Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278

International Conference on Recent Advancement in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, RAAR

2016, 10-12 November 2016, Bhubaneswar, India

Thermodynamic Evaluation of Generator Temperature in LiBr-

Water Absorption System for Optimal Performance
Bhargav Pandyaa* ,Jatin Patelb , Anurag Mudgalc
a,b,c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382007, India

Abstract

A thermodynamic optimization analysis of single effect LiBr-H2O vapour absorption cooling system of 1 TR capacity
is conducted based on first and second laws. Mathematical models derived from thermodynamics theory, are employed
in engineering equation solver to perform the calculations. Minimum generator temperature required to operate the
system that is cut off temperature has been evaluated. Realistic comparison of thermodynamic first and second law
approaches have also been evaluated. It is found that cut off temperature of system decreases with evaporator
temperature and increases with condenser and absorber temperature. It is observed that optimum generator
temperature decreases with evaporator temperature and increases with condenser temperature. Hence it is feasible to
find out optimum generator temperature for various condenser-evaporator temperatures. Corresponding contour plots
have also been depicted for optimum generator temperature. Adoption of optimized exergy approach is advisable
owing to fact that exergy destruction rate is more sensitive compared to COP of system.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review
Peer-review by the
under scientific conference
responsibility committee
of the organizing of RAAR-2016.
committee of RAAR 2016.

Keywords: LiBr-H2O, COP, Exergy, Optimization, Generator temperature

1. Introduction

In last two decades researches on vapour absorption refrigeration system (VARS) have been increased by scientists
as this system harness non-conventional energy sources such as solar, biomass, geothermal etc. compared to
conventional vapour compression chillers. In addition, VARS causes no environmental hazardous such as global

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +919408209937; fax: +917923275030.

E-mail address: bhargavmechatherm@gmail.com

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.063
 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278 271

warming, ozone layer depletion because working fluids used in this system do not contain chlorofluro -carbon
chemical (CFC) which is being used in vapour compression chillers. There are limited pairs available for VARS, in
which generally used pairs are NH3-H2O and LiBr-H2O [1]. NH3-H2O VARS is more complicated as it requires
separate rectifier mechanism to remove water vapour from refrigerant vapour [1]. LiBr-H2O VARS pair uses water as
refrigerant and LiBr works as absorbent. Florides et al. [2] observed that total equivalent warming impact of
conventional R-22 compression chiller is 1.2 times higher than LiBr-H2O VARS. It is observed that COP of LiBr-
H2O VARS is quite lower compared to compression chiller [3]. Therefore, it is necessity to optimized performance of
VARS before commercial cooling application. With the help of the basic principles of thermodynamic first and second
law, detailed thermodynamic analysis of LiBr-H2O VARS can be evaluated. Analysis based upon second law allows
to carry out actual efficiency of system. This type of analysis is very much important in case of LiBr-H2O VARS
because heat of mixing of fluids in absorber and generator [6]. Anug et al. [4] developed numerical model with the
help of genetic algorithm to predict the performance of the LiBr-H2O VARS and concluded that maximum entropy
generation occurred in generator followed by evaporator, absorber and condenser. It is found that around 90% of non-
dimensional entropy generation occurred in absorber, generator and evaporator [5]. It is found that heat load and
exergy destruction in evaporator and condenser is less compared to absorber and generator because of heat of mixing
in the solution which is not present in evaporator and condenser [6]. It is observed [7] that for better performance of
absorption chillier, first priority must be given to optimization of evaporator while absorber should be considered as
second. Although, it is also found that absorber, generator and evaporator are the three components having highest
exergy loss rate [8]. It is also reported that most of exergy losses, around 87% in system occur in the generator and
absorber [9]. Gutiérrez-urueta et al. [10] observed that absorber has lowest value of exergetic efficiency among all the
components of the system. Therefore, better performance of the system absorber needs to be optimized. It is also
found that for both single and double effect LiBr-H2O VARS, highest irreversibility takes place in absorber followed
by condenser, evaporator and solution heat exchanger [11]. It is also evaluated that for each condenser and evaporator
temperature combination there is an optimum generator temperature where exergy loss of the system is minimum and
different optimized value of generator temperature for optimized COP and exergetic efficiency have been also
evaluated [12]. Macros et al. [13] developed new method in which solution concentration has been selected for
optimizing parameters to optimize the COP of LiBr-H2O VARS. However, it is not possible to control the solution
concentration directly because it depends upon the system temperature. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization is
the main method for improving efficiency of an absorption cycle. Therefore, in this present study first law and second
law based thermodynamic analysis has been adopted to optimize the system performance. In this study realistic
comparison of the first and second law perspectives have been evaluated to provide direction towards optimum system
design. In this study main focus is on recognition of optimum generator temperature for both the energy and exergy
perspective as well as minimum generator temperature required to operate system have been also evaluated. COP and
exergy destruction rate of system are selected as objective parameters and influence of condenser and evaporator
temperature upon optimum generator temperature has been also evaluated.

