe thegenerator(s)
generator(s)
totoattain high performance. Furthermore, SDRs also affect VACS
attain high performance. Furthermore, SDRs also affect VACS performance in the performance in case
the case
of
ofparallel
parallel flow configuration; therefore, optimization of SDR of parallel
flow configuration; therefore, optimization of SDR of parallel flow DE-VACS was flow DE-VACS
was discussed
discussed by Azhar
by Azhar and and Siddiqui
Siddiqui [43] in[43] in detail.
detail. However,However, the optimization
the optimization of parallel
of parallel flow
flow TE-VACS needs more clarification, which has not yet been discussed
TE-VACS needs more clarification, which has not yet been discussed in the open literature. in the open
literature. Parallel
Parallel effect TE-VACSeffecthave
TE-VACS
two SDRs have
(Z1 two
and ZSDRs (Z1 and
2 ), which Z2),towhich
are also are also
be optimized forto
thebe
optimized for the of
best performance best
theperformance of the system
system (i.e., maximum (i.e., maximum
COP/minimum COP/minimum
flow rate). flow
For clarity, the
rate). For clarity,
optimization the optimization
procedure is shown in procedure
four simpleis shown
steps. in four simple steps.
In the first step of optimization, COP variation with Tg is shown for different values
of Z2 in Figure 7, keeping the evaporator and all the condenser temperatures constant at
Tc4 = 110 °C, Tc3 = 65 °C, Tc = Ta = 30 °C, and Te = 4 °C; SDR Z1 = 0.3 must also be constant.
It was found that for each value of Z2, COP increases and then attains a maximum point
that has been circled in the same Figure 7. It can be observed that the system operates at
 Processes 2023, 11, 2347 12 of 20

OR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
In the first step of optimization, COP variation with Tg is shown for different values
of Z2 in Figure 7, keeping the evaporator and all the condenser temperatures constant at
Tc4 = 110 ◦ C, Tc3 = 65 ◦ C, Tc = Ta = 30 ◦ C, and Te = 4 ◦ C; SDR Z1 = 0.3 must also be constant.
It was found that for each value of Z2 , COP increases and then attains a maximum point
shift towards lowerthat Tghas
. Finally, frominFigure
been circled the same7,Figure
it was observed
7. It that the
can be observed thatmaximum of
the system operates
maximum COP is attained
at lower Tat Z2 = 0.4
g when Z2 isforlow.fixed intermediate
Moreover, condenser
when Z2 increases, temperatures
maximum COP alsoand increases
when Z1 = 0.3. (up to 0.2 to 0.4) and then declines. It is also noticed that shifting the maximum values of
COP
Similarly, in the shift towards
second step oflower Tg . Finally, from
optimization, Figure
SDRs Z17,and
it wasZ2observed that the
are varied, maximum of
keeping
maximum COP is attained at Z2 = 0.4 for fixed intermediate condenser temperatures and
other parameters (Twhen
c3 = 65 °C and Tc4 = 110 °C) constant. Figure 8a shows the variation in
Z1 = 0.3.
maximum COP with Z2Similarly,
for differentin thevalues
secondof Z1 of
step and selects a maximum
optimization, SDRs Z1 and ofZthe maximum
2 are varied, keeping
COP. Rise in Z1 and keeping
other parametersZ2 constant ◦
(Tc3 = 65 produces
C and Tc4 = a 110 ◦
similar effectFigure
C) constant. as deliberated
8a shows thein the in
variation
maximum COP with
first step of optimization. It is observed Z 2 for different values
from Figure 8a that of Z 1 and selects a maximum
the COP of VACS initially of the maximum
COP. Rise in Z1 and keeping Z2 constant produces a similar effect as deliberated in the first
increases, attains a maximum, and then decreases slowly. It is also noticed that the rise in
step of optimization. It is observed from Figure 8a that the COP of VACS initially increases,
the Z1 curve slightly flattens
attains and increases,
a maximum, and theslowly.
and then decreases COP Itpeakis alsoincreases up
noticed that thetorise
Z1in=the
0.55;
Z1 curve
after that, the curveslightly
flattens more,and
flattens and COP also
increases, and decreases.
the COP peak increases up to Z1 = 0.55; after that, the
The maximumcurveof maximum COP
flattens more, andhas COP been
also circled,
decreases.and both Z1 and Z2 are optimized
The maximum of maximum
in this step; other parameters that must be optimized COP hasin
been
thecircled,
coming andstep
both Z
of1 and Z2 are optimized
optimization
in this step; other parameters that must be optimized in the coming step of optimization
remain constant. For clear visibility of the results in Figure 8a, the optimum values of Z2
remain constant. For clear visibility of the results in Figure 8a, the optimum values of Z2
and COP obtained fromand COP Figure 8a are
obtained from shown
Figure in theshown
8a are form inofthebars
formin of
Figure
bars in8b.
Figure 8b.

