energies

Article
Comparative Analysis of Small-Scale Organic
Rankine Cycle Systems for Solar Energy Utilisation
Ruiqi Wang, Long Jiang *, Zhiwei Ma, Abigail Gonzalez-Diaz, Yaodong Wang and
Anthony Paul Roskilly
Sir Joseph Swan Centre for Energy Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK;
r.wang34@newcastle.ac.uk (R.W.); zhiwei.ma@newcastle.ac.uk (Z.M.);
agonzalez-diaz@newcastle.ac.uk (A.G.-D.); yaodongwang@newcastle.ac.uk (Y.W.);
aproskilly@newcastle.ac.uk (A.P.R.)
* Correspondence: long.jiang@newcastle.ac.uk




Received: 20 December 2018; Accepted: 26 February 2019; Published: 2 March 2019


Abstract: Small-scale organic Rankine cycle (ORC) systems driven by solar energy are compared in
this paper, which aims to explore the potential of power generation for domestic utilisation. A solar
thermal collector was used as the heat source for a hot water storage tank. Thermal performance
was then evaluated in terms of both the conventional ORC and an ORC using thermal driven pump
(TDP). It is established that the solar ORC using TDP has a superior performance to the conventional
ORC under most working conditions. Results demonstrate that power output of the ORC using
TDP ranges from 72 W to 82 W with the increase of evaporating temperature, which shows an
improvement of up to 3.3% at a 100 ◦ C evaporating temperature when compared with the power
output of the conventional ORC. Energy and exergy efficiencies of the ORC using TDP increase
from 11.3% to 12.6% and from 45.8% to 51.3% when the evaporating temperature increases from
75 ◦ C to 100 ◦ C. The efficiency of the ORC using TDP is improved by up to 3.27%. Additionally,
the exergy destruction using TDP can be reduced in the evaporator and condenser. The highest
exergy efficiency in the evaporator is 96.9%, an improvement of 62% in comparison with that of the
conventional ORC, i.e., 59.9%. Thus, the small-scale solar ORC system using TDP is more promising
for household application.

Keywords: organic Rankine cycle; thermal driven pump; small-scale; energy and exergy efficiency

1. Introduction
Solar thermal technology is gathering the momentum to meet household demands for both
heating and electricity in the UK [1]. Due to the relatively low annual yield of incident solar
radiation, low-temperature heat source recovery technologies have become more significant, e.g.,
thermoelectric power and the organic Rankine cycle (ORC), when considering thermal efficiency and
system compactness [2,3]. Compared with the poor efficiency of thermoelectric power at low solar
radiation, the ORC could be a better candidate for distributed household applications, as it is able to
operate efficiently and affordably at relatively low working temperatures [4,5].
Considerable progress has been made in the development of solar ORC systems for small-scale
power generation [6,7]. With a range of solar collector designs, both concentrating and
non-concentrating types had been featured for solar ORC systems [8,9]. An overall efficiency of
4.2% was obtained by using evacuated tube collectors and 3.2% using flat-plate collectors [10].
Other concentrating parabolic through collectors demonstrated higher overall efficiencies in the
region of 7.5–12.1% [6,11]. The nanofluid was utilised in a solar driven ORC with parabolic trough
collectors to achieve a higher system performance and the system efficiency was found to be 20.11% [12].

Energies 2019, 12, 829; doi:10.3390/en12050829 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 829 2 of 22