Nomenclature
COP coefficient of performance Subscripts
CR circulation ratio A Absorber
e Specific exergy (kJ/kg) C Condenser
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) E evaporator
˜
m mass flow rate (kg/s) G Generator
˜
Q heat load (kW) min minimum
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K) o dead state (ambient)
T temperature (K) P pump
P pressure (kPa) r refrigerant
˜
W pump work (kW) REXP refrigerant expansion valve
X concentration of LiBr SEXP solution expansion valve
SHX solution heat exchanger
272 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278

Greek symbols ss strong solution

K efficiency sys system
U density (kg/m3) ws weak solution
˜
'\ exergy destruction rate (kW)

2. System Description

The line diagram of the LiBr-H2O vapour absorption cooling system has been depicted in Fig. 1. Main components of
the system are generator, evaporator, condenser, absorber, solution pump, solution heat exchanger and expansion
valve. It uses water as refrigerant and LiBr solution as absorbent.

Fig. 1. Schematic of LiBr-H2O absorption cooling cycle

3. Thermodynamic Formulation

The thermodynamic analysis mainly aimed at assessing the thermodynamic imperfections and suggested possible
ways of improving these imperfections. Here the system is analyzed based on mass, energy and exergy balance. Each
component of system can be assumed as control volume having inlet and outlet flow, work interactions and heat
transfer
Cut of temperature can be defined as the minimum generator temperature at which system can operate [14]. Cut
off temperature is function of generator pressure and weak solution concentration [14].

TG ,min f PG , X ws  (1)

To simplify the thermodynamic modelling of system, several assumptions are made as follows: (1) the system is
analyzed and simulated under steady state conditions, (2) heat losses/gains and pressure drop along the fluid flow are
negligible, (3) refrigerant evaporates to a saturated vapour in evaporator and refrigerant condensed in the condenser
to a saturated liquid (4) Refrigerant and solution expansion valves are properly insulated therefore isenthalpic. For
analyzing vapour absorption system circulation ratio is one of the most important parameter, it is defined as ratio of
strong solution flow rate to refrigerant flow rate,
˜ ˜
CR m ss / m r X ss /( X ss  X ws ) (2)
 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278 273

Energy balance formulation for each component can be written as

˜ x x x

QG m r h7  m ss h4  m ws h3 (3)
˜ x x x

QA m r h10  m ss h6  m ws h1 (4)
˜
m r h7  h8 
x

QC (5)
˜
m r h10  h9 
x

QE (6)
˜
m ws h3  h2  m ss h5  h6 
x x

Q SHX (7)

m ws PC  PE 
˜
˜
WP (8)
UK P
The COP of the VARS is defined as ration total heat load in the evaporator to heat load in the generator and work
required for solution pump and it can be written as:
˜
QE
COP ˜ ˜
(9)
QG W P

Available energy is the maximum portion of energy which could be converted into useful work by ideal processes
which reduce the system to a dead state. Exergy analysis is combination of first and second law of thermodynamics
and it indicates the maximum work potential of the system with respect to its surroundings [15]. Specific exergy of
pure substance is given by [15].
e h  ho   To s  so  (10)
For non-ideal system such as LiBr-H2O VARS, reference conditions are far from being standardize so it causes to
large variation in properties and performance parameters evaluated in various literature survey [16]. In this study only
physical exergy is considered while chemical exergy is neglected.

