4.7 Article

Thermodynamic study of main compression intercooling effects on supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle

期刊

ENERGY
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 746-756

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.027

关键词

Supercritical carbon dioxide; Recompression Brayton cycle; Intercooling; Parameters optimization; Efficiency improvement

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51436006]
  2. Joint Funds of the Equipment department and Education Ministry for Young Talents of China [6141A02033501]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle has emerged as a promising power cycle for various types of power conversion systems. In order to seek further performance improvement of supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle, thermodynamic effects of main compression intercooling (MCIC) are investigated in this work. Mathematical models were developed for Supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle with MCIC. Two key variable parameters, i.e., compressor pressure ratio and pressure ratio distribution between two main compression stages (represented with RPRMC,1), were optimized. Effects of working conditions on MCIC effects and the optimized parameters were investigated. A comprehensive comparison between cycles with and without MCIC was performed in four typical conditions from both design and off-design viewpoints. Results show that RPRMC,1 is more predominant to cycle efficiency than compressor pressure ratio. 2.65% efficiency improvement can be obtained by the integration of MCIC in the reference conditions. The variations of working conditions impact MCIC effects on cycle efficiencies. The optimized results of compressor pressure ratio and RPRMC,1 are affected by the variation of minimum temperature, maximum temperature and maximum pressure. In addition to cycle efficiency improvement, the integration of MCIC also shows potentials in costs saving and cycle robustness improvement. 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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