An onsite experimental evaluation of a low temperature solar ORC system was presented for reverse
osmosis desalination. However, considerably low efficiency was observed [13]. Combined solar
heat and power system based on the ORC cycle have advantageous ability to use low-cost thermal
energy storage to provide continuous operation under intermittent solar-irradiance conditions [14].
A number of investigations have proposed thermal energy storage solutions using solid-liquid
phase change materials for solar ORC system [15,16]. It is noted that there are vast potentials to
further improve thermal performance through the organic working fluid exploration and ORC system
optimisation [17,18].
Considering organic working fluids, different applications have been investigated by various
researchers [19]. The slope of the saturation curve for working fluids in a temperature vs. specific
entropy diagram can be positive, negative and vertical, which are correspondingly named “wet”,
“dry” and “isentropic” fluids [20]. Wet fluids (e.g., water) are usually required to be superheated,
whereas many other organic fluids may be dry or isentropic, which do not need superheating. Another
advantage of organic working fluid is that a turbine established for ORCs typically requires only a
single-stage expander, which brings about a simpler and more economical system in terms of cost
and maintenance [21]. Common pure working fluids, e.g., R123 [22], R245fa [23], R245ca [24] and
n-pentane [25], have been comprehensively studied. The mixtures are also developed and attempted
for ORCs [26,27]. Thermophysical properties of working fluids, e.g., fluid density and thermal
conductivity, are analysed and summarised, and working fluids can then be selected in terms of the
above properties, thermal stability, compatibility, environmental impacts, safety and cost [28]. Based on
selection criteria, R245fa and R134a are often regarded as suitable working fluids for recovering a
low-temperature heat source [29].
System optimisation can be realized by improving the thermal performance of each component.
Among the four main components of the conventional ORC, the expander is the most investigated due
to the fact that it is related to the work output [30]. The work output acts as a positive numerator when
calculating thermal efficiency [31]. A variety of expanders have been assessed to attempt improving
thermal performance, e.g., scroll expander [32,33], piston expander [34], rotary expander [35], screw
expander [36,37] and radial turbine [38]. In general, the scroll expander is the most suitable expander
for a small-scale ORC system [39]. Recently, several research efforts have aimed to accomplish
better performance by using a free-piston expander [40]. Moreover, two heat exchangers serve as
the evaporator and condenser for conventional ORC systems. Thus, heat transfer enhancement is
conducive to overall system evaluation, which is greatly relevant to heat input as the denominator
for calculating thermal efficiency [41]. Different evaporation and condensation processes have been
investigated in terms of heat exchanger type, tube structure, refrigerant, etc. [42]. Nonetheless, another
item in the equation for calculating thermal efficiency may be easily ignored. Pump work acts as a
negative numerator, which consumes electricity in a real application. Pump work in various studies is
not included when calculating the overall efficiency. One such case is if the scale of the ORC system is
large, i.e., pump work only accounts for less than 5% of the electricity output. Thus, pump work will
not significantly influence the efficiency, even if it is ignored [43]. The other case is if thermal efficiency
has a negative effect on the overall performance. This part is selectively overlooked to present decent
results. However, pump consumption becomes even larger for a small-scale ORC when the heat source
temperature becomes lower [44].
A possible solution is to realize the ORC without using an electrical driven pump. The pump
is generally used to pressurize the refrigerant from condensing pressure to evaporating pressure.
The pressure difference is also achievable by other methods. One concept is to use the gravity of the
working fluid, i.e., enough height difference between evaporator and condenser [45]. Although
the height brings about a pressure difference, the required value becomes a barrier in several
applications. An alternative idea is to drive the ORC by using a thermal-driven pump (TDP), which is
a thermodynamic way to replace the electrical driven pump [46]. A thermosiphon, i.e., a heat pipe,
is one type of thermal driven pump, and it was first proposed in the last century [47]. Due to its
Energies 2019, 12, 829 3 of 22

unique characteristic, the power generation is too small. Another thermal driven pump is the pressure
difference realized by heating and cooling at intervals [46]. An experimental rig was established to
prove the feasibility of this TDP [48]. Our previous work also investigated its working performance
by using a lab-scale prototype, but the unstable power output was not satisfactory [49]. Later, a
modified experimental rig was built to improve the thermal performance. Results indicated that the
efficiency was further improved, and 90% of the power generating process was stable [50]. Due to the
characteristic of solar energy, the fluctuation could be accepted by using battery technology. Thus, a
solar ORC using TDP may be desirable for domestic application, which is expected to have a higher
thermal efficiency when compared with that of the conventional type.
To the authors’ best knowledge, few research studies on the solar ORC with TDP are reported.
Thus, this paper aims to evaluate the performance of a small-scale ORC with TDP when operating at a
low solar irradiance level. To further illustrate its advantages and disadvantages, the performance is
compared with that of conventional solar ORC in terms of power output, energy and exergy efficiencies.
The overarching framework of this paper is elaborated as follows. Solar ORCs using and not using
TDP are presented in Section 2. Then, modelling and evaluation equations are defined in Section 3.
Thermal performances of the solar ORCs are compared in Section 4, which is followed by conclusions
in Section 5.