1.9
Z2=0.2 Te=4oC,Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC,Tc4=110oC, Z1=0.3
Z2=0.25
Z2=0.3
1.8 Z2=0.35
Coefficient of Performance

Z2=0.4
Z2=0.45
1.7 Z2=0.5
Z2=0.55
Z2=0.6
Z2=0.65
1.6 Max. COP

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2
145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185
Main Generator Temperature (Tg in oC)

Figure 7. COP with Tg for different Z2 (Z1 and all generator temperatures are fixed).
Figure 7. COP with Tg for different Z2 (Z1 and all generator temperatures are fixed).

85 From Figure 8a,b, it can be noticed that the maximum value of COP is attained at
Te=4oC 1.6 1.9
TcZ = 0.5
=T1a=30 oC and Z = 0.4, keeping T = 65 o◦ C and TMaximum ◦
c4 = 110 C as constant. In the coming step,
.8 o
Tc3=65 C
2
Te =4oC, Tc3
=T
c a =30 C
the intermediate temperatures
Tc4=110oC
must be optimized. Figure 9a optimized the temperature
75 1.4 T =65oC,T =110oC
c3 c4
Tc4 and presented the variation in COP with Z1 , Z2 , and Tc4 . Again, the same method
was adopted for optimization, and the code was run for different values of Tc4 . It was
.7 1.2 1.8
observed that at each value of Tc4 , COP initially rise, attains a maximum point, and then
65 decreases.
1
Z1 and Z2

.6
COP

0.8 1.7
55
.5 0.6
 1.3

1.2
145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 Main Generator Temperature (Tg in oC) 13 of 20

Figure 7. COP with Tg for different Z2 (Z1 and all generator temperatures are fixed).

1.85
Te=4oC 1.6 1.9
1.8 Tc=Ta=30oC Maximum
Coefficient of Performance

Tc3=65oC Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC

Tc4=110oC 1.4 Tc3=65oC,Tc4=110oC
1.75
1.7 1.2 1.8
1.65
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1 13 of 20

Z1 and Z2
1.6

COP
0.8 1.7
1.55
1.5 0.6
Figure 8. (a) Variation in COP with Z 2 for different Z1. (b) Optimum values of Z2 and COP for

1.45 different Z1.

0.4 1.6
0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
First Solution From
Distribution
FigureRatio,
8a,b,Zit
2 can be noticed
0.2 that the maximum value of COP is attained at Z1
Z1=0.2 = 0.5 and Z2 = 0.4, keeping
Z1=0.25 Z1=0.3 Tc3 = 65 °C and Tc4 = 110 °C as constant. In the coming step, the
Z1=0.35 Z1=0.4 Z10.45 0
Z1=0.5 intermediate
Z1=0.55 temperatures
Z1=0.6 must be optimized. Figure 9a optimized the1.5temperature Tc4
Z1 Z2 Max. COP
Max. COP and presented the variation in COP with Z1, Z2, and Tc4. Again, the same method was
(a) for optimization, and the code was run for different
adopted (b) values of Tc4. It was observed
that at each value of Tc4, COP initially rise, attains a maximum point, and then decreases.
Figure 8. (a) Variation in COP with Z2 for different Z1 . (b) Optimum values of Z2 and COP for
At this stage, the intermediate condenser temperature Tc4 is optimized along with
different Z1 .
both SDRs. Again, for more clarity of the results, the optimum values of Z1, Z2, and COP
at each At arestage,
Tc4this shown in the formcondenser
the intermediate of bars in Figure 9b.
temperature Tc4The maximum
is optimized COP
along with attained
both in
SDRs.
Figure Again,
9a,b is atforTc4
more clarity
= 114 °C,ofZthe
1 = results, the optimum
0.45, and Z2 = 0.45values of Z1 , T
for fixed Zc3
2 , and
= 65COP
°C. atFurther,
each the
Tc4 are in
variation shown in the form
maximum COP of and
bars in Figure 9b.ZThe
optimum maximum COP attained in Figure 9a,b
1 and Z2 with Tc4 and Tg is shown in Figure
is at Tc4 = 114 ◦ C, Z1 = 0.45, and Z2 = 0.45 for fixed Tc3 = 65 ◦ C. Further, the variation in
10a,b. It is thus very interesting to see that as COP increases with Tc4, Z2 increases while
maximum COP and optimum Z1 and Z2 with Tc4 and Tg is shown in Figure 10a,b. It is
Z1 decreases simultaneously.
thus very interesting In as
to see that Figure 10a, it is with
COP increases also found that bothwhile
Tc4 , Z2 increases SDRsZ meet at a certain
1 decreases
value of Tc4 whereInthe
simultaneously. COP
Figure is itnear
10a, thefound
is also maximum
that bothvalue. The same
SDRs meet is the
at a certain caseofwith
value Tc4 Tg in
Figure
where10b.
the COP is near the maximum value. The same is the case with Tg in Figure 10b.

