4.7 Article

Comparison of dual-pressure organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixtures

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 204, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117996

关键词

Dual pressure; Organic Rankine cycle; Zeotropic mixtures; Condensation temperature optimization; Temperature glide

资金

  1. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation [ZR2020ME171]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The DORC using zeotropic mixtures can reduce irreversible losses, improve net power output, and selecting optimal mass fraction zeotropic mixtures is crucial for enhancing performance. Consideration of temperature glide under condensation pressure is important in mixture selection for DORC.
The dual-evaporation organic Rankine cycle (DORC) using zeotropic mixtures can effectively reduce the irreversible loss both in the evaporator and condenser, and thus improve the net power output compared to the DORC using pure working fluid. This paper investigated the DORC using zeotropic mixtures for recovering lowgrade energy. The effects of different condensation temperatures (fixed dew point and fixed bubble point condensation temperature, optimized condensation temperature), temperature glide of zeotropic mixtures and cooling water temperature rise on the net power output of the DORC were investigated. The results indicate that the DORC using zeotropic mixtures under optimal mass fraction can improve the net power output by 6.4-16.6% compared to the DORC using pure working fluid. In selecting the zeotropic mixtures for the DORC, the maximum value of the temperature glide of the zeotropic mixtures under condensation pressure should be larger than the cooling medium temperature increase. The irreversible loss in the evaporator is the most among the four irreversible losses, followed by that in the condenser. However, the effect of irreversible loss in the condenser on the variation trend of the total irreversible loss is the most significant.

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