2. System Description
Figure 1 indicates the schematic diagrams of combined solar heat and power systems. The solar
collector provides the thermal energy for evaporating the working fluid. One water tank between
the ORC system and solar collector serves as a heat exchanger, which could be replaced by a thermal
energy store vessel where phase change materials can be considered as the storage media. Another
water tank could be used to supply the domestic hot water for end users from the heat rejected by the
condensation [14]. It will be a reduction in the fuel demand to heat the water. The electricity generation
by ORC is set to be prioritised over water heating. A proportion of the solar collector fluid will be
transferred to the domestic hot water tank only when the collector fluid is at a higher temperature
than the hot water tank plus a pinch difference. When this temperature is higher than the critical
temperature of working fluids, excess solar heat is rejected directly to the hot water tank. No heating
is delivered to the hot water tank if its mean temperature is above the maximum hot water storage
temperature [5]. Since the ORC is the main investigation target, the storage part is not analysed in the
rest of this paper.
As shown in Figure 1a, the conventional ORC is mainly composed of two heat exchangers
(evaporator and condenser), an expander and a working fluid pump. Its principle is the same as that
of the Rankine cycle. Working fluid is pumped into a boiler, where it is evaporated and passes through
an expander for power generation. Then, it goes through a condenser, where it is finally condensed.
Due to energy consumption of the electrical driven pump, the basic ORC may enjoy a very low energy
efficiency when the heating temperature is low and the rated power output is small. To solve this
problem, the ORC part replaces the electrical driven pump with TDP, which is shown in the dashed
area of Figure 1b.
Figure 2 presents different operation modes of ORC using TDP. The ORC using TDP is mainly
composed of two high-efficiency heat exchangers, i.e., heat exchanger 1 and heat exchanger 2,
an expander, a generator and other auxiliary components [49]. The working processes consist of
a pre-expansion process and a power generation process, which are briefly illustrated as follows:
(a) Pre-expansion process. Heat exchanger 1 acts as a condenser while heat exchanger 2 works as
an evaporator. Water valves V1, V3, V6 and V8 are open, and all other valves are closed. The
evaporator that is full of the working fluid, i.e., heat exchanger 2, undertakes isochoric heating through
hot water, and its pressure increases gradually until it becomes constant. Meanwhile, the working
fluid in the condenser, i.e., heat exchanger 1, starts as saturated vapour at a high temperature and
pressure. The condenser applies an isochoric cooling process. (b) Power generation process. When
Energies 2019, 12, 829 4 of 22
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21

whole process that is termed as a generalised working cycle is shown in Figure 2a. Then heat
the pressure of the evaporator becomes constant and the condenser achieves a cooler level, RV2 and
exchanger 1 and 2 swap their roles as condenser and expander. A new cycle starts as indicated in
RV4 are opened. Then, the working fluid with high temperature and pressure from the evaporator
Figure 2b, which is similar to previous pre-expansion and power generation processes. A working
flows into the expander and generates the power. The power is outputted until there is no pressure
mode for the ORC using TDP could be according to Table 1. For further clarification of the whole
difference between the evaporator and condenser. During this process, the high-pressure working
process, different operating modes of water and refrigerant valves for the ORC using TDP are listed
fluid in the evaporator is isobarically heated. The exhaust enters the condenser and is condensed into
in Table 2. It is noted that heat exchangers 1 and 2 are always heated and cooled inversely. No power
saturated liquid. When the generator does not produce power, RV2, RV4, V1, V3, V6 and V8 are closed.
output is obtained in the pre-expansion process, which slightly reduces the average output.
This whole process that is termed as a generalised working cycle is shown in Figure 2a. Then heat
In fact, the working fluid pump is replaced by the TDP, i.e., the switch of two heat exchangers
exchanger 1 and 2 swap their roles as condenser and expander. A new cycle starts as indicated in
as shown in the dashed area of Figure 2. Compared with the conventional ORC, the ORC using TDP
Figure 2b, which is similar to previous pre-expansion and power generation processes. A working
may have a higher energy efficiency since the pump is eliminated. Additionally, it is worth noting
mode for the ORC
that continuous usingoutput
power TDP could
couldbebeaccording
obtained to
inTable 1. For generation
the power further clarification of the
process, and whole
thermal
process, different
continuity operating
is influenced by modes of water and
the pre-expansion refrigerant
process. valves
To solve thisfor the ORC
problem ofusing TDP are
continuity, listedtoin
it tends
Table 2. It is noted that heat exchangers 1 and 2 are always heated and cooled inversely.
use two or more ORCs with TDPs for power generation alternatively. However, it is acceptable No power
for
output is obtained in the pre-expansion process, which slightly reduces
the solar ORC, which can utilise battery technology for electricity storage. the average output.