Rate of exergy destruction in any component undergoing a steady flow process can be given by [15]
˜ ˜ ˜ ª ˜ § T ·º ˜
'\ destyoyed ¦ m in ein  ¦ m out eout  «¦ Q¨¨ 1  0 ¸¸» r W P (11)
¬ © T ¹¼
Owing to the fact that exergy balances the dead state values get cancelled [16] therefore, exergy balance
formulation for each component can be written as
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
'\ G m ws h3  To s 3   m ss h4  To s 4   m r h7  To s7   m G h11  To s 11   h12  To s 12  (12)

˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
'\ A m r h10  To s 10   m ss h6  To s 6   m ws h1  To s 1   m A h13  To s 13   h14  To s 14  (13)

˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
'\ E m r h9  To s 9   m r h10  To s 10   m E h17  To s 17   h18  To s 18  (14)

˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
'\ C m r h7  To s7   m r h8  To s 8   m C h15  To s 15   h16  To s 16  (15)

˜ ˜ ˜
' \ SHX m ws h2  h3  To s 2  s 3   m ws h4  h5  To s 4  s 5  (16)

˜ ˜ ˜
'\ P m ws h1  h2  To s 1  s 2   W P (17)
274 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278

˜ ˜
' \ REXP m r h8  h9  To s 8  s 9  (18)

˜ ˜
' \ SEXP m ss h5  h6  To s 5  s 6  (19)

The total rate of exergy destruction of absorption system is the sum of exergy destruction in each component and
can be written as:
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
'\ sys '\ G  '\ A  '\ E  '\ C  '\ SHX  '\ REXP  '\ SEXP  '\ P (20)

4. Model Validation

In this study, the software used for modelling is engineering equation solver (EES) [17]. In order to validate the present
model, the results from this model have been compared with simulation data available from literature of Arora and
Kaushik [11] and Saravanan and Maiya [14]. From this comparison it is observed that agreement between two model
is satisfactory. Data of comparison has been presented in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1. Comparison of present model with model of Arora and Kaushik [11]

Parameters TG 87.8 °C, TE 7.2 °C, T A TC 37.8 °C, H SHX 0.7

Energy Flow (kW)
Components Error (%)
Arora and Kaushik [11] Present study
Generator 3095.698 3076 -0.63
Evaporator 2355.45 2355 -0.019
Condenser 2505 2505 0
Absorber 2945.269 2943 -0.07
Solution heat exchanger 518.717 522.6 0.75
Pump 0.03143 0.03256 3.59
Performance parameter
COP 0.7609 0.7651 0.55

Table 2. Comparison of present model with model of Saravanan and Maiya [14]

Min. Generator Temperature (°C)

Operating Temperature (°C) Error (%)
Saravanan and Maiya [14] Present study
TE 12 , TC 35 , T A 30 65.89 65.88 -0.008
TE 9 , TC 36 , T A 37 67.44 67.43 -0.025
TE 15 , TC 43 , T A 42 73.55 73.59 0.048
TE 15 , TC 45 , T A 45 79.06 79.15 0.059
TE 5 , TC 45 , T A 45 91.5 91.33 -0.179
TE 8 , TC 30 , T A 45 70.43 70.51 0.1159

5. Results and Discussion

In this simulation effectiveness of SHX is assumed as 0.7 while solution pump efficiency considered as 95 %. Supply
of cooling water for both absorber and condenser, supply of steam to generator and supply of air to evaporator assumed
as 0.4 kg/s. Here temperature of supplied steam to the generator is considered as 50 °C higher than corresponding
 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278 275

generator temperature. In procedure of finding out optimum generator temperature, absorber and condenser
temperature kept identical in all considered cases. Ambient temperature and pressure conditions are assumed as 25 °C
and 101.3 kPa respectively.