2 0.8 0.7 1.84

Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC Te=4oC
0.7 Z1 Z2 COP
Tc=Ta=30oC
1.95 0.6 Tc3=65oC
Second Solution Distribution Ratio, Z2

0.6 1.83
Coefficient of Performance

Z2
0.5
1.9 0.4 0.5 1.82
0.3
Maximum COP
Z1 and Z2

1.85
0.2 0.4 1.81
COP
0.1
1.8
0 0.3 1.8
1.75 -0.1
Tc4=104°C
Tc4=106°C
-0.2 0.2 1.79
1.7 Tc4=108°C
Tc4=110°C
-0.3
Tc4=112°C -0.4 0.1 1.78
Tc4=114°C
1.65 -0.5 104 106 108 110 112 114 116
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
First Solution Distribution Ratio, Z1 Tc4 (in oC)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. (a) COP
9. (a) and
COP andZZ2 2with
with Z
Z11 for differentT Tc4temperatures.
for different temperatures. (b) Optimum
(b) Optimum valuesvalues
of Z1 , Zof Z1, Z2, and
Figure c4 2 , and
COPCOP
from (a).
from (a).

1.84 0.7 1.84 0.7

Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC

1.835 0.6 1.835 0.6

0.5 0.5
 Tc4=112°C -0.4 0.1 1.78

S
Tc4=114°C
1.65 -0.5 104 106 108 110 112 114 116
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
First Solution Distribution Ratio, Z1 Tc4 (in oC)
(a) (b)
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 14 of 20
Figure 9. (a) COP and Z2 with Z1 for different Tc4 temperatures. (b) Optimum values of Z1, Z2, and
COP from (a).

1.84 0.7 1.84 0.7

Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC, Tc3=65oC

1.835 0.6 1.835 0.6

0.5 0.5
1.83 1.83
Maximum COP

Maximum COP

Z1 and Z2
0.4 0.4

Z1 and Z2
1.825 1.825
0.3 0.3
1.82 1.82
0.2 0.2
COP COP
1.815 1.815 0.1
Z2 0.1 Z2
Z1 Z1
1.81 0 1.81 0
104 PEER
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR 106 108 110 112 114 116 118
REVIEW 170 175 180 185 190 14 of 20
Condesner C4 Temperature, Tc4 (in °C) Main Generator Temperature, Tg (in °C)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. maximum COP, Z2, and Z1 with temperatures Tc4 (a) and Tg (b).
Figure 10. Maximum COP, Z2 , and Z1 with temperatures Tc4 (a) and Tg (b).

InInthe thefourth
fourthstepstepof of optimization,
optimization, the theaim aim is toisoptimize
to optimize the intermediate
the intermediate con-
condenser/generator temperature T for higher performance.
denser/generator temperature Tc3 for higher performance. The method that was selected
c3 The method that was
selected to optimize the other parameters Z , Z , and T was
to optimize the other parameters Z1 , Z2 , and Tc4 was repeated for different values of Tc3 .
1 2 c4 repeated for different values
Atofeach
Tc3. AtTc3each Tc3, we obtained
, we obtained the maximum
the maximum of the maximumof the maximum COP thatCOP that and
is noted is noted and
plotted
inplotted
Figurein11 Figure
in bars11 form.
in bars Itform.
was Italso
wasobserved
also observed that maximum
that maximum COPCOP was was achieved
achieved at
Tat T
= 66
c3 = ◦ C,°C,
66 and and correspondingly,
correspondingly, allall other
other optimized
optimized parameters
parameters were
were noted
noted down.
down. In
In
c3
Figure12,
Figure 12,all
allthe
theoptimized
optimizedgenerator
generatortemperatures
temperatureswere wereplotted
plottedwith withCOP.
COP.The Themethod
method
ofofoptimization
optimizationused usedtotooptimize
optimizeall allthe
theoperating
operatingparameters
parameterswas wasthe theiterative
iterativetechnique.
technique.
Thecomputer
The computercode code was
was run for for different
differentvalues
valuesofofZZ 1,1Z
, 1Z, 1T,c4T, c4
and Tc3,Tthe
, and c3 , maximum
the maximum COP
was was
COP selected in each
selected case,case,
in each andandfinally, the the
finally, most most optimum
optimum value valuewaswasobtained
obtained so that the
so that
design
the design engineers
engineers could
could work
workononthe thesame
samevalues
values for for the fixed fixed evaporator
evaporator and andmain
main
condenser/absorber
condenser/absorber temperatures.
temperatures. It should be be clear
clear that
that the theall-optimum
all-optimumvalues valueswillwill
change
changeonce oncethe theevaporator
evaporatorand andmain
maincondenser/absorber
condenser/absorbertemperatures temperatureschange. change.From From
Figure
Figure1212ititisisshown
shownthat thatthe most
the mostoptimum
optimum stages
stages reached
reached at Tate T=e 4= ◦4C°C
andand TcT=c =TaT= 30◦ C
a =30 °C
are T = 180 ◦ C, T = 104 ◦ C, T = 66 ◦ C, Z = 0.5, and Z = 0.45.
are Tg g = 180 °C, Tc4 c4 = 104 °C, Tc3 c3= 66 °C, Z1 1= 0.5, and Z2 =2 0.45.