(a)

(b)
Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure Schematic diagram
diagram of
of combined
combined solar
solar heat
heat and
and power
power systems
systemsbased
basedon
on(a)
(a)the
theconventional
conventional
organic Rankine cycle (ORC); and (b) the ORC using thermal driven pump.
organic Rankine cycle (ORC); and (b) the ORC using thermal driven pump.
 Energies 2019, 12, 829 5 of 22
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure2.2.Schematic
Schematicdiagram
diagramof
of ORC
ORC with thermal
thermaldriven
drivenpump
pump(a)
(a)first
firstcycle;
cycle; and
and (b)(b) next
next cycle.
cycle.

Table 1. Working mode for the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) using thermal driven pump (TDP).
Table 1. Working mode for the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) using thermal driven pump (TDP).
Working Mode Pre-Expansion Power Generation Pre-Expansion Power Generation
Power Power
HeatWorking
exchangerMode
1 Pre-Expansion
Cooling Cooling
Generation
Pre-Expansion
Heating Heating
Generation
Heat exchanger 2 Heating Heating Cooling Cooling
Heat exchanger 1 Cooling Cooling Heating Heating
Power Unable Able Unable Able
Heat exchanger 2 Heating Heating Cooling Cooling
Power Unable Able Unable Able
Table 2. Different operating modes of valves for the ORC using TDP.

Table
Valves 2. Different operating modes
V1, V3, of valves
V6, V8 forV5,
V2, V4, theV7
ORC using TDP.
RV1, RV3 RV2, RV4
Pre-expansion Open Close Close Close
First cycle Valves
Power generation V1, V3, V6,
OpenV8 V2, V4,Close
V5, V7 RV1, RV3
Close RV2,
OpenRV4
Pre-expansion
Pre-expansion OpenClose Open
Close Close
Close Close
Close
Next cycle
First cycle Power generation Close Open Open Close
Power generation Open Close Close Open
Pre-expansion Close Open Close Close
Next cycle
Power generation Close Open Open Close

A T-s diagram of a solar ORC cycle using a typical working fluid, i.e., R245fa, is shown in Figure
3. The heat is obtained from a solar collector using water as a heat transfer fluid. A fixed superheated
Energies 2019, 12, 829 6 of 22

In fact, the working fluid pump is replaced by the TDP, i.e., the switch of two heat exchangers
as shown in the dashed area of Figure 2. Compared with the conventional ORC, the ORC using TDP
may have a higher energy efficiency since the pump is eliminated. Additionally, it is worth noting that
continuous power output could be obtained in the power generation process, and thermal continuity
is influenced by the pre-expansion process. To solve this problem of continuity, it tends to use two or
more ORCs with TDPs for power generation alternatively. However, it is acceptable for the solar ORC,
which can utilise battery technology for electricity storage.
Energies T-s diagram
A 2019, 12, x FOR of a solar
PEER REVIEWORC cycle using a typical working fluid, i.e., R245fa, is shown in Figure 3.
6 of 21
The heat is obtained from a solar collector using water as a heat transfer fluid. A fixed superheated
◦ C is assumed between the heat source fluid inlet and working
temperature difference∆T
temperature difference superheated ofof
ΔTsuperheated 5 5°C is assumed between the heat source fluid inlet and
fluid outlet.
outlet. Thus,
Thus,the theworking
working fluid
fluid outlet
outlet temperature
temperature is evaluated
is evaluated 1 =T
as Tas T1sc,1=−TΔT − ∆Tsuperheated
sc,1superheated. In order.
In order to comprehensively
to comprehensively evaluate
evaluate the the performance,
performance, refrigerants
refrigerants of R245fa, of R245fa,
R134a and R134a
isobutaneandare isobutane
chosen
are chosen as the working fluids for solar ORC systems. These refrigerants
as the working fluids for solar ORC systems. These refrigerants have been verified as well-suited have been verified as
well-suited
candidates candidates for low-temperature
for low-temperature ORC applications
ORC applications due to duetheir
to their thermodynamicand
thermodynamic and physical
properties, low flammability, corrosiveness and environmental impacts [5,20].
flammability, corrosiveness and environmental impacts [5,20]. The thermodynamic The thermodynamic
data of these organic compounds are obtained from REFPROP 9 (National Institute of Standards and
Technology,
Technology,Gaithersburg,
Gaithersburg,MD, MD,USA).
USA).