5.1. Cut off temperature

A regression analysis has been carried out to correlate the cut off temperature with given absorber, evaporator and
condenser temperature. For this analysis selected range of operating parameters are as, 5 o C d TE d 15 o C and
30 oC d TC & T A d 45 o C . In this analysis range of temperature for the condenser and absorber selected between 30
°C to 45 °C because both this temperature depends upon atmospheric condition. As per the climate condition of Gujarat
given range has been selected for analysis. As a part of present study, obtained regression correlation is as follows:
TG ,min 1.0428367  1.13286064 ˜ TC  3.04519873 u 10 5 TC2  1.04270829 ˜ T A  4.81375152 u 10 4 T A2
(21)
 1.34185330 ˜ TE  5.97768100 u 10 3 TE2
95
Evaporator
90 Absorber
Min. generator temperature (°C)

Condenser
85

80

75

70

65

60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 2. Variation of cut off temperature with absorber, condenser and evaporator temperature

Fig.2 shows variation of min. generator temperature with evaporator, absorber and condenser temperature. It is
observed that required cut off temperature (min. generator temperature) decreases with evaporator temperature
because mass concentration of water refrigerant in solution increases with evaporator temperature. It causes to lower
the cut off temperature of the solution. It is also found that required min. generator temperature increases with increase
in condenser and absorber temperature because as the temperature of condenser and absorber and increases, mass
concentration of LiBr in solution increases contributing the higher cut off temperature. It is also found that the
influence of increasing absorber temperature upon cut off temperature is predominant than that of increasing
condenser temperature.

5.2. Effect of Generator Temperature

Variation of COP and total exergy destruction rate of system with generator temperature is depicted in Fig.3. It is
observed that COP of system increase with generator temperature up to certain value and then after very negligible
variation is observed. With increasing generator temperature, strong solution concentration increases hence mass flow
rate of weak and strong solution decreases while refrigerant mass flow rate remains unchanged. Enthalpy of
superheated refrigerant stream marginally increases with generator temperature while enthalpy of weak and strong
solution increases rapidly hence lowering generator heat load. Therefore, COP of system increases with generator
temperature.
276 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278

1 20 1.2 16
Generator Evaporator
0.9 Condenser SHX
1 Absorber

Total exergy destruction (kW)

0.8 17

Exergy destruction (kW)

12
0.7 0.8
0.6 14
COP

0.6 8
0.5

0.4 11
0.4
0.3 4
0.2 8 0.2
COP (TE = 5 °C,TC = TA = 40 °C)
0.1  sys (TE = 10 °C, TC = TA = 40°C)
0 0
0 5 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108
92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108
Generator temperature (°C)
Generator temperature (°C) Fig.4. Variation of exergy destruction of various
Fig.3. Variation of COP and total exergy destruction of system component system with generator temperature
with generator temperature

From Fig.3. it is found that with increasing generator temperature, total exergy destruction of system increases.
This can be understood by Fig.4. It is observed that exergy destruction in condenser and generator increases with
increasing generator temperature while in SHX and absorber it decreases. It is clear that with increasing generator
temperature total exergy destruction of system increases rapidly so it is necessary to optimize the generator
temperature for minimization of exergy destruction of system. From Fig.3 it is observed that optimum generator
temperature corresponding to minimization of exergy destruction rate found lower than that for maximization of COP.

