Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Multi-objective optimization of a combined steam-organic Rankine cycle

based on exergy and exergo-economic analysis for waste heat recovery
application
Navid Nazari a,, Parisa Heidarnejad b, Soheil Porkhial c
a
NARGAN Company, Tehran, Iran
b
Graduate Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
c
Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a combined steam-organic Rankine cycle is proposed to recover the waste heat of a gas tur-
Received 7 May 2016 bine. Proposed combined system includes a subcritical steam Rankine cycle that is coupled with a tran-
Received in revised form 17 August 2016 scritical organic Rankine cycle. Three different organic fluids such as R124, R152a, and R134a are selected
Accepted 6 September 2016
to monitor the thermodynamic and exergo-economic performance of the system. Results show that max-
imum exergy efficiency and minimum total product cost rate of a studied system for the base case con-
dition are 57.62% and 396.7 ($/h) for the combined cycle with R124 and R152a, respectively. Also, a
Keywords:
parametric study is performed to investigate the effects of key parameters including steam turbine inlet
Combined cycle
Exergy
pressure, organic turbine inlet pressure, organic preheater pinch temperature and organic condensation
Exergo-economic temperature on exergetic efficiency and total product cost rate of the system. Finally, the Genetic algo-
Genetic algorithm rithm is employed to conduct a multi-objective optimization of the system with two objective functions
Waste heat recovery including exergy efficiency and total product cost rate. The results of optimization revealed that com-
Multi-objective optimization bined cycle with R152a has the best performance from thermodynamic and exergo-economic viewpoint
among analyzed fluids.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In respect to limited resources of fossil fuel and also destructive
environmental effects result from consumption of these resources,
it is vital to develop efficient and clean energy technologies. As it is
reported, approximately 2050% of industrial energy use is wasted
in the form of flue gasses [1]. The waste heat recovery of industrial
flue gasses results in a reduction of CO2 emissions in addition to
the decrement of fossil fuel consumption [2]. One of the main
sources of industrial waste heat is rejected exhaust gas from the
gas turbine. Combined cycle plant in which the rejected waste heat
of a gas turbine is used to generate power through steam Rankine
cycle is a mature technology and appeared to be very successful in
the improvement of overall system efficiency and therefore reduc-
ing pollutant emissions [3]. Different enhancement in gas turbine
technology and also improvement and optimization of heat recov-
ery steam generator (HRSG) leads to higher combined cycle plant
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Nazari.Nvd@gmail.com (N. Nazari), P.heidarnejad@ut.ac.ir
(P. Heidarnejad), Porkhial@yahoo.com (S. Porkhial).
efficiency [4]. Although all of these methods have been helpful
an enormous amount of heat in the range of 100200 C is still
rejected to the environment which could not be recovered through
another downstream steam cycle. For this purpose, dual loop heat
recovery system could be a solution to more efficiently utilize
exhaust waste heat even at low temperatures. Steam-organic dual
loop recovery system consists of a topping loop in which high-
temperature water is used to produce power through a common
SRC, followed by a bottoming loop in which the residual thermal
energy is recovered by an ORC.
Many investigations have been evaluated the applications of
dual loop system for exhaust waste recovery of internal combus-
tion engines. Shu et al. [5] proposed a dual loop system to recover
the waste heat of the exhaust and the engine coolant and the resid-
ual heat of the high-temperature cycle. Two different cycles includ-
ing subcriticalsubcritical (sub-sub) and subcriticaltranscritical
(sub-trans) were defined to analysis the system. With considera-
tion of net power output and exergy efficiency as the objective
function, results show that R143a-based sub-trans DORC system
performs the best. The effects of varying the HT loop condensation
temperature and the residual heat load on the LT loop of a dual

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.022
0196-8904/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379 367

Nomenclature

A surface area (m2) wf working fluid

c cost per exergy unit ($/GJ) gen generator
C_ cost rate ($/h) cri critical
f exergo-economic factor (%) max maximum
i interest rate (%) min minimum
m _ mass flow rate (kg/s) hs hot side
q_ heat rate (kW) cs cold side
r relative cost difference (%) I first law
t system operating hours (h) II second law
T temperature (C or K) K component
s entropy (kJ/kg) fg flue gas
h enthalpy (kJ/kg) st steam
V volume (m3) cw cooling water
W _ power (kW)
_
EX exergy rate (kW) Superscripts
Z investment cost ($) CI capital investment
Z_ investment cost rate ($/year) N component lifetime (year)
U overall heat transfer coefficient (kW/m2 k)
Greeksymbols
Subscripts g efficiency (%)
0 ambient condition e effectiveness (%)
1, 2, 3, . . . State point heat transfer coefficient (w/m2 k)
Cond condenser D difference
D destruction
e exit Abbreviation
elec electric generator
SORC Steam-organic Rankine cycle
vg vapor generator SRC Steam Rankine cycle
F fuel ORC Organic Rankine cycle
P product GWP Global warming potential
i inlet
ODP Ozone depletion potential
net net CEPCI Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
q heat CRF Capital Recovery Factor
w power EES Engineering Equation Solver
Pre preheater
SPECO Specific Exergy Costing
exp expander