180
600
R245fa 800 400
160 1000 200
1200
ρ = 1400 kg⋅m
-3 100
140 50
luid 20
Temperature (oC)

120 f
Solar 8
7 1
100
80
60 6

40 2
5 4
20 3

0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
Entropy (kJ⋅kg-1⋅K-1)

Figure 3. T-s diagram of a solar ORC using R245fa as the working fluid.

3. Methodology
3. Methodology
3.1. Aspen Model
3.1. Aspen Model
The solar ORC model was built in Aspen Plus (v 8.8, Aspen Technology, Inc., Bedford, MA, USA),
The solar ORC model was built in Aspen Plus (v 8.8, Aspen Technology, Inc., Bedford, MA,
which includes the specification of each block [51]. The Peng–Robinson method was used to calculate
USA), which includes the specification of each block [51]. The Peng–Robinson method was used to
the properties of all the components. Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of the solar ORC system in
calculate the properties of all the components. Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of the solar
Aspen Plus. The relevant assumptions are as follows: (1) The ORC cycle and its components operate
ORC system in Aspen Plus. The relevant assumptions are as follows: (1) The ORC cycle and its
under steady-state conditions; (2) thermodynamic equilibrium happens at the inlet and outlet of each
components operate under steady-state conditions; (2) thermodynamic equilibrium happens at the
component; (3) the kinetic energy of heat transfer and working fluid in solar ORC cycles are negligible;
inlet and outlet of each component; (3) the kinetic energy of heat transfer and working fluid in solar
(4) heat loss and pressure drops in the system can be overlooked; and (5) the electricity consumption of
ORC cycles are negligible; (4) heat loss and pressure drops in the system can be overlooked; and (5)
water valves and refrigerant valves is ignored. The input parameters in the model are given in Table 3.
the electricity consumption of water valves and refrigerant valves is ignored. The input parameters
in the model are given in Table 3.
ORC system in Aspen Plus. The relevant assumptions are as follows: (1) The ORC cycle and its
components operate under steady-state conditions; (2) thermodynamic equilibrium happens at the
inlet and outlet of each component; (3) the kinetic energy of heat transfer and working fluid in solar
ORC cycles are negligible; (4) heat loss and pressure drops in the system can be overlooked; and (5)
the electricity
Energies consumption of water valves and refrigerant valves is ignored. The input parameters
2019, 12, 829 7 of 22
in the model are given in Table 3.

Figure 4. Schematic
Figure 4. Schematic diagram
diagram of
of the
the solar
solar ORC
ORC model
model in
in Aspen
Aspen Plus.
Plus.
Table 3. Input parameters of the solar ORC model in Aspen Plus.

Section Parameter Value

Discharge pressure Evaporating pressure
Fluid pump
Efficiency 0.65
Regenerator Cold stream outlet temperature T6
Preheater Cold stream outlet vapour fraction 0
Evaporator Cold stream outlet vapour fraction 1
Superheater Cold stream outlet temperature T1
Discharge pressure Condensing pressure
Expander
Isentropic efficiency 0.75
Condenser Condensation temperature 20 ◦ C
Working fluid Mass flow rate 0.003 kg·s−1
Mass flow rate a 0.03 kg·s−1
Solar collector fluid
Solar hot water inlet temperature b Tsc,1
Mass flow rate 0.1 kg·s−1
Cooling water
Cooling temperature 10 ◦ C
a Values are taken from the [5]. b The solar hot water inlet temperature is adopted from the [52].