5.3. Optimum Generator Temperature

Variation of optimum generator temperature corresponding to maximum COP is illustrated in Fig.5. It is observed
that optimum generator temperature corresponding to maximum COP increases with increasing condenser
temperature while it decreases with increasing evaporator temperature.
120 0.9
Tc = 45 °C Tc = 35 °C Tc = 45 °C Tc = 35 °C
Tc = 40 °C Tc = 30 °C
Optimumm generator temperature (°C)

110 Tc = 40 °C Tc = 30 °C

0.85
100
Optimized COP

90
0.8
80

70
0.75

60

50 0.7
6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14
Evaporator temperature (°C) Evaporator temperature (°C)
Fig.5. Variation of optimum generator temperature Fig.6. Variation of optimized COP with evaporator
corresponding to maximum COP temperature for various condenser temperature

Variation of optimum generator temperature corresponding to minimum exergy destruction is depicted in Fig.7. It
is observed that optimum generator temperature corresponding to minimum exergy destruction rate decreases with
increase in evaporator temperature because as evaporator temperature increases difference between refrigerant and
ambient temperature decreases hence system subjected to lower exergy destruction. As condenser temperature
increases, temperature difference between refrigerant and outer circuit cooling water increases hence system subjected
 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278 277

to higher exergy destruction. It is observed that variation in optimum generator temperature corresponding to
minimum exergy destruction and optimized exergy destruction at lower condenser and higher evaporator temperature
is negligible as shown in Fig. 7 and 8.

Tc = 45 °C Tc = 35 °C
10
Optimumm generator temperature (°C)

90 Tc = 40 °C Tc = 30 °C Tc = 45 °C Tc = 35 °C
Tc = 40 °C Tc = 30 °C

Optimized exergy destruction (kW)

85
8
80

75 6

70
4
65

60 2

55
6 8 10 12 14 0
6 8 10 12 14
Evaporator temperature (°C)
Evaporator temperature (°C)
Fig.7. Variation of optimum generator temperature
Fig.8. Variation of optimized exergy destruction with
corresponding to minimum exergy destruction
evaporator temperature for various condenser temperature

46
46 92
88.3
44
108.1 84.6 80.9
44
Condenser temperature (°C)

102.2 42
42
Condenser temperature (°C)

96.3 77.2
40 73.5
40
90.4
38
84.5 69.8
38 66.1
36
36 78.6
34 62.4 58.7
72.7
34
32
66.8 60.9 55
32
30
30 5 7 9 11 13 15
5 7 9 11 13 15
Evaporator temperature (°C)
Evaporator temperature (°C)
Fig.10. Contour plot of the optimum generator temperature
Fig.9. Contour plot of the optimum generator temperature corresponding to optimized exergy destruction
corresponding to optimized COP

From Fig.6. it is concluded that optimized COP increases with increasing evaporator temperature while it decreases
with increasing condenser temperature. From Fig.8. it is observed that optimized exergy destruction decreases with
evaporator temperature while it increases with condenser temperature. Therefore, it is proved that optimum generator
temperature for both maximum COP and minimum exergy destruction is strong function of evaporator and condenser
temperature. Through this thermodynamic analysis it is also observed that optimum generator temperature
corresponding to optimized COP and exergy destruction is not identical.
Combine effect of condenser-evaporator temperature upon optimum generator temperature corresponding to
optimized COP and exergy destruction rate in form of contour diagrams are depicted in Fig.9 and 10 respectively.
From Fig.3 it is observed that if system operates at optimum generator temperature corresponding to maximum COP
there is an increase about 97.68 % in exergy destruction rate from its minimum value while COP decrease about 71.20
% to the maximum COP when system operates with exergy optimized generator temperature. Hence it is concluded
that as far as optimization of LiBr-H2OVARS is concern optimized exergy destruction approach must prefer over
278 Bhargav Pandya et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 270 – 278

maximum COP approach.

