4.7 Article

How to evaluate the performance of sub-critical Organic Rankine Cycle from key properties of working fluids by group contribution methods?

Journal

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 221, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113204

Keywords

Organic Rankine Cycle; Working fluids; Key properties; Artificial neural network; Group contribution method

Funding

  1. program Development and application of ORC technology [kq1901116]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An artificial neural network (ANN) model is developed to predict the ORC performance from key properties of working fluids, including critical temperature, critical pressure, acentric factor and ideal gas heat capacity, based on the 5400 calculated data from REFPROP for 54 working fluids. When these key properties are unknown for working fluids, group contribution methods (GCMs) are employed to combine with the established ANN. For the considered three GCM-ANN models, 21 potential working fluids of ORC are used to evaluate the accuracy in the prediction of key properties and cycle parameters. From the obtained results, it can be concluded that the developed ANN has average absolute deviations (AADs) 5.9866%, 0.1024%, 0.9684%, 0.1131% and 1.6283% for pump work, evaporation heat, turbine work, condensation heat and cycle efficiency, respectively. For key properties, accuracy of critical temperature has the most significant effect on the ORC predictions. As for the three GCMs, SU-GCM has the least deviations for the prediction of properties. The corresponding AADs of GCM-ANN model are 15.89%, 10.73%, 12.88%, 10.40% and 2.51% for pump work, evaporation heat, turbine work, condensation heat and cycle efficiency, respectively. When key properties are obtained from experiments or GCMs, the developed ANN can be applied to predict ORC performances for any working fluid easily and quickly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available