3.2. Evaluation of Solar Collector

The proposed solar ORC systems utilise thermal energy absorbed by a solar collector. The useful
energy output from the solar collector per m2 can be predicted as a function of local climatic conditions
using the widely adopted model by Peters and Bales [1,53], which can be expressed as Equation (1):
.
Qsol = F 0 (τα)en Kθb (θ ) Isol,b + F 0 (τα)en Kθd Isol,d − c6 uIsol − c1 ( Tsc − Text )−c2 ( Tsc − Text )2
(1)
4 − c5 dTdtsc


−c3 u( Tsc − Text ) + c4 EL − σText

where Isol may be the direct normal or global irradiance depending on the collector type, and c1 to
c6 are solar collector efficiency curve coefficients. F 0 (τα)en is zero loss efficiency for global or total
radiation at normal incidence. Kθ is the solar collector incident angle modifier. Furthermore, u is the
wind speed in (parallel to) the collector plane and EL is the long wavelength radiation (outside solar
spectrum) onto the collector plane.
For simplicity, the efficiency of the solar collector ηsc is calculated as a function of the incident
solar irradiance I, the incident angle modifier Kθ , the mean collector temperature Tsc and the ambient
air temperature Text , which can be expressed as Equation (2) [1,54].

Tsc − Text ( Tsc − Text )2

 
ηsc = η0 Kθ − c1 − c2 (2)
Isol Isol
Energies 2019, 12, 829 8 of 22

where Kθ = (Kθ,b Isol,b + Isol,d )/( Isol,b + Isol,d ). The possible types of solar collectors that can be used
in ORC systems are not reviewed in the present study since the main purpose of this paper is to
compare the performance of ORCs using and not using TDP. Thus the type of solar collector is adopted
from the reference [1] and the outlet temperature of solar collector array is chosen from reference [52].
The TVP SOLAR HT-Power, a high efficiency evacuated flat-plate collector is selected, and the detailed
parameters of the solar collector are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Solar collector model coefficients [1].

Coefficient Value
η0 0.82
c1 0.399
c2 0.0067
Kθ,(θ = 50◦ ) 0.91

The energy balance for the collector can be evaluated as Equation (3):

dTsc . . .
Msc cp,w = Qsol + msc cp,w Tsc,in − msc cp,w Tsc,out (3)
dt
.
where Msc , msc and cp,w are mass, mass flow rate and specific heat capacity of the solar collector fluid,
respectively. Tsc,in and Tsc,out are the inlet and outlet temperature of the solar collector.

3.3. Performance Evaluation of ORC Systems

The performance analysis of solar ORC systems is based on the first and second thermodynamic
laws. The general energy balance of the conventional ORC can be expressed as Equations (4) and (5):

. .
∑ min = ∑ mout (4)
. . . .
Q+W = ∑ mout hout − ∑ min hin (5)
. .
where Q and W are the net heat flow rate and work inputs, h is specific enthalpy of the stream of the
. .
system, and min and mout are inlet and outlet mass flow rates.
The energy balance of working fluids in the solar heating process can be evaluated by Equations
(6)–(9): . . .
Qpreheat = mwf (h7 − h6 ) = mw (hsc,3 − hsc,4 ) (6)
. . .
Qeva = mwf (h8 − h7 ) = mw (hsc,2 − hsc,3 ) (7)
. . .
Qsuperheat = mwf (h1 − h8 ) = mw (hsc,1 − hsc,2 ) (8)
. . . .
Qh = Qpreheat + Qeva + Qsuperheat (9)
. . .
where Qpreheat , Qeva and Qsuperheat are the thermal energy obtained by working fluids in the preheating,
evaporation and superheating process, respectively. The subscripts of specific enthalpy h are based on
the state points, as shown in Figure 3.
The heat balances in the condenser and regenerator can be expressed by Equations (10) and (11):
. . .
Qcond = mwf (h3 − h4 ) = mc (hc,2 − hc,1 ) (10)
. . .
Qregen = mwf (h2 − h3 ) = mwf (h6 − h5 ) (11)
Energies 2019, 12, 829 9 of 22

