4.5 Article

Development and a Validation of a Charge Sensitive Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Simulation Tool

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/en9060389

关键词

organic Rankine cycle; charge-based solver; cycle modeling; scroll expander; single-screw expander

资金

  1. Knowledge Center on Organic Rankine Cycle technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the increasing interest in organic Rankine cycle (ORC) systems and the large number of cycle models proposed in the literature, charge-based ORC models are still almost absent. In this paper, a detailed overall ORC simulation model is presented based on two solution strategies: condenser subcooling and total working fluid charge of the system. The latter allows the subcooling level to be predicted rather than specified as an input. The overall cycle model is composed of independent models for pump, expander, line sets, liquid receiver and heat exchangers. Empirical and semi-empirical models are adopted for the pump and expander, respectively. A generalized steady-state moving boundary method is used to model the heat exchangers. The line sets and liquid receiver are used to better estimate the total charge of the system and pressure drops. Finally, the individual components are connected to form a cycle model in an object-oriented fashion. The solution algorithm includes a preconditioner to guess reasonable values for the evaporating and condensing temperatures and a main cycle solver loop which drives to zero a set of residuals to ensure the convergence of the solution. The model has been developed in the Python programming language. A thorough validation is then carried out against experimental data obtained from two test setups having different nominal size, working fluids and individual components: (i) a regenerative ORC with a 5 kW scroll expander and an oil flooding loop; (ii) a regenerative ORC with a 11 kW single-screw expander. The computer code is made available through open-source dissemination.

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

4.5
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