Z1 Z2 Max. COP
1.6 2
Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC
1.4 1.8
1.2
1.6
Z1 and Z2

1
1.4
0.8
COP

1.2
0.6
1
0.4

0.2 0.8

0 0.6
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 70
Tc3 (in oC)

Figure 11. Maximum COP with Tc3 under different Z1 and Z2.
Figure 11. Maximum COP with Tc3 under different Z1 and Z2 .

Max. COP Tg Tc4

2 250
Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC
1.8
 0.2 0.8

0 0.6
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 70
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 Tc3 (in oC) 15 of 20

Figure 11. Maximum COP with Tc3 under different Z1 and Z2.

Max. COP Tg Tc4

2 250
Te=4oC, Tc=Ta=30oC
1.8
200
1.6

Tg & Tc4 (in oC)

150
1.4
COP

1.2
100

1
50
0.8
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20
0.6 0
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 70
Tc3 (in oC)
Figure 12. Maximum COP, Tg, and Tc4 with temperature Tc3.

Figure 12. Maximum COP, Tg , and Tc4 with temperature Tc3 .

Now, for different values of Te, the variation in maximum COP with Tg is shown in
FigureNow,
13a, keeping
for differentTc =values
Ta = 30 of °C
Te , fixed, yet all in
the variation themaximum
operating COPparameters
with Tg is(all generator
shown in
temperature and SDRs)
Figure 13a, keeping Tc =atTathis ◦ C fixed,
= 30stage are optimized. Similar plots
yet all the operating can also
parameters (all be drawn for
generator
other values ofand
temperature Tc =SDRs)
Ta. It atis this
alsostage
seen arethatoptimized.
COP increases with
Similar ancan
plots increase
also beindrawn
Te andforshifts
other values of T
towards lower generator c = T a . It is also seen that COP increases with an increase
temperature. The optimum COP for each Te is marked in T e and shifts
with a
towards
circle, whichlower generator
is the optimum temperature. The optimum
operating condition COP forflow
for parallel eachTE-VACS.
Te is marked with a
Additionally,
circle,
the whichCOP
optimum is theatoptimum
each Te operating
is shown condition
in the form forof
parallel
bars inflow TE-VACS.
Figure Additionally, the
13b. Furthermore,
the optimum COP at each Te is shown in the form of bars in Figure 13b. Furthermore, the
operating temperature in all three generators at different values of Te is shown in Figure
operating temperature in all three generators at different values of T is shown in Figure 14.
14. The main generator (Tg) has a very high temperature, ande the generator G3 has a
The main generator (Tg ) has a very high temperature, and the generator G3 has a somewhat
somewhat lower temperature (Tg3) than Tg. The generator G2 required a lower
lower temperature (Tg3 ) than Tg . The generator G2 required a lower temperature (Tg2 ) than
temperature
Tg3 . All the (T g2) than Tg3. All the generators showed decreasing temperature with an
generators showed decreasing temperature with an increase in Te which is
increase
obvious. in T e which is obvious.

2.2
2.2
Tc=Ta=30oC Optimum COP

2
Coefficient of Performance

1.8
COP

1.8
1.6

Te=4°C
1.4 Te=6°C
1.6
Te=8°C
Te=10°C
1.2
110 130 150 170 190 210 1.4
Main Generator Temperature (Tg in oC) Te=4°C Te=6°C Te=8°C Te=10°C

(a) (b)
Figure 13. (a) COP with Tg for different values of Te. (b) Optimum COP for different values of Te (all
Figure 13. (a) COP with Tg for different values of Te . (b) Optimum COP for different values of Te (all
parameters are optimized).
parameters are optimized).

200
Tc=Ta=30o Tg Tg3 Tg2
n oC)

160
 Te=10°C
1.2
110 130 150 170 190 210 1.4
Main Generator Temperature (Tg in oC) Te=4°C Te=6°C Te=8°C Te=10°C

(a) (b)
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 16 of 20
Figure 13. (a) COP with Tg for different values of Te. (b) Optimum COP for different values of Te (all
parameters are optimized).