Energy conservation in the expander and fluid pump is defined by Equations (12) and (13):
. .
W exp = mwf (h1 − h2 ) (12)
. .
W pu = mwf (h5 − h4 ) (13)
.
Thus, the net power W net and cycle thermal efficiency of the conventional ORC ηORC are presented
by Equations (14) and (15):
. . .
W net = W exp − W pu (14)
.
W net
ηORC = . (15)
Qh
The exergy analysis of the conventional ORC can be evaluated by Equations (16)–(20):
. . . . .
E+W = ∑ Eout − ∑ Ein + I (16)

e = h − ho − T0 (s − s0 ) (17)
. .
E = me (18)
. T0 .
Eh = ∑ (1 − T
) Qh (19)
.
W net
ηex,ORC = . (20)
Eh
. . .
where E and I are the exergy rate and irreversibility rate, e is the specific flow exergy, Eh and ηexergy are
the heat exergy and exergy efficiency of the conventional ORC, respectively, and T is the temperature
of the heat input.
The total heat input of the ORC using TDP is composed of two parts. One is the heat for the
evaporation of the refrigerant. The other is the sensible heat for warming up the refrigerant. These are
found by Equations (21) and (22):
. . 1 .
Qh, TDP = Qwf + m c ∆T (21)
tcycle wf wf wf

. Z tpower
1 . .
Qwf = [mwf (h6 − h4 ) + mwf (h1 − h6 )dt] (22)
tcycle 0

where tcycle is cycle time, which is composed of both pre-expansion and power generation processes.
The average power output can be found by Equation (23):

. Z cycle . Z cycle
1 1 .

W ave = W ins dt = mwf ηs hv − hexp,out (23)
tcycle 0 tcycle 0

.
where W ins is the instantaneous power output; ηs is the isentropic efficiency; hexp,out is the outlet
enthalpy of the expander.
The energy efficiency of the ORC using TDP can be determined according to Equation (24):
.
W ave
ηTDP = . (24)
Qh,TDP
Energies 2019, 12, 829 10 of 22

The heat exergy of the ORC with TDP can be calculated by Equation (25):
. . T0
Eh,TDP = Qh,TDP × (1 − ) (25)
Th,ave

where Th,ave is the average temperature of the heat input.

The exergy efficiency of the ORC with TDP can be expressed as Equation (26):
.
W ave
ηex,TDP = . (26)
Eh,TDP

3.4. Validation of ORC Model

To validate the ORC model used in this paper, the results in this work are compared with the
reference data in Kaşka’s work [55] which are shown in Table 5. It is worth noting that the relative
errors show a good agreement between the reference and present work. Thus, the ORC model in the
present study is reliable to be used in the calculations.

Table 5. Comparison of results between the reference and present work.

Parameter T 1 (◦ C) mwf (kg·s−1 ) T 4 (◦ C) T 5 (◦ C) Wnet (kW) Qh (kW) ηORC (%)

Kaşka, Ö [55] 92.9 11.06 34.9 35.4 262.2 2479 10.58
Present study 93.3 11.06 34.87 35.41 244.6 2313 10.57
Error (%) 0.43 0 0.09 0.03 6.71 6.69 0.09

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Dynamic Output Characteristics

Figure 5 shows a range of daily solar collector outlet temperatures which are adopted from the
reference [52]. The climatic data is made up of annually average temperatures for each hour of the
day. Solar hot water with different temperatures ranging from 34 ◦ C to 122.6 ◦ C is adopted to drive
the ORC system, and the evaporating temperature is fixed at 80 ◦ C. Figure 6 indicates the cumulative
power output of the conventional solar ORC based on daily solar collector outlet temperatures in
Figure 5. Results demonstrate that the cumulative power output of the solar ORC has the same trend
in terms of three working fluids. The power generation process starts only if the outlet temperature
of solar collector exceeds the evaporating temperature. The cumulative power output from the ORC
increases considerably while the collector outlet temperature is higher than 80 ◦ C. It can be noted that
the ORC using isobutane shows a better performance than those using R245fa and R134a, and it has
the highest cumulative work of 52 MJ. The maximum cumulative work can reach 31 MJ and 26 MJ by
using R245fa and R134a, respectively.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of power output using three working fluids under a range of
collector outlet temperatures. It can be observed that the net power output increases with the increase
of outlet temperature. This is mainly because when the solar hot water outlet temperature increases,
the expander inlet temperature will accordingly increase, which leads to a higher power output. The
optimum outlet temperature is found to be 122.6 ◦ C of which the maximum net power output can be
obtained. It is indicated that the fluid isobutane still performs well when compared with the other
working fluids, and it has the highest power output of 149 W. For working fluids R245fa and R134a,
the maximum power outputs could reach 87 W and 77 W, respectively.
of
insolar
termscollector
of threeexceeds
workingthe evaporating
fluids. temperature.
The power generationThe cumulative
process power
starts only output
if the from
outlet the ORC
temperature
increases considerably while the collector outlet temperature is higher than 80 °C. It can
of solar collector exceeds the evaporating temperature. The cumulative power output from the ORC be noted that
the ORC using
increases isobutane
considerably shows
while theacollector
better performance than those
outlet temperature usingthan
is higher R245fa andItR134a,
80 °C. can beand it has
noted that
the
thehighest
ORC using cumulative work
isobutane of 52aMJ.
shows Theperformance
better maximum cumulative
than thosework
usingcan reachand
R245fa 31 MJ and and
R134a, 26 MJ by
it has
using R245fa and R134a, respectively.
the highest cumulative work of 52 MJ. The maximum cumulative work can reach 31 MJ and 26 MJ by
Energies 2019, 12, 829 11 of 22
using R245fa and R134a, respectively.
150
150