loop system were evaluated by Song and Gu [6]. Based on the
results, the maximum net power output of the dual loop ORC sys-
tem can increase the engine power by 11.2%. Tian et al. [7] assessed
a regenerative transcritical dual-loop ORC to recover the waste
heat of the exhaust, engine coolant and all the residual heat of
the HT loop. Their results revealed that toluene is the best working
fluid from the thermodynamic point of view. Zhou et al. [8] evalu-
ated the use of organic mixtures as working fluid in the low-
temperature loop of dual loop system for waste heat recovery from
the internal combustion engine. Results showed that a better sys-
tem performance could be achieved by the use of organic mixtures
than pure fluids. Sciubba et al. [9] compared a single loop and a
dual loop waste recovery system specifically designed for marine
engines of the different power range. The results showed that add-
ing a second recovery loop improves the system performance in
terms of recovered electric power up to 8.11%. Yang et al. [10]
researched a dual loop system in which both HT and LT loop were
ORC for waste heat recovery of a diesel engine. The assessment
revealed that thermal efficiency increased by 13% for the combined
system with R245fa. Choi and Kim [11] proposed a dual loop sys-
tem that comprises an upper trilateral cycle and a lower organic
Rankine cycle to recover the waste heat of a container ship engine.
The results confirmed that the energy and exergy efficiencies of the
dual loop system were higher than the single loop trilateral cycle.
In another study, Song et al. [12] investigated the use of screw
expander for wet steam expansion in HT loop of a dual loop system
to recover the waste heat of a diesel engine. The results confirmed
that with the use of dual-loop ORC system, the original power out-
put of the diesel engine increased about 11.6%.
In addition to investigations mentioned above, which mainly
emphasizes on the application of DORC for exhaust recovery of
ICE, Al Sulaiman [13] performed a detail exergy analysis of a com-
bined steam-organic Rankine cycle driven by parabolic trough
solar collectors. Among the selected organic fluids, the combined
cycle with R134a demonstrates the best exergetic performance
with maximum exergetic efficiency. Also in Ref. [14], Li et al. pro-
posed a cascade system for solar electricity generation. Screw
expander is employed in the top steam Rankine cycle. They
reported that efficiency of 13.6815.62% for the proposed system
could be achieved.
Apart from thermodynamic aspects, different methods such as
net present value, internal rate of return, annual cost were used
to ensure the feasibility of the energy systems from economic
viewpoint [15]. In recent decades, exergo-economics has been
increasingly employed in different research to achieve more prac-
tical plant design. Yang et al. [16] performed a multi-objective
optimization of an ORC for exhaust waste heat recovery of a diesel
engine. The results revealed that R245fa is the most suitable work-
ing fluid from the thermo-economic viewpoint. Fergani et al. [17]
performed a multi-criteria exergy based optimization of an ORC
with three different working fluids for waste heat recovery in the
cement industry considering exergy efficiency and the cost per
368 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379
exergy unit as objective functions. Results indicated that there is
an optimal turbine inlet pressure for each working fluid in which
exergy efficiency is maximal, and cost per exergy unit is minimal.
Imran et al. [17] researched a thermo-economic optimization of
regenerative ORC for waste heat recovery applications. Maximum
thermal efficiency and minimum specific investment cost were
selected as objective functions. The optimization results showed
that basic ORC has low specific investment cost and thermal effi-
ciency compared to regenerative ORC. Zare [18] performed a com-
parative exergo-economic analysis of different ORC configurations
for binary geothermal power plants. The results indicate that the
ORC with internal heat exchanger has better performance from
thermodynamic view while the simple ORC is the best among
the considered cycles from the economic standpoint. In another
study, Amini et al. discussed a thermo-economic optimization of
CO2 transcritical Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery application
[19]. Based on the presented results, the cycle costs are more influ-
enced by the maximum pressure rather than the maximum
temperature.
From the review of the presented literature, it can be observed
that there is not enough information about the exergo-economic
performance of the combined steam-organic cycle.
In this paper, an exergo-economic analysis of a combined
steam-organic Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery of exhaust
flue gasses of a gas turbine is performed to achieve better knowl-
edge of each decision variables. Different organic fluids such as
R124, R152a, and R134a are used in the parametric study. Also,
various key parameters such as turbine inlet pressure of steam
and organic cycles, organic preheater pinch temperature and con-
densation temperature of ORC are varied to investigate their effects
on performance of combined cycle. Finally, multi-objective opti-
mization of the performance of the studied system is carried out
using GA, and a Pareto frontier is shown for a better selection of
design parameters of the system.
2. System modeling
In this section, a detail description of proposed combined sys-
tem for waste heat recovery from the exhaust gas of a gas turbine
with respect to the thermodynamical and economic aspects is
presented.
2.1. System description
The schematic process flow diagram and corresponding T-S
curve of proposed combined steam-organic Rankine cycle are
shown in Fig. 1a and b, respectively. Both cycles consist of vapor
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic process flow diagram and (b) T-S diagram of combined steam-organic Rankine cycle.
generator, expander, condenser, and pump. The topping cycle
recovers the heat contained in the exhaust flue gasses of gas tur-
bine while the bottoming cycle utilizes the residual heat rejected
from both the steam condenser and flue gasses. The steam topping
loop and organic bottoming loop are coupled via a heat exchanger,
which works as a condenser for the topping loop and preheater for
the bottoming loop. In the high-temperature loop, the water at liq-
uid state (4) is pumped to the vapor generator, which consists of
economizer, evaporator, and superheater. In the vapor generator,
first water temperature is increased to the appropriate evaporation
temperature and after passing two-phase region, steam is super-
heated to the sufficient degree (1). All the required heat to increase
water temperature from saturated liquid state to superheated
steam state is recovered from the exhaust flue gasses of the gas
turbine. Then the superheated steam is expanded in the turbine
to produce mechanical work, which can be converted to electricity
via a generator. To achieve maximum thermal efficiency, expanded
steam (2) from turbine exit should be cooled down and condensed
(3). In this state rejected heat from the expanded steam is used by
the bottoming loop. In the bottoming loop first, the organic fluid is
pumped to the preheater (10) in which it is heated up to the tem-
perature of topping steam (10a). In further, organic fluid tempera-
ture increase to its critical temperature (5) via another heat
exchanger that utilize waste heat of exhaust flue gasses of the
gas turbine. In the next step, the organic vapor is expanded in
the turbine (6), and electrical power is generated. After turbine,
the organic vapor is condensed (7) by the cooling water in the con-
denser (8).
2.2. First law analysis
The following mass and energy balance equations with assum-
ing steady state condition and neglecting the changes of kinetic
and potential energies were used to develop a thermodynamic
model for each component of the system.
X X
_i
m _e
m 1
X X X X
q_ _ i hi
m _
w _ e he
m 2
Therefore, the first law efficiency of the combined S-ORC is
expressed as:
_
W _
W
gI;total _ net _ net;SORC
3
Q in mfg C p:fg T 16  T 18
where W_ net and m
_ fg refer to the total net power output of the com-
bined cycle and the mass flow rate of flue gases, respectively.
 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379 369

Table 1
Energy balance equation of each component of the system.

Component SRC ORC

Vapor generator Q_ v g;SRC m
_ st h1  h4 m_ fg C p:fg T 16  T 17 Q_ v g;ORC m
_ wf h5  h5a m_ fg C p:fg T 17  T 18 , Q_ pre;ORC m
_ wf h5a  h10 m
_ st h2  h3
Expander w_ exp;SRC m_ st h1  h2s gexp;SRC ggen;SRC w_ exp;ORC m_ wf h5  h6s gexp;ORC ggen;ORC
Condenser Q_ cond;SRC m
_ st h2  h3 Q_ cond;ORC m
_ wf h6  h7 m
_ cw h9  h8
Pump _ pump;SRC m_ gst h4s h3
w w
_
_ pump;ORC mwfg h10s h7
pump;SRC pump;ORC

Governing equations used in the first law analysis of each compo- process. Governing equations that are used to calculate capital
nent of the system are presented in Table 1. investment cost, Z_ k , for each component of the combined cycle
are presented on Appendix A in detail.
2.3. Second law analysis In the components of an energy system, the number of inlet and
outlet streams of each component is usually more than one; there-
In the evaluation of system performance especially in conjunc- fore, auxiliary equations are required for solving the exergo-
tion with economic consideration, exergy analysis is a useful tool economic balance equations. With the aid of SEPCO method, the
to identify exergy destruction/losses at each equipment and there- auxiliary equations can be formed based on the F and P rules
fore finding possibilities of thermodynamic improvement of the [20]. The F rule refers to the removal of exergy from an exergy
process. The exergy flow rate at each state point with neglecting stream within the component being considered. Based on the F-
the chemical, kinetic and potential energies is expressed as: rule, average specific cost (cost per exergy unit) associated with
_ mh exergy removal from a fuel stream must be equal to the average
Ex _ i  h0  T 0 Si  S0 4 specific cost at which the removed exergy was supplied to the
Moreover, the exergy destruction rate at the outlet of each com- same stream in upstream components. The P rule refers to the sup-
ponent can be written as: ply of exergy to an exergy stream and states each exergy unit is
X X supplied to any stream associated with the exergetic product of
_ D
Ex _ in 
Ex _ out
Ex 5 the component at the same average cost (cP). Finally, by developing
Eq. (7) for each component of the system and employing the aux-
Finally, the exergy or second law efficiency of the combined S-
iliary equations obtained by P and F rules, the cost rate of each
ORC can be expressed as:
stream can be calculated [20].
_
W _
W In the case of combined steam-organic cycle, cost rate balance
gII;total _ net _ net;SORC
6 and auxiliary equations of each component are presented in
Exin mfg h16  h18  T 0 S16  S18
Table 2.
To evaluate the performance of each component of the system
2.4. Exergo-economic analysis from exergo-economic approach several parameters such as the
average cost per unit exergy of fuel (C F;k ), the average cost per unit
In order to achieve cost-effective system design, aside from exergy of product (C P;k ), the relative cost difference (rk), the
thermodynamic studies, economic evaluation should also be con- exergo-economic factor (fk) and the cost flow rate associated with
sidered. Exergo-economic is an engineering tool that combines the exergy destruction (C_ D ) are used. These parameters are defined
exergy analysis and economic principles to provide crucial infor- as follows:
mation about the cost of each exergy streams and therefore finding
inefficiencies reason in the system [20]. In this study, SEPCO C_ F;k
method [21] is used to perform an exergo-economic evaluation CF;k 9
X_ F;k
of the proposed system. To evaluate the system using SEPCO
method, following steps should carry out:
C_ P;k
CP;k 10
Determining exergetic flows at each stream. X_ P;k
Defining the fuel and product of each part. All exergy additions
to a component are considered the fuel and all exergy removals
from a component are considered the product [21]. C_ D;k
CD;k 11
Finally developing cost flow rate balance for each element X_ D;k
which is expressed as follows:
X X CP;k  CF;k
C_ e;k C_ W;k C_ i;k C_ Q ;k Z_ k 7 rk
CF;k
12
e i

