4.7 Article

Performance analysis and multi-objective optimization of an organic Rankine cycle with binary zeotropic working fluid employing modified artificial bee colony algorithm

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL ANALYSIS AND CALORIMETRY
卷 136, 期 4, 页码 1645-1665

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10973-018-7801-y

关键词

Binary zeotropic mixture; Organic Rankine cycle; Thermal efficiency; Exergy efficiency; Multi-objective optimization; Artificial bee colony algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

From a thermal point of view, zeotropic mixtures are likely to be more efficient than azeotropic fluids in low-temperature power cycles for reduction in exergy destruction occurring during heat absorption/rejection processes due to their suitable boiling characteristics. In this study, comprehensive energetic and exergetic analyses are mathematically performed for an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system employing a potential binary zeotropic working fluid, namely R717/water. For this purpose, initially mass, energy, and exergy balance equations are derived. With regard to the similarity in molar mass of R717 (17.03 g mol(-1)) and water (18.01 g mol(-1)), there is no need to alter the size of the ORC components such as turbine and pump. In order to achieve the optimal thermal and exergy efficiencies of the ORC system, modified version a powerful and relatively new optimization algorithm called artificial bee colony (ABC) is used taking into account different effective constraints. The main motivation behind using ABC lies on its robustness, reliability, and convergence rate speed in dealing with complicated constrained multi-objective problems. Convergence rates of the algorithm for optimal calculation of the efficiencies are presented. Subsequently, due to the importance of exergy concept in ORC systems, exergy destructions occurring in the components are computed. Finally, the impacts of pressure, temperature, mass fraction, and mass flow rate on the ORC thermal and exergy efficiencies are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据