200
Tc=Ta=30o Tg Tg3 Tg2

Generators Temperature (in oC)

160

120

80

40

Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW

0
Te=4°C Te=6°C Te=8°C Te=10°C

Figure14.
Figure 14.Optimum
Optimumgenerator
generatortemperatures
temperaturesatatdifferent
differentevaporator
evaporatortemperatures
temperatures(all
(alloperating
operating
Figure
parameters 15 demonstrates
are optimized). a comparison study between DE-VACS an
parameters are optimized).
= 4 °C and 10 °C, with Tc = Ta = 30 °C as fixed values. Additionally, the
Figure 15 demonstrates a comparison study between DE-VACS and TE-VACS for
were drawn after the optimization of operating parameters in both cycl
Te = 4 ◦ C and 10 ◦ C, with Tc = Ta = 30 ◦ C as fixed values. Additionally, the plots in
trend
Figure 15 is found
were drawnfor COP,
after which initially
the optimization increases,
of operating parametersreaches a maximum,
in both cycles. Here, an
a The
similarcomparison shows
trend is found for thatinitially
COP, which the COP of parallel
increases, flow TE-VACS
reaches a maximum, and then is ap
decreases. The comparison shows that the COP of parallel flow TE-VACS is approximately
higher than that of parallel flow DE-VACS. Furthermore, with an inc
32% higher than that of parallel flow DE-VACS. Furthermore, with an increase in Te , COP
increases,
increases, and
and the the optimum
optimum values
values of COP of COP
at higher Te shiftat higher
towards Te Tshift
lower g. towards low

2.2
Te=4°C Tc=Ta=30oC
2.1
Te=10°C
Coefficient of performance

2
1.9
Triple Effect
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4 DoubleEffect

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Main Generator Temperature (Tg in oC)
Figure
Figure 15. Maximum
15. Maximum COP ofand
COP of DE-VACS DE-VACS
TE-VACS. and TE-VACS.

After the optimization of the solution distribution ratio and temper

generator and intermediate generator/condenser, CNG and LPG volu
determined with the help of Equation 18. The flow rate of CNG and L
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 17 of 20

After the optimization of the solution distribution ratio and temperatures in the main
generator and intermediate generator/condenser, CNG and LPG volume flow rates are
determined with the help of Equation (18). The flow rate of CNG and LPG of both cycles
are presented and compared in Figure 16 for Te = 4 ◦ C and Tc = Ta = 30 ◦ C. It is seen that
the flow rate of CNG is significantly higher than that of LPG due to the difference in their
specific volume. The specific volume of CNG is higher than that of LPG. Additionally, the
minimum flow rate of LPG and CNG obtained correspond to the maximum COP in the
present analysis. Furthermore, the minimum flow rate obtained for parallel flow cycles at
each Te lies at a higher Tg than the series flow cycle. Therefore, it is inferred that parallel
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
flow cycles have higher COP and lower gas requirements than series flow cycles, but17they of 20
need high heat source temperatures.

0.0072 0.00225
CNG LPG

Volume flow rate of CNG gas, m3kg-1

Volume flow rate of CNG gas, m3kg-1

0.007 0.0022
Te=4oC, Tc=Ta =30oC
0.0068 0.00215

0.0066 0.0021

0.0064 0.00205

0.0062 0.002

0.006 0.00195

0.0058 0.0019

0.0056 0.00185
Triple Effect Double Effect

Figure 16. Comparison of minimum LPG and CNG volume flow rate of DE-VACS and TE-VACS.
Figure 16. Comparison of minimum LPG and CNG volume flow rate of DE-VACS and TE-VACS.