where e and i stand for entering and exiting streams for compo-
Z_ K
nents k. Z_ k represents the entire total cost rate related to capital fk 13
Z_ K C_ D;k C_ L;k
investment of the Component k. In the above equation, C_ is the cost
rate ($/h) which can be expressed as a function of the cost per unit Based on Eq. (12), r k accounts for the difference between the
of exergy for exergy streams (c) [20]: specific product and fuel cost for each component that is due to
cost rate of exergy destruction (C_ D;k ) and cost rate associated with
C_ cE_ 8 _ Also the exergo-economic factor, f k , is a
the investment cost (Z).
Based on Eq. (8), for a system component the overall cost rate of all parameter which shows the relative importance of a component
exiting exergy streams is equal to the sum of all entering exergy cost to the cost of exergy destruction and the loss associated with
streams expenses plus the entire rate of payments to perform the that component.
370 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379

Table 2
Cost rate balance and auxiliary equations for the combined cycles components.

Components Cost balance and auxiliary equations

SRC ORC
Vapor generator C_ 16  C_ 17 Z_ SRC;v g C_ 1  C_ 4 C_ 17  C_ 18 Z_ ORC;v g C_ 5  C_ 10a
c16 c16 c17 c18
Expander C_ 1 Z_ SRC;exp C_ 2 C_ w;SRC;exp C_ 5 Z_ ORC;exp C_ 6 C_ w;ORC;exp
c1 c2 , cp;SRC;exp cw;SRC;exp c5 c6 , cp;ORC;exp cw;ORC;exp
Generator C_ w;SRC;exp Z_ SRC;gen C_ w;SRC;elc C_ w;ORC;exp Z_ ORC;gen C_ w;ORC;elc
cf ;SRC;gen cw;SRC;exp , cf ;ORC;gen cw;ORC;exp ,
cp;SRC;gen cw;SRC;elc cp;ORC;gen cw;ORC;elc

Pump C_ 3 Z_ SRC;pump C_ w;SRC;pump C_ 4 C_ w;ORC;pump Z_ ORC;pump C_ 10  C_ 7

cf ;SRC;pump cw;SRC;pump , cw;SRC;pump cw;SRC;exp cf ;ORC;pump cw;ORC;pump , cw;ORC;pump cw;ORC;exp

Condenser C_ 2  C_ 3 Z_ SRC;cond C_ 5  C_ 10 C_ 6  C_ 7 Z_ ORC;cond C_ 9  C_ 8

c2 c3 c6 c7 , c8 0

3. Multi-objective optimization
Table 3
Limit of decision variables in optimization procedure.
In various disciplines including energy systems, often it is
required to minimize or maximize simultaneously two or more Decision variables (constraints) Limit

conflicting objectives. For this reason, multi-objective optimization
techniques are handy tools that can be used to achieve the best
system design. In contrast to the single-objective optimization
problem, solution to a multi-objective problem is a range of opti-
mal points, which is called Pareto-frontier [22]. Although each
point in Pareto-frontier could be selected as an optimal solution,
but the selection of a single optimum point from existing points
on the Pareto front is mostly carried out based on the engineering
experiences and the importance of each objective for decision
makers. However, the Pareto optimal solution can also be selected
with the aid of a hypothetical point named as equilibrium or ideal
point, in which both objectives have their optimal values indepen-
dent of the other objectives but not exist in reality [23]. Therefore
the nearest point of Pareto-frontier curve to the ideal point can be
chosen as a desired final optimal solution which defined as a
Pareto-optimal solution. In this study, LINMAP method was used
to find the final optimum solution in Pareto front. In the LINMAP
method, each objective is nondimensionalized using the following
relation:
F ij
F nij s 14
Xm
F ij 2
2
Steam turbine inlet pressure 11,000  P1(kPa)  14,000
Organic turbine inlet pressure 5000  P5(kPa)  8000
Organic preheater pinch temperature 5  T5(C)  15
steam turbine inlet pressure, organic turbine inlet pressure, and
organic preheater pinch temperature are chosen as a decision vari-
able. Although the decision variables may be varied in the opti-
mization process, each decision variable is normally required to
be within a reasonable range as listed in Table 4 (see Table 3).
3.2. Evolutionary algorithm
The successful application of optimization algorithm to solve
difficult problems in recent years makes it interesting for both
the research community and industry. Evolutionary algorithms
are hybrid stochastic-deterministic optimization tool that simu-
lates the process of natural evolution. The idea behind can be
described as follows: among an initial random population of indi-
viduals (a set of points in the search space), as a result of evolution,
new individuals will be created with the aid of genetic operators
such as crossover and mutation. Based on the Darwinian principle
of survival of the fitness, the probability of survival for these newly

i1
where i is the index for each point on the Pareto frontier, j is the
index for each objective in the objectives space, and m denotes
the number of points in the Pareto front.
A multi-objective problem consists of optimizing several objec-
tives simultaneously, with a number of inequality or equality con-
straints and an evolutionary algorithm to carry out the search for
the Pareto optimal solution, which is described as follows:
3.1. Definition of objective function and choice of decision variables
The objective functions for this problem are defined as to max-
imize exergy efficiency and minimize product cost rate which can
be modeled:
_
W _
W sented in Fig. 2. More details about the procedure can be found
e _ net;SRC net;ORC
15
mf :g T 0 s18  s16
generated solutions depends on their fitness to the specified selec-
tion criteria of the problem [24]. Genetic algorithms (GAs) are opti-
mization techniques based on natural genetics. GAs were
developed by Holland [25] in an attempt to simulate growth and
decay of living organisms in a natural environment. The basic idea
behind GAs could be described in brief as follows. Firstly, a set of
point is selected randomly inside the optimization space. Then, this
set of points transformed into the new one using some simulated
evolutionary operators, such as crossover and mutation. Through
this process which is repeated several times, the genetic algorithm
transforms each set of point to the new one that is closer to global
optimal. The simplicity in the application and the fact that the only
information necessary is a measure of how optimal each point is in
the optimization space, make GAs attractive as optimizers. A block
flow diagram of genetic algorithm optimization procedure is pre-
in Ref. [26].