6. Conclusion

The detailed thermodynamic optimization of LiBr-H2O absorption system has been evaluated in this study. The
simulation shows that minimum generator temperature of system increases with absorber and condenser temperature
while it decreases with evaporator temperature. It is also observed that COP of system increase with generator
temperature up to certain value then after very negligible variation is observed while exergy destruction rate of system
increases rapidly with generator temperature. From the optimization analysis, it is observed that optimum generator
temperature corresponding to exergy based approach founds lower than that for energy based approach. Optimum
generator temperature increases with condenser temperature and decreases with evaporator temperature. Hence it is
possible to find out optimum generator temperature for various combination of evaporator and condenser temperature.
Exergy destruction rate is more responsive to optimized operating condition compared to that COP of system hence
optimized exergy destruction approach should prefer for optimization of LiBr-H2O VARS. Therefore, exergy based
perspective has been suggested as most viable option for optimization of LiBr-H2O VARS.

References

[1] Srikhirin P, Aphornratana S, Chungpaibulpatana S. A review of absorption refrigeration technologies. Renewable

and sustainable energy reviews 2001; 5:343-72.
[2] G.A. Florides, S.A. Kalogirou, S.A. Tassou, L.C. Wrobel. Modelling, simulation and warming impact assessment
of a domestic-size absorption solar cooling system. Applied Thermal Engineering 2002;22: 1313-25.
[3] S.B. Riffat, G. Qiu. Comparative investigation of thermoelectric air-conditioners versus vapour compression and
absorption air-conditioners. Applied Thermal Engineering 2004;24: 1979-93.
[4] A. Myat, K. Thu, Y.D. Kim, A. Chakraborty, W.G. Chun, K.C. Ng. A second law analysis and entropy generation
minimization of an absorption chiller. Applied Thermal Engineering 2011;31: 2405-13.
[5] O. Kaynakli, R. Yamankaradeniz. Thermodynamic analysis of absorption refrigeration system based on entropy.
Current science 2009;92: 472-79.
[6] A. Şencan, K.A. Yakut, S.A. Kalogirou. Exergy analysis of lithium bromide/water absorption systems. Renewable
energy 2005;30: 645-657.
[7] S. Aprhornratana, I. W. Eames. Thermodynamic analysis of absorption refrigeration cycles using the second law
of thermodynamics method, International Journal of Refrigeration 1995;18:244-52.
[8] M. Kilic, O. Kaynakli. Second law-based thermodynamic analysis of water-lithium bromide absorption
refrigeration system. Energy 2007; 32:1505-12.
[9] M.M. Talbi, B. Agnew. Exergy analysis: an absorption refrigerator using lithium bromide and water as the working
fluids. Applied Thermal Engineering 2000;20: 619-30.
[10] G. Gutiérrez-Urueta, A. Huicochea, P. Rodríguez-Aumente, W. Rivera. Energy and Exergy Analysis of Water-
LiBr Absorption Systems with Adiabatic Absorbers for Heating and Cooling. Energy Procedia 2014;57: 2676-85.
[11] A. Arora, S.C. Kaushik. Theoretical analysis of LiBr/H2O absorption refrigeration systems. International Journal
of Energy Research 2009;33: 1321-40.
[12] R. Gomri. Second law comparison of single effect and double effect vapour absorption refrigeration systems.
Energy Conversion and Management 2009;50: 1279-87.
[13] J.D. Marcos, M. Izquierdo, E. Palacios. New method for COP optimization in water-and air-cooled single and
double effect LiBr–water absorption machines, International journal of Refrigeration 2011;34: 1348-59.
[14] R. Saravanan, M.P. Maiya. Thermodynamic comparison of water-based working fluid combinations for a vapour
absorption refrigeration system, Applied Thermal Engineering 1998;18: 553-68.
[15] Y.A. Cengel, M.A. Boles, M. Kanoglu. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. Eight ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 2015.
[16] R. Palacios-Bereche, R. Gonzales, S.A. Nebra. Exergy calculation of lithium bromide-water solution and its
application in the exergetic evaluation of absorption refrigeration systems LiBr-H2O, International Journal of Energy
Research 2012;36: 166-81.
[17] S.A. Klein, F.L. Alvarado. Engineering equation solver, F-Chart Software, Madison. WI 2002: 1.