5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
InInthe
thepresent
presentcommunication,
communication,first,
first,a abrief
briefreview
reviewwaswasconducted
conductedon onVACS
VACSunderunder
different constructions and flow configurations. Additionally, parallel flow
different constructions and flow configurations. Additionally, parallel flow TE-VACS were TE-VACS
were simulated,
simulated, exploring
exploring the optimum
the optimum operating operating parameters
parameters such assuch as temperature
temperature and SDRs. and
SDRs.
The The comparison
comparison of DE-VACS
of DE-VACS and TE-VACS
and TE-VACS is presented
is presented for different
for different Te and Tec and
= TaT. cThe
= Ta.
The following
following observations
observations and conclusions
and conclusions mademade from from the present
the present workwork are listed
are listed below:
below:
i. Forthe
For thepurpose
purpose of of saving
saving high-grade energy, energy, VACS
VACS have havebecome
becomequite
quitepopular
popular
recentlyand
recently andhavehave been
been mademade more efficient
efficient through
through aaplethora
plethoraofofstudies.
studies.This
This
reviewshows
review showsthat thatcurrent
currentVACSVACSare aremore
moreefficient
efficientandandenvironmentally
environmentallyfriendly.
friendly.
ii.
ii. From the
From the literature
literaturereview,
review, it was also also
it was observed that the
observed working
that fluid flowfluid
the working configu-
flow
ration produces
configuration a high aimpact
produces on the on
high impact performance
the performanceof VACS. of VACS.
iii.
iii. The temperature
The temperature of of thetheintermediate
intermediate generator
generatoralsoalso
playsplays
a vitala role
vitalin role
the perfor-
in the
mance of DE-VACS
performance of DE-VACSand TE-VACS
and TE-VACS underunder
different flow configurations.
different flow configurations.
iv.
iv. TE-VACShave
TE-VACS havearound
around 32% 32% higher
higher performance
performance thanthan DE-VACS,
DE-VACS,while whilethey
theyrequire
require
15–20% less consumption of gases (LPG and CNG)
15–20% less consumption of gases (LPG and CNG) to operate the system. to operate the system.
v.
v. AsAsthe
thegenerator
generatortemperature
temperature plays plays an an important
important role role inin the
the performance
performance of ofTE-
TE-
VACS, T ,
VACS, Tg,gTg2g2T ( ≈ T ), and T
(≈Tc3),c3and Tg3 (≈T ( ≈ T
g3 c4) are ) are reported for maximum COP
c4 reported for maximum COP and minimum flow and minimum
flowof
rates rates
the of the gases.
gases.
vi.
vi. InInparallel
parallel flow
flow cycles,
cycles, SDR(s)
SDR(s) is/are also an
is/are also an important
important factorfactor in
indeciding
decidingthe the
performance optimized for maximum COP and minimum
performance optimized for maximum COP and minimum flow rate of the gases. flow rate of the gases.
vii. For Te = 4 °C and Tc = Ta = 30 °C, the optimum condition to run TE-VACS is Tg = 180
°C, Tc4 = 104 °C, Tc3 = 66 °C, Z1 = 0.5, and Z2 = 0.45. These values can be changed after
changing the evaporator and condenser temperature.
viii. Similarly, the optimum flow rate for the fixed evaporator and condenser
temperatures are 0.0022 (for DE-VACS) and 0.00197278 (for TE-VACS) for LPG, while
for CNG the values are 0.007082 (for DE-VACS) and 0.00620872 (for TE-VACS). These
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 18 of 20

vii. For Te = 4 ◦ C and Tc = Ta = 30 ◦ C, the optimum condition to run TE-VACS is

Tg = 180 ◦ C, Tc4 = 104 ◦ C, Tc3 = 66 ◦ C, Z1 = 0.5, and Z2 = 0.45. These values can be
changed after changing the evaporator and condenser temperature.
viii. Similarly, the optimum flow rate for the fixed evaporator and condenser tempera-
tures are 0.0022 (for DE-VACS) and 0.00197278 (for TE-VACS) for LPG, while for
CNG the values are 0.007082 (for DE-VACS) and 0.00620872 (for TE-VACS). These
values will help engineers who are working in the field of absorption refrigeration
systems. This is one of the key findings of the present manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

A absorber
C main condenser
COP coefficient of performance [-]
CNG compressed natural gas
E evaporator
G generator at which heat is supplied
h specific enthalpy [kJ kg−1 ]
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
LiBr lithium bromide salt
.
m rate of mass flow [kg s−1 ]
P pressure [kPa]
Q heat transfer rate [kJ s−1 ]
QC energy from CNG [kJ kg−1 CNG]
QL energy from LPG [kJ kg−1 LPG]
T temperature [◦ C]
Tcold cooled space temperature
TV throttle valve
V gas flow rate [m3 s−1 ]
Wp pump work [kW]
Greek Symbols:
Subscripts:
a absorber
c main condenser
e evaporator
g main generator

References
1. Meraj, M.; Khan, M.E.; Azhar, M. Performance analyses of photovoltaic thermal integrated concentrator collector combined
with single effect absorption cooling cycle: Constant flow rate mode. J. Energy Resour. Technol. Trans. ASME 2020, 142, 121305.
[CrossRef]
2. Keçeciler, A.; Acar, H.İ.; Doǧan, A. Thermodynamic analysis of the absorption refrigeration system with geothermal energy: An
experimental study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2000, 41, 37–48. [CrossRef]
3. Yang, M.; Lee, S.Y.; Chung, J.T.; Kang, Y.T. High efficiency H2 O/LiBr double effect absorption cycles with multi-heat sources for
tri-generation application. Appl. Energy 2017, 187, 243–254. [CrossRef]
4. Kaynakli, O.; Saka, K.; Kaynakli, F. Energy and exergy analysis of a double effect absorption refrigeration system based on
different heat sources. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 106, 21–30. [CrossRef]
5. Riffat, S.B.; Qiu, G. Comparative investigation of thermoelectric air-conditioners versus vapour compression and absorption
air-conditioners. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2004, 24, 1979–1993. [CrossRef]
6. Azhar, M.; Siddiqui, M.A. Optimization of operating temperatures in the gas operated single to triple effect vapour absorption
refrigeration cycles. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 82, 401–425. [CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 19 of 20