4. Selected working fluids

C_ p C_ fuel Z_ total 16
For the optimization problem, some decision variables (design Different research deals with the selection of suitable working
parameters) are selected. In this study, three variables including fluids for an ORC system. For this purpose, various selection criteria
 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379
Fig. 2. A block flow diagram of GA optimization procedure.
are specified. The thermodynamic and physical properties, stabil-
ity, environmental impacts, safety and compatibility, availability
and cost are some of the key factors to be considered for the proper
selection of organic fluids [27]. As the means of thermodynamic,
working fluid type is also an important parameter. Organic fluids
can be classified into three categories based on the slope of the
vapor saturation curve on a TS diagram. (1) Dry fluids have a pos-
itive slope, (2) wet fluids have a negative slope, and (3) isentropic
fluids have nearly vertical saturated vapor curve on the T-S dia-
gram. As a general guideline, wet fluids are more convenient to
be used in the transcritical cycle because of the lower required
condensation but isentropic and dry fluids can also be applied in
the transcritical cycle depending on the temperature profile of
the heat source [27]. In addition, selected fluids should have low
critical temperatures and pressures to guarantee the transcritical
state can be achieved easily. In this paper, three organic fluids
based on the specified selection criteria are chosen to monitor
the ORC performance. Table 4 gives the main physical and environ-
mental properties of the selected working fluids in this work.
Table 4
Physical, safety and environmental data of selected organic working fluids.
Organic fluids M Tcritical
1 R124 136.48 122.286
2 R152a 66.05 113.2
3 R134a 102 101.06
371
5. Data validation
To ensure the model validation, the energy balance equations of
SRC and ORC of combined system are solved separately with the
same input conditions as in Ref. [14] and Ref. [28], respectively.
The comparison between the presented results and the results of
both mentioned reference shows good agreement, as shown in
Table 5. For instance, the small variations in the results between
Ref. [14] and this study are mainly due to the software used.
REFPROP Software [29] is used in Ref. [14], while EES (Equation
Evaluation Solution) Software [30] is used in the present study to
calculate the working fluid properties. Therefore, this mathemati-
cal model is verified.
6. Results and discussion
In this study, rejected waste heat from an SGT-500 gas turbine
manufactured by Siemens Ltd. is selected to be recovered through
a combined steam-organic Rankine cycle. The proposed combined
cycle consist of a steam topping loop and organic bottoming loop
which are coupled via a heat exchanger. The thermodynamic
power cycle selected for steam and organic fluid are subcritical
and transcritical, respectively. The main process data of the SGT-
500 gas turbine are provided in Table 6.
6.1. Assumptions and input parameters
In order to simplify the problem, some general assumptions are
used which are as follows:
(1) Each component is in the steady state condition.
(2) Pressure drop and heat loss through the vapor generators
pipelines and condensers are treated as negligible.
(3) To avoid acid corrosion, the lower limit of outlet exhaust gas
temperature is set to 100 C.
(4) The saturated liquid is supposed at the condenser outlet.
(5) Isentropic efficiencies of expanders are assumed to be 85%
[31].
(6) Isentropic efficiencies of pumps are assumed to be 70% [32].
(7) Generators efficiencies of both cycles are assumed to be 98%
[33].
(8) Pinch point temperature of all heat exchangers is assumed to
be 10 C except for economizer of the steam loop and pre-
heater of the organic loop which assumed to be 5 C.
(9) Dead state temperature and pressure are assumed to be
25 C and 100 kPa.
6.2. Results of energy analysis
In this section, by applying equations of Table 1 for each compo-
nent of the system, using mentioned assumptions and information
of Tables 6 and 7, thermodynamic properties of each stream for
steam Rankine cycle (topping loop) and organic Rankine cycle (bot-
toming loop) with three mentioned working fluids are calculated
and presented in Table 8. Also, the thermodynamic performance
of the system including net power output, first law, and second
law efficiencies are given in Table 9. As it is listed in Table 9, the
Pcritical ODP GWP (100 yr) Type
3.62 0.3 610 Isentropic
4.5 0 124 Wet
4.06 0 1430 Isentropic
372 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379

Table 5
Comparison of the present calculated results with Refs. [14,28].

State point SRC ORC (R125)

T (C) h (kJ/kg) m (kg/s) T (C) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg)
Ref. [14] This study Ref. [14] This Study Ref. [14] This Study Ref. [32] This Study Ref. [32] This Study Ref. [32] This Study
1 101.18 101.6 433 434.6 71.52 71.53 33.29 33.22 243.08 243 1.14 1.139
2 380 380 2977.2 2978 71.52 71.53 95 95 385.47 384.9 1.56 1.558
3 99.63 100 2278.2 2280 71.52 71.53 56.41 56.12 372.5 372 1.57 1.568
4 99.63 100 417.5 419 71.52 71.53 30.36 30.29 240.42 240.4 1.138 1.137

Table 6 Table 9
Main process data of the SGT-500 gas turbine. Net power output, first law, and second law efficiencies of the combined system.

Turbine model Siemens SGT-500 _ net (kW)

W gI gII C_ ($/h)
Turbine inlet temperature 850 C SRC 2900 26.75 52.21
Exhaust gas temperature 400 C ORC (R124) 3840 21.96 62.52
Exhaust gas mass flow rate 86.4 kg/s Combined SORC (R124) 6740 23.79 57.62 399.6
Net power output 17 MW ORC (R152a) 3723 21.28 60.6
Fuel Natural gas, crude oil Combined SORC (R152a) 6622 23.38 56.61 396.7
ORC (R134a) 3438 19.65 55.97
Combined SORC (R134a) 6338 22.37 54.18 397.2

Table 7
Input parameters used to solve the mathematical model for the base case condition.
total power output of steam cycle is 2900 kW with first law effi-
Parameters Input values
ciency of 26.75%. The total power output of organic Rankine cycle
Steam turbine inlet pressure 14,000 kPa with three different working fluids of R124, R152a, and R134a is
Steam condenser pressure 101.3 kPaa
3840, 3723 and 3438 kW and the first law efficiency of organic
Organic turbine inlet pressure 5000 kPa
Organic condenser temperature 30 C cycle for these working fluids is 21.96%, 21.28%, and 19.65% respec-
Cooling water inlet temperature 15 C tively. Finally, the total power output of combined steam-organic
Cooling water inlet pressure 150 kPa Rankine cycle with different organic working fluids of R124,
a
Based on Ref. [14]. R152a, and R134a reaches to 6740, 6622, and 6338 kW with the
first law efficiencies of 23.79%, 23.38%, and 22.37% respectively.
From a second law analysis point of view, it can be observed that
exergy efficiency of the organic cycle with R124, R152a, and
R134a are 62.52, 60.6, and 55.97, respectively. Finally, the exer-
Table 8 getic efficiency of combined system with three mentioned fluids
Results of energy analysis for base case simulation of combined steam organic cycle at of R124, R152a, and R134a is 57.62%, 56.61% and 54.18%
different state point. respectively.
Stream no. P (kPa) T (C) m (kg/s) h (kj/kg) E_ (kW) For better comparison between the proposed combined system
and a pure steam Rankine cycle, thermodynamic modeling of a
Steam
1 14000.00 390.00 4.30 2961.00 5451.13
steam Rankine cycle working in the same condition to a combined
2 101.30 100.00 4.30 2252.00 1988.29 system has been conducted and the results are listed in Table 10.
3 101.30 100.00 4.30 419.10 190.19 As it is shown, a combined system utilizing three different working
4 14000.00 102.40 4.30 439.80 258.58 fluids provides a larger net power output when it is compared to a
R124 pure steam Rankine cycle. As a result, combined SORC cycle is
5 5000.00 169.40 116.10 456.80 8544.96 more efficient compared to pure steam cycle in utilizing waste heat
6 446.10 30.00 116.10 418.20 3409.86
energy.
7 446.10 30.00 116.10 233.50 2000.40
8 150.00 15.00 513.20 63.06 25.00
9 150.00 25.00 513.20 104.90 400.09 6.3. Results of exergy analysis
10 5000.00 33.62 116.10 238.30 2402.11
R152a In this section, by applying the equations of the second law of
5 5000.00 153.50 69.97 622.60 9690.85 thermodynamics for each component of the system, exergy
6 690.70 30.00 69.97 561.40 4740.47
7 690.70 30.00 69.97 253.10 3561.47
destruction rate and exergetic efficiency of each component are
8 150.00 15.00 516.10 63.06 25.14 calculated and listed in 10th and 11th columns of Table 11. Figs. 3
9 150.00 25.00 516.10 104.90 402.35 5 exhibit the exergy destruction rate of each component and its
10 5000.00 33.50 69.97 260.00 3908.52 contribution to total exergy destruction rate of the system. It is
R134a
5 5000.00 175.70 88.20 386.30 9366.84
6 770.60 30.00 88.20 341.50 4871.29 Table 10
7 770.60 30.00 88.20 93.58 3121.40 Results of energy analysis for simple steam Rankine cycle.
8 150.00 15.00 523.00 63.06 25.48
9 150.00 25.00 523.00 104.90 407.73 Stream no. P (kPa) T (C) m (kg/s) h (kj/kg)
10 5000.00 33.52 88.20 98.67 3441.56 1 14,000 390 4.299 2961
Flue gas 2 4.246 30 4.299 1954
16 140.00 400.00 86.40 684.80 14921.28 3 4.246 30 4.299 125.7
17 140.00 285.20 86.40 563.80 9365.76 4 14,000 31.78 4.299 145.8
18 140.00 100.00 86.40 374.10 3225.31  net (kW): 4327
W
 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379 373

Table 11
Results of exergy and exergo-economic analysis for combined SORC with three different working fluids.

Cycle Component cf ($/GJ) cp ($/GJ) C_ D ($/h) Z_ ($/h) Z_ C_ D ($/h) f (%) r (%) ED e (%)
SRC (steam) Economizer 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.59 1.59 100 Infinity 345.40 85.36
Evaporator 0.00 0.44 0.00 3.80 3.80 100 Infinity 3.65 99.85
Super heater 0.00 0.66 0.00 1.79 1.79 100 Infinity 12.68 98.35
Expander 0.99 34.01 1.48 361.08 362.56 99.59 3345 415.10 88.01
Generator 34.01 35.94 7.25 1.95 9.20 21.23 5.662 59.18 98.00
Pump 34.01 46.77 2.53 0.61 3.14 19.42 37.51 20.67 76.79
ORC (R124) Preheater 0.99 2.44 2.47 3.31 5.78 57.24 147.50 695.60 61.31
Vapor generator 0.00 0.26 0.00 4.81 4.81 100.00 Infinity 1100.00 82.09
Expander 1.05 1.63 2.46 7.01 9.47 74.04 56.15 653.50 87.28
Generator 1.63 2.09 0.46 2.55 3.01 84.70 28.05 78.38 98.00
Pump 1.63 6.98 0.95 6.81 7.77 87.76 327.90 161.80 71.35
Condenser 1.05 7.20 3.90 4.41 8.31 53.08 588.50 1036.00 26.58
ORC (R152a) Preheater 0.99 2.43 2.44 3.31 5.75 57.49 145.80 687.90 61.74
Vapor generator 0.00 0.27 0.00 4.49 4.49 100.00 Infinity 1469.00 76.09
Expander 1.05 1.67 2.53 6.97 9.49 73.38 58.50 667.30 86.52
Generator 1.67 2.10 0.01 2.48 2.48 84.44 26.18 75.97 98.00
Pump 1.67 7.24 0.84 6.13 6.96 88.00 334.20 139.20 71.36
Condenser 1.05 5.25 0.01 2.53 2.53 46.65 398.50 802.00 31.98
ORC (R134a) Preheater 0.99 0.01 2.43 3.31 5.74 57.64 144.80 683.70 61.97
Vapor generator 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.95 4.95 100.00 Infinity 1332.00 78.32
Expander 1.03 0.01 1.99 6.88 8.88 77.53 60.64 539.10 88.01
Generator 1.65 0.01 0.42 2.30 2.71 84.63 26.33 70.16 98.00
Pump 1.65 0.03 0.77 5.79 6.55 88.32 344.70 128.80 71.30
Condenser 1.03 0.03 5.06 3.35 8.41 39.83 594.40 1367.00 21.84

exp,ORC, exp,ORC,
653.5kW, exp,SRC, 539.1kW,
15% 415.1kW, 9% 11%
exp,SRC, cond,ORC, cond,ORC,
415.1kW, 9% 1036kW, 1367kW,
23% 28%
vg,SRC,
361.7kW, 8%
vg,ORC, vg,ORC,
pump,SRC, vg,SRC,
1100kW, 1332kW,
20.7kW, 0% 361.7kW, 7%
25% 28%
cond,SRC, pump,ORC, cond,SRC, pump,SRC,
695.6kW, 161.8kW, 4% 683.7kW, pump,ORC, 20.7kW, 0%
16% 14% 128.8kW, 3%

Fig. 3. Exergy destruction rate of each component of the combined system with Fig. 5. Exergy destruction rate of each component of the combined system with
R124. R134a.

exp,ORC, cond,ORC, icant irreversibility being related to the stream-to-stream heat

667.3kW, 802kW, 18% transfer.
15%
exp,SRC, vg,SRC, 6.4. Results of exergo-economic analysis
415.1kW, 9% 361.7kW, 8%
pump,SRC, In this section, by applying the equations of Table 2 and Sec-
20.7kW, 0% tion 2.4 for each component of the system with three selected
pump,ORC, organic fluids, exergo-economic factors are calculated and listed
vg,ORC, 139.2kW, 3% in Table 11. Based on exergo-economic methodology, components
1469kW,
with the highest value of Z_ C_ D are the most important compo-
32% cond,SRC, nents from the exergo-economic viewpoint. From Table 11 it can
687.9kW,
be seen that value of Z_ C_ D for the steam turbine is noticeably
15%
high compared to other components of steam and even organic
Fig. 4. Exergy destruction rate of each component of the combined system with cycle. The high value of f for steam turbine shows that costs that
R152a. associated with steam turbine are exclusively due to capital invest-
ment cost of it. Based on cost model of steam turbine, capital
investment cost of steam turbine depends on two parameters: tur-
concluded that for all three fluids, condenser and vapor generator bine inlet temperature (T1) and turbine isentropic efficiency (gexp).
of the ORC are the main source of exergy destruction of the system Therefore to reduce the high Z_ value associated with the steam tur-
because, for the condenser and vapor generator, heat transfer and bine, we should consider a reduction in the value of at least one of
friction are the sources of exergy destruction, with the most signif- these variables. Among steam cycle components, generator and
374 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379

pump are ranked after turbine. The value of Z_ C_ D for these com-
ponents is 9.20 and 3.14 ($/h) respectively. The low value of f for
both generator and pump shows that the costs associated with
these components are almost due to exergy destruction. Among
organic cycle components, organic expander has the maximum
value of Z_ C_ D . The value of Z_ C_ D for organic expanders with dif-
ferent working fluids of R124, R152a and R134a is 9.47, 9.49 and
8.88 ($/h) respectively. Similar to the steam turbine, capital invest-
ment cost of organic expander has the largest portion of the value
of Z_ C_ D . Lowering isentropic efficiency of the expander in ORC
can reduce this value. 100% and infinity values in Table 11 refer
to components which have no cost of fuel, and it is suggested to
decrease the capital investment of these components to decrease
their value of Z_ C_ D .