7. Azhar, M.; Siddiqui, M.A. Exergy analysis of single to triple effect lithium bromide-water vapour absorption cycles and
optimization of the operating parameters. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 180, 1225–1246. [CrossRef]
8. Karamangil, M.I.; Coskun, S.; Kaynakli, O.; Yamankaradeniz, N. A simulation study of performance evaluation of single-stage
absorption refrigeration system using conventional working fluids and alternatives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14,
1969–1978. [CrossRef]
9. Ahmad, T.; Azhar, M.; Sinha, M.K.; Meraj, M.; Mahbubul, I.M.; Ahmad, A. Energy analysis of lithium bromide-water and lithium
chloride-water based single effect vapour absorption refrigeration system: A comparison study. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 7,
100432. [CrossRef]
10. De Araújo, H.V.; Massuchetto, L.H.P.; do Nascimento, R.B.C.; de Carvalho, S.M.R.; Dangelo, J.V.H. Thermodynamic performance
analysis of a single-effect absorption refrigeration system operating with water and 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium-based ionic
liquids mixtures. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2022, 201, 117761. [CrossRef]
11. Saravanan, R.; Maiya, M.P. Thermodynamic comparison of water-based working fluid combinations for a vapour absorption
refrigeration system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 1998, 18, 553–568. [CrossRef]
12. Papadopoulos, A.I.; Kyriakides, A.-S.; Seferlis, P.; Hassan, I. Absorption refrigeration processes with organic working fluid
mixtures—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 109, 239–270. [CrossRef]
13. Qin, Y.; Li, N.; Zhang, H.; Liu, B. Thermodynamic performance of a modified −150 ◦ C refrigeration system coupled with
Linde-Hampson and three-stage auto-cascade using low-GWP refrigerants. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 236, 114093. [CrossRef]
14. Ratlamwala, T.A.H.; Dincer, I.; Gadalla, M.A. Performance analysis and evaluation of a triple-effect ammonia-water absorption-
refrigeration system. Int. J. Energy Res. 2013, 37, 475–483. [CrossRef]
15. Hugo, V.; Flores, F.; Román, J.C.; Alpírez, G.M. Performance Analysis of Different Working Fluids for an Absorption Refrigeration
Cycle. Am. J. Environ. Eng. 2014, 4, 1–10.
16. Xu, Z.Y.; Wang, R.Z. Absorption refrigeration cycles: Categorized based on the cycle construction. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 62, 114–136.
[CrossRef]
17. Talpada, J.S.; Ramana, P.V. A review on performance improvement of an absorption refrigeration system by modification of basic
cycle. Int. J. Ambient. Energy 2019, 40, 661–673. [CrossRef]
18. Ohuchi, T.; Usui, S.; Fukuda, T.N.A. Multistage Absorption Refrigeration System. U.S. Patent 4,520,634, 4 June 1985.
19. Domínguez-Inzunza, L.A.; Hernández-Magallanes, J.A.; Sandoval-Reyes, M.; Rivera, W. Comparison of the performance of
single-effect, half-effect, double-effect in series and inverse and triple-effect absorption cooling systems operating with the
NH3-LiNO3 mixture. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 66, 612–620. [CrossRef]
20. Maryami, R.; Dehghan, A.A. An exergy based comparative study between LiBr/water absorption refrigeration systems from half
effect to triple effect. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 124, 103–123. [CrossRef]
21. Nikbakhti, R.; Wang, X.; Hussein, A.K.; Iranmanesh, A. Absorption cooling systems—Review of various techniques for energy
performance enhancement. Alex. Eng. J. 2020, 59, 707–738. [CrossRef]
22. Arshi Banu, P.S.; Sudharsan, N.M. Review of water based vapour absorption cooling systems using thermodynamic analysis.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3750–3761. [CrossRef]
23. Mouneer, T.A.; Hawwash, A.A.; Aly, M.H.; Mina, E.M. Thermodynamic analysis for novel vapor compression/absorption cascade
refrigeration system for LNG liquefaction processes in Egypt. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 270, 116238. [CrossRef]
24. Aghdam, A.H.; Ranjbar, F.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S. Performance comparison of triple-effect parallel flow and series flow absorption
refrigeration systems. J. Appl. Sci. 2008, 8, 2913–2918. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, L.; You, S.; Zhang, H.; Li, X. Simulation of gas-fired triple-effect LiBr/water absorption cooling system with exhaust heat
recovery generator. Trans. Tianjin Univ. 2010, 16, 187–193. [CrossRef]
26. Azhar, M.; Siddiqui, M.A. First and Second Law Analyses of Double Effect Parallel and Series Flow Direct Fired Absorption
Cycles for Optimum Operating Parameters. J. Energy Resour. Technol. Trans. ASME 2019, 141, 124501. [CrossRef]
27. Chahartaghi, M.; Golmohammadi, H.; Shojaei, A.F. Performance analysis and optimization of new double effect lithium bromide–
water absorption chiller with series and parallel flows. Int. J. Refrig. 2019, 97, 73–87. [CrossRef]
28. Konwar, D.; Gogoi, T.K.; Das, A.J. Multi-objective optimization of double effect series and parallel flow water–lithium chloride
and water–lithium bromide absorption refrigeration systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 180, 425–441. [CrossRef]
29. Bagheri, B.S.; Shirmohammadi, R.; Mahmoudi, S.M.S.; Rosen, M.A. Optimization and comprehensive exergy-based analyses
of a parallel flow double-effect water-lithium bromide absorption refrigeration system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 152, 643–653.
[CrossRef]
30. Morosuk, T.; Tsatsaronis, G. A new approach to the exergy analysis of absorption refrigeration machines. Energy 2008, 33, 890–907.
[CrossRef]
31. Kelly, S.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Morosuk, T. Advanced exergetic analysis: Approaches for splitting the exergy destruction into
endogenous and exogenous parts. Energy 2009, 34, 384–391. [CrossRef]
32. Garousi Farshi, L.; Seyed Mahmoudi, S.M.; Rosen, M.A.; Yari, M. A comparative study of the performance characteristics of
double-effect absorption refrigeration systems. Int. J. Energy Res. 2012, 36, 182–192. [CrossRef]
33. Arshad, M.U.; Ghani, M.U.; Ullah, A.; Güngör, A.; Zaman, M. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of double effect
absorption refrigeration system using genetic algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 192, 292–307. [CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 2347 20 of 20