6.5. Parametric study

In this section, a parametric study is used to evaluate the effects

of different design parameters of combined cycle such as steam
turbine inlet pressure, organic turbine inlet pressure, organic pre-
heater pinch temperature and condensing temperature of the
organic cycle on both thermodynamic and exergo-economic per-
formance of the system. The main benefit of the parametric study
is that it helps designers visualize how a system will perform
under different operating conditions.
6.5.1. Effects of steam turbine inlet pressure
The effects of steam turbine inlet pressure on exergy efficiencies
and total product cost rates of combined SORC with three men-
tioned working fluids are presented in Figs. 6 and 7 respectively.
Based on Fig. 6, increasing steam turbine inlet pressure from
11,000 to 14,000 kPa will result to decrease exergy efficiency of
combined cycles with R124, R152a, and R134a. For the steam-
topping loop, the increase in the steam turbine inlet pressure leads
to an increase in the enthalpy drop through the steam turbine and
a decrease in steam flow rate. However, as the net power output
keeps decreasing and therefore exergy efficiency, it can be con-
cluded that the effect of the decreasing mass flow rate is dominant
[8]. Based on the presented results, between three selected work-
ing fluids for the organic cycle, combined system with R124 has
the maximum value of exergy efficiency (58.5%). It is concluded
that the fluid with higher critical temperature leads to having a
better performance from exergy efficiency point of view. Fig. 7
Fig. 7. Effects of steam turbine inlet pressure on total product cost of combined
SORC (P5 = 5000 kPa, DTpre, organic = 10 C, T6 = 30 C).
illustrates results of varying steam turbine inlet pressure on total
product cost rates of the system with three selected organic work-
ing fluids. As it is obvious, total product cost rate of the system
with every three selected fluids tends to decrease notably when
steam turbine inlet pressure increase from 11,000 to 14,000 kPa.
This is mainly due to the reduction of steam turbine investment
cost because net power output reduction of the steam cycle. When
steam turbine inlet pressure reaches to the maximum at
14,000 kPa, combined system with R152a has the minimum total
product cost rate of 396.7 ($/h) while R134a and R124 and with
close higher values of 397.2 and 399.6 ($/h) are at the next stages.
It is observed that R152a is a good candidate from total product
cost point of view.
6.5.2. Effects of organic turbine inlet pressure
In Figs. 8 and 9, results of varying organic turbine inlet pressure
on exergy efficiencies and total product cost rates of the combined
system with three selected working fluids are presented. As
depicted in Fig. 8, exergy efficiencies of the combined system with
three selected fluids keep boosting up with the increase of organic

Fig. 6. Effects of steam turbine inlet pressure on exergy efficiency of combined Fig. 8. Effects of organic turbine inlet pressure on exergy efficiency of combined
SORC (P5 = 5000 kPa, DTpre, organic = 10 C, T6 = 30 C). SORC (P1 = 14,000 kPa, DTpre,organic = 10 C, T6 = 30 C).
 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379 375

Fig. 10. Effects of organic preheater pinch temperature on exergy efficiency of

Fig. 9. Effects of organic turbine inlet pressure on total product cost of combined combined SORC (P1 = 14,000 kPa, P5 = 5000 kPa, T6 = 30 C).
SORC (P1 = 14,000 kPa, DTpre,organic = 10 C, T6 = 30 C).

turbine inlet pressure to reach its maximum at 8000 kPa. Also,

these results show that combined system with R124 has the high-
est exergy efficiency due to having the highest critical temperature
among them. The increase of organic turbine inlet pressure would
result in two different phenomena. First, mass flow rate of organic
fluid would increase because in higher pressure more fluid is
required to absorb the residual heat of the steam cycle. On the
other hand, the enthalpy drop through organic expander would
decrease because as the inlet temperature of waste heat to the
organic vapor generator remains constant, organic turbine inlet
temperature decreases. Based on Fig. 8, the increase of exergy effi-
ciency shows that the effect of increase in mass flow rate is dom-
inant. Fig. 9 presents results of varying organic turbine inlet
pressure on total product cost rate of the combined system with
three selected working fluids. It can be observed that total product
cost rate of the combined system tend to increase with increasing
organic turbine inlet pressure from 5000 to 8000 kPa. As the total
product cost of topping loop keeps constant with increasing
organic turbine inlet pressure, the increase in the total product cost
Fig. 11. Effects organic preheater pinch temperature on total product cost of SORC
of the system is mainly due to the increase in the total investment (P1 = 14,000 kPa, P5 = 5000 kPa, T6 = 30 C).
cost of ORC turbine.

6.5.3. Effects of organic preheater pinch temperature

Fig. 10 represents the effects of varying pinch temperature of
organic preheater in the range of 515 C on exergy efficiency of
combined system with three selected working mediums. Fig. 10
shows that exergy efficiency decreases very notably with increas-
ing pinch temperature of the organic preheater. This can be
explained by the fact that despite increasing organic fluid mass
flow rate with increasing pinch temperature, turbine inlet temper-
ature of organic medium decreases which leads to lower power
output and exergy efficiency [34]. The effect of pinch temperature
variation on total product cost rate of the system is also presented
in Fig. 11. It shows that for all three working fluids with increasing
pinch temperature, first total product cost rate of the system
decreases drastically and then slightly.

6.5.4. Effects of organic condenser temperature

Figs. 12 and 13 indicate the effects of organic condenser tem-
perature on exergy efficiency and total product cost rate of the
combined system. As condenser temperature ranges from 25 to
35 C, exergy efficiency of the system with three mediums Fig. 12. Effects organic condensation temperature on exergy efficiency of combined
decreases linearly. It is mainly due to the reduction in the enthalpy SORC (P1 = 14,000 kPa, P5 = 5000 kPa, DTpre,organic = 10 C).
376 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379

Fig. 13. Effects of organic condensation temperature on total product cost of

combined SORC (P1 = 14,000 kPa, P5 = 5000 kPa, DTpre,organic = 10 C). Fig. 14. Pareto-frontier and Pareto-optimal solution of SORC with R124.

drop of the organic turbine which leads to lower power output and
therefore exergy efficiency. As it is shown in Fig. 13, total product
cost rate of the combined cycle with three proposed fluids increase
very slightly with increasing organic condenser temperature,
which means the higher exergy efficiency can be achievable at
lower total product cost. The increase of total product cost with
the increasing of condensation temperature can be explained by
the fact that higher condensation temperature would result in a
higher temperature of the organic fluid at the inlet of the pre-
heater. However, due to a constant heat flux of condensing steam,
the organic fluid mass flow rate should be increased and therefore
condenser investment cost increases. It can be concluded that
exergy efficiency and total product cost rate are not conflicting
for this decision variable, and therefore it is not suitable to consider
condensation temperature of the organic cycle as a decision
variable in multi-objective optimization. With a brief look at
Figs. 611, one can conclude that for each working fluid there is
a trade-off between total product cost and exergy efficiency. Or
more specifically, the more the exergy efficiency, the higher the
total product cost.
Fig. 15. Pareto-frontier and Pareto-optimal solution of SORC with R152a.
6.6. Optimization results