34. Ferwati, M.S.; Ahmad, A.M.; Takalkar, G.D.; Bicer, Y. Energy and exergy analysis of parallel flow double effect H2 O-[mmim][DMP]
absorption refrigeration system for solar powered district cooling. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021, 28, 101382. [CrossRef]
35. Arora, A.; Dixit, M.; Kaushik, S.C. Energy and exergy analysis of a double effect parallel flow LiBr/H2 O absorption refrigeration
system. J. Therm. Eng. 2016, 2, 541–549. [CrossRef]
36. Ahmed, S.; Mohammed, M.S.A.; Ul-Haq Gilani, S.I. Exergy analysis of a double-effect parallel-flow commercial steam absorption
chiller. J. Appl. Sci. 2012, 12, 2580–2585. [CrossRef]
37. Kaneesamkandi, Z.; Almujahid, A.; Salim, B. Selection of an Appropriate Solar Thermal Technology for Solar Vapor Absorption
Cooling—An MADM Approach. Energies 2022, 15, 1882. [CrossRef]
38. Yu, M.; Chen, Z.; Yao, D.; Zhao, F.; Pan, X.; Liu, X.; Cui, P.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, Y. Energy, exergy, economy analysis and multi-objective
optimization of a novel cascade absorption heat transformer driven by low-level waste heat. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 221,
113162. [CrossRef]
39. Gado, M.G.; Ookawara, S.; Nada, S.; El-Sharkawy, I.I. Hybrid sorption-vapor compression cooling systems: A comprehensive
overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110912. [CrossRef]
40. Yu, M.; Cui, P.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Yang, S. Advanced Exergy and Exergoeconomic Analysis of Cascade Absorption
Refrigeration System Driven by Low-Grade Waste Heat. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 16843–16857. [CrossRef]
41. Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.; Cui, P.; Yu, M.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Yang, S. Advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses
of a cascade absorption heat transformer for the recovery of low grade waste heat. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 205, 112392.
[CrossRef]
42. Kaita, Y. Simulation results of triple-effect absorption cycles. Int. J. Refrig. 2002, 25, 999–1007. [CrossRef]
43. Azhar, M.; Altamush Siddiqui, M. Comprehensive exergy analysis and optimization of operating parameters for double effect
parallel flow absorption refrigeration Cycle. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2020, 16, 100464. [CrossRef]
44. Azhar, M.; Siddiqui, M.A. Energy and Exergy Analyses for Optimization of the Operating Temperatures in Double Effect
Absorption Cycle. Energy Procedia 2017, 109, 211–218. [CrossRef]
45. Ansari, K.A.; Azhar, M.; Altamush Siddiqui, M. Exergy Analysis of Single-Effect Vapor Absorption System Using Design
Parameters. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2020, 143, 062105. [CrossRef]
46. Pátek, J.; Klomfar, J. A computationally effective formulation of the thermodynamic properties of LiBr-H2 O solutions from 273 to
500 K over full composition range. Int. J. Refrig. 2006, 29, 566–578. [CrossRef]
47. Altamush Siddiqui, M. Optimization of Operating Parameters for Various Absorption Systems Using Renewable Energies. Ph.D.
Thesis, Aligarh Muslim Univesity, Aligarh, India, 1992.
48. Pátek, J.; Klomfar, J. A simple formulation for thermodynamic properties of steam from 273 to 523 K, explicit in temperature and
pressure. Int. J. Refrig. 2009, 32, 1123–1125. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.