In this section, results of applying GA (genetic algorithm) to

perform multi-objective optimization of combined steam-organic
Rankine cycle are presented. It is worth to indicate that genetic
algorithm (GA) routine through Matlab software [35] is coupled
with EES to conduct multi-objective optimization of combined
SORC. Also value of algorithm parameters are as follows: popula-
tion size: 300, tournament size: 2, crossover fraction: 0.8, crossover
ratio: 1 and migration fraction: 2. Figs. 1416 present Pareto fronts
for combined SORC with R124, R152a, and R134a. The Pareto opti-
mum results clearly reveal the conflict between two objectives, the
exergy efficiency, and the product cost rate. Any change that
increases the exergy efficiency leads to an increase in the product
cost rate and vice versa. This shows the need for multi-objective
optimization technique in the case of conflicting objectives. It is
shown in Figs. 1416, which the maximum exergy efficiency exists
at design point C, while the product cost rate is the biggest at this
point. On the other hand, the minimum product cost rate occurs at
design point A, with the smallest efficiency value at that point.
Design point C is the optimal situation at which, exergy efficiency
is a single objective function, while design point A is the optimum
condition at which the product cost rate is a single objective func- Fig. 16. Pareto-frontier and Pareto-optimal solution of SORC with R134a.
 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379 377

Table 12
Optimum and base case values of objectives and design parameters for four typical points on Pareto front.

A B C D Base case
R124 R152a R134a R124 R152a R134a R124 R152a R134a R124 R152a R134a R124 R152a R134a

P 1 kPa 13,982 13,995 13,987 13,971 13,991 13,977 11,792 13,975 11,483 14,000 14,000 14,000
P 5 kPa 5119 5163 5142 7418 7266 7962 7400 7664 7974 5000 5000 5000
DT PH (C) 14 15 15 5 5 5.1 5 5 5 10 10 10
e% 56.9 55.2 53.9 59.9 60.3 58.4 60.33 60.5 59.4 60.33 60.5 59.4 57.6 56.61 54.18
C_ p $=h 399.78 396.60 397.16 404.22 401.08 403.11 429.53 401.74 431.87 399.78 396.60 397.16 399.6 396.7 397.2

tion. Based on the results of LINMAP, the closest point of Pareto Condenser
frontier of Figs. 1416 to the point D (ideal point) is point B and
0:8
might be considered as a desirable final solution. Optimum values Z CI
cond;SRC 588  Acond;SRC A:3
of two objectives and three design parameters for four typical
Pump
points from A to D and base case design are listed in Table 12 for
!
three selected fluids. As it is seen in Table 12, for R124, R152a,
0:2
and R134a, values of exergy efficiencies of point B are improved Z CI _ 0:7
pump;SRC 705:48  wpump;SRC  1 A:4
2.3%, 3.7% and 4.2% in comparison to the base case design when 1  gpump;SRC 3
multi-objective optimization is conducted. Organic Rankine cycle:
Vapor generator
7. Conclusions
 0:78
Av g;ORC
Z CI
v g;ORC 130  A:5
In this paper, a detailed thermodynamic and exergo-economic 0:093
modeling of a combined steam-organic Rankine cycle using three
Expander
selected organic fluid of R124, R152a, and R134a is presented
and assessed. The proposed combined cycle consists of a subcritical _
log 10 Z CI
expander;ORC 2:6259 1:4398  log 10 wexpander;ORC
steam topping loop that recovers the waste heat rejected from the
gas turbine and an organic transcritical bottoming loop that recov- _ expander;ORC 2
 0:1776  log 10 w A:6
ers both rejected heat from topping loop condenser and residual
Condenser
waste heat of gas turbine. Results of the thermodynamic analysis
show that steam condenser and organic vapor generator have the _
Z CI
cond;ORC 1773  m6 A:7
main distribution in total exergy destruction of the steam and
organic cycle respectively. Therefore, careful design and selection Pump
of these two components are essential in designing a combined
steam-organic Rankine cycle. Also, exergetic efficiencies of the Z CI _ 0:7
pump;SRC 3540  wpump;ORC A:8
combined cycle with three different fluids of R124, R152a, and
Capital investment cost of each equipment at reference year can
R134a are calculated to be 57.62%, 56.61% and 54.18% respectively.
be calculated using following equation [20]:
A parametric study is performed to investigate the effects of differ-
ent cycle parameters including steam turbine inlet pressure, Capital inv estment cost at reference year
organic turbine inlet pressure, organic preheater pinch tempera-
cost index at reference year
ture and organic condensation temperature on cycle performances. orginal inv estement cost  A:9
Finally, a multi-objective optimization of the proposed system is cost index at orginal year
conducted considering two objective functions: exergy efficiency In this work, cost index from Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
and total product cost rate to find the best design parameters of Index (CEPCI) [39] are used to update all equipment costs to the
the proposed system. year 2013. It should be noted that cost of economizer, vapor gener-
ator and superheater of steam Rankine cycle and vapor generator
Appendix A. Capital investment cost calculation of organic Rankine cycle are based on 2010 and all other equip-
ments of both cycles are based on 2005 cost index.
The following equations are used to calculate capital costs of a It should be noted that for converting capital investment cost of
different component of combined steam-organic Rankine cycle a component to the cost rate, below equation could be used:
based on proposed equations on the Refs. [20,3638].
Steam Rankine cycle: Z_ k Z CI
k  CRF  =t 7
Economizer, evaporator, and superheater
where is maintenance factor and t is the number of hours per
 0:78
A year that unit operates. The value for and t in this study are
Z CI
eco;SRC Z CI
v g;SRC Z CI
sh;SRC 130  A:1
0:093 assumed 1.06 and 7446 h, respectively. In addition, CRF (cost rate
factor) can be calculated from following equation:
Expander
N
Z CI _ 0:7
3880:5  w i1 i
expander;SRC expander:SRC CRF 8
!  
N
1  i  1
0:05 T1  886
 1  5  exp
1  gexpander;SRC 3 10:42 where i is interest rate, and N is estimated component lifetime.
These parameters are assumed 10% and 20 years in this study,
A:2
respectively.
378 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379

Table B.1
Proposed overall heat transfer coefficient for a different heat exchanger of the combined cycle.

Type of heat exchanger Hot side Cold side Proposed value for U (KW/m K)
Fluid Phase Fluid Phase
Economizer Flue gas Gas Water Liquid 0.25
Vapor generator (steam) Flue gas Gas Water Two-phase 0.2
Superheater Flue gas Gas Steam Vapor 0.125
Preheater Steam Two-phase Organic fluid Liquid 0.25
Vapor generator (organic fluid) Flue gas Gas Organic fluid Liquid 0.25
Condenser Organic fluid Vapor Cooling water Liquid 0.25

Appendix B. Surface area calculation of heat exchanger
The costs of heat exchangers (preheater, evaporator, and super-
heater) and condensers are strongly dependent on heat transfer
area. In this regard, for determining the heat transfer area, the
overall heat transfer coefficient between hot and cold fluids must
be calculated. In this work, all heat exchangers and condensers
are assumed as the shell and tube heat exchanger. Details of the
overall heat transfer coefficient calculation are given in this
section.
The heat transfer surface area is determined by [40]:
Q
A B:1
U  DT m
where Q is heat transfer load and U is overall heat transfer coeffi-
cient. Also, DTm is logarithmic mean temperature difference, which
can be calculated as follows:
DT max  DT min
DT m B:2
ln DDTTmax
min
where DTmax and DTmin are maximal and minimal temperature dif-
ferences at the end of heat exchangers, respectively.
In Eq. (B.1) the overall heat transfer coefficient (U) can be
expressed as:
1 1 d 1
B:3
U ahs k acs
where ahs and acs are heat transfer coefficient for the hot side and
cold side of heat exchanger, respectively, and d and k are thickness
and thermal conductivity of construction material of tubes.Table B.1
present assumed values for the overall heat transfer coefficient
based on reference [41]. These values are used in this study to cal-
culate the surface heat transfer area of heat exchangers.
References
[1] Hung T, Shai T, Wang S. A review of organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for the
recovery of low-grade waste heat. Energy 1997;22:6617. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/s0360-5442(96)00165-x.
[2] Brrnert T, Brki T. ABBs flexible ORC power plant. ABB Switzerland Ltd.;
2010.
[3] Najjar Y. Efficient use of energy by utilizing gas turbine combined systems.
Appl Therm Eng 2001;21:40738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1359-4311(00)
00033-8.
[4] Ibrahim T, Rahman M, Abdalla A. Gas turbine configuration for improving the
performance of combined cycle power plant. Proc Eng 2011;15:421623.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.791.
[5] Shu G, Liu L, Tian H, Wei H, Xu X. Performance comparison and working fluid
analysis of subcritical and transcritical dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (DORC)
used in engine waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manage 2013;74:3543.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.04.037.
[6] Song J, Gu C. Parametric analysis of a dual loop Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
system for engine waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manage
2015;105:9951005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.074.
[7] Tian H, Liu L, Shu G, Wei H, Liang X. Theoretical research on working fluid
selection for a high-temperature regenerative transcritical dual-loop engine
organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2014;86:76473. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.081.
[8] Zhou Y, Wu Y, Li F, Yu L. Performance analysis of zeotropic mixtures for the
dual-loop system combined with internal combustion engine. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;118:40614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.
04.006.
[9] Sciubba E, Tocci L, Toro C. Thermodynamic analysis of a Rankine dual loop
waste thermal energy recovery system. Energy Convers Manage
2016;122:10918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.05.066.
[10] Yang F, Dong X, Zhang H, Wang Z, Yang K, Zhang J, et al. Performance analysis
of waste heat recovery with a dual loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system
for diesel engine under various operating conditions. Energy Convers Manage
2014;80:24355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.01.036.
[11] Choi B, Kim Y. Thermodynamic analysis of a dual loop heat recovery system
with trilateral cycle applied to exhaust gases of internal combustion engine for
propulsion of the 6800 TEU container ship. Energy 2013;58:40416. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.017.
[12] Song J, Gu C. Performance analysis of a dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC)
system with wet steam expansion for engine waste heat recovery. Appl Energy
2015;156:2809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.019.
[13] Al-Sulaiman F. Exergy analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors integrated
with combined steam and organic Rankine cycles. Energy Convers Manage
2014;77:4419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.013.
[14] Li J, Li P, Pei G, Alvi J, Ji J. Analysis of a novel solar electricity generation system
using Combined Rankine cycle and steam screw expander. Appl Energy
2016;165:62738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.087.
[15] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. Technoeconomic appraisal of a ground source heat
pump system for a heating season in eastern Turkey. Energy Convers Manage
2006;47:128197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2005.06.024.
[16] Yang F, Zhang H, Song S, Bei C, Wang H, Wang E. Thermoeconomic multi-
objective optimization of an organic Rankine cycle for exhaust waste heat
recovery of a diesel engine. Energy 2015;93:220828. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.117.
[17] Fergani Z, Touil D, Morosuk T. Multi-criteria exergy based optimization of an
Organic Rankine Cycle for waste heat recovery in the cement industry. Energy
Convers Manage 2016;112:8190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.12.083.
[18] Zare V. A comparative exergoeconomic analysis of different ORC
configurations for binary geothermal power plants. Energy Convers Manage
2015;105:12738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.07.073.
[19] Amini A, Mirkhani N, Pakjesm Pourfard P, Ashjaee M, Khodkar M. Thermo-
economic optimization of low-grade waste heat recovery in Yazd combined-
cycle power plant (Iran) by a CO2 transcritical Rankine cycle. Energy
2015;86:7484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.113.
[20] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New
York: Wiley; 1996.
[21] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy
2006;31:125789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.03.011.
[22] Sayyaadi H, Saffari A, Mahmoodian A. Various approaches in optimization of
multi effects distillation desalination systems using a hybrid meta-heuristic
optimization tool. Desalination 2010;254:13848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2009.11.045.
[23] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen M. Exergy, exergoeconomic and environmental
analyses and evolutionary algorithm based multi-objective optimization of
combined cycle power plants. Energy 2011;36:588698. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2011.08.034.
[24] Zitzler E. Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective
optimization. Aachen: Shaker; 1999.
[25] Holland J. Genetic algorithms. Sci Am 1992;267:6672. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/scientificamerican0792-66.
[26] Mitchell M. An introduction to genetic algorithms. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press; 1996.
[27] Chen H, Goswami D, Stefanakos E. A review of thermodynamic cycles and
working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:305967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.006.
[28] Yang M, Yeh R. Economic performances optimization of the transcritical
Rankine cycle systems in geothermal application. Energy Convers Manage
2015;95:2031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.021.
[29] REFPROP version 8.0. NIST standard reference database 23. Book in the U.S.
Secretary of Commerce, America; 2007.
[30] Klein SA. Engineering equation solver (EES). Professional version; 2006.
 N. Nazari et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 127 (2016) 366379
[31] Sauret E, Rowlands A. Candidate radial-inflow turbines and high-density
working fluids for geothermal power systems. Energy 2011;36:44607. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.076.
[32] Guo T, Wang H, Zhang S. Comparative analysis of CO2-based transcritical
Rankine cycle and HFC245fa-based subcritical organic Rankine cycle using
low-temperature geothermal source. Sci China Technol Sci 2010;53:163846.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11431-010-3123-4.
[33] Meinel D, Wieland C, Spliethoff H. Effect and comparison of different working
fluids on a two-stage organic rankine cycle (ORC) concept. Appl Therm Eng
2014;63:24653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.11.016.
[34] Wang J, Yan Z, Wang M, Li M, Dai Y. Multi-objective optimization of an organic
Rankine cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery using evolutionary
algorithm. Energy Convers Manage 2013;71:14658. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2013.03.028.
[35] Matlab R2010a. The Math-Works, Inc.; 2010.
379
[36] Mohammadkhani F, Shokati N, Mahmoudi S, Yari M, Rosen M. Exergoeconomic
assessment and parametric study of a Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor
combined with two Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy 2014;65:53343. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.002.
[37] El-Emam R, Dincer I. Exergy and exergoeconomic analyses and optimization of
geothermal organic Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2013;59:43544. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.06.005.
[38] Ameri M, Ahmadi P, Hamidi A. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of
a steam power plant: a case study. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:499512. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1495.
[39] CEPCI. Chemical engineering plant cost index. Chem Eng 2010;76.
[40] Sinnott RK, Towler G. Chemical engineering design. SI ed. Elsevier; 2009.
[41] Tempesti D, Fiaschi D. Thermo-economic assessment of a micro CHP system
fuelled by geothermal and solar energy. Energy 2013;58:4551. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.058.