(°C)(°C)
100

Temperature
100

Temperature
50
50 Twf,eva
TTsc,out
wf,eva
Tsc,out
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
6 8 10 12
Time (hour) 14 16 18
Time (hour)
Figure 5. Daily solar collector outlet temperature vs. time [52].
Figure 5. Daily solar collector outlet temperature vs. time [52].
Figure 5. Daily solar collector outlet temperature vs. time [52].
60
60 R245fa
50 R134a
R245fa
Isobutane
(MJ)(MJ)

50 R134a
40 Isobutane
workwork

40
30
Cumulative

30
Cumulative

20
20
10
10
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
0 11 of 21
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
6
working fluids, and it has the highest 8
power 10
output 12
Time (hour)
of 149 14
W. For 16 18fluids R245fa and R134a,
working
the maximum power outputs could reach 87 W Time
and 77 W, respectively.
(hour)
Figure 6. Cumulative power output based on daily solar collector outlet temperatures.
Figure 6. Cumulative power output based on daily solar collector outlet temperatures.
160
Figure 6. Cumulative power output based on daily solar collector outlet temperatures.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of power output using three working fluids under a range of
collector outlet
Figure temperatures.
7 shows It
140
a comparisoncan beofobserved that theusing
power output net power
threeoutput
working increases
fluids with
underthe
a increase
range of
of outlet temperature.
collector This is mainly
outlet temperatures. because
It can be when
observed thatthe
thesolar hot water
net power outlet
output temperature
increases increases,
with the increase
Power output (W)

the expander inlet temperature 120will accordingly increase, which R245fa

leads to a higher power output.
of outlet temperature. This is mainly because when the solar hot water outlet temperature increases, The
optimum outlet temperature is found to be 122.6 °C of which R134a
the maximum net power output canThe
be
the expander inlet temperature will accordingly increase, which leads to a higher power output.
Isobutane
obtained.
optimumItoutlet
is indicated
temperature 100
that the fluid to
is found isobutane
be 122.6still performs
°C of well
which the when compared
maximum net powerwith the can
output other
be
obtained. It is indicated that the fluid isobutane still performs well when compared with the other
80

60

90 100 110 120

Temperature (°C)

Figure 7. Net power output as a function

Figure 7. function of
of the
the solar
solar collector
collector outlet
outlet temperature.
temperature.

4.2. Parametric Analysis

4.2 Parametric Analysis
In this section, a parametric analysis was undertaken to compare the performance between
In this section, a parametric analysis was undertaken to compare the performance between solar
solar ORCs using and not using TDP. Following variables are considered for power outputs of the
ORCs using and not using TDP. Following variables are considered for power outputs of the systems:
systems: (1) evaporating temperature, Tevap ; (2) condensation temperature, Tcond ; (3) ORC working
(1) evaporating temperature, Tevap; (2) condensation temperature, Tcond; (3) ORC working fluid flow
rate, 𝑚 ; (4) fluid flow rate of solar collector, 𝑚 ; (5) isentropic efficiency of the expander; (6)
efficiency of heat exchanger. A single parameter was adjusted while the others were held constant in
the parametric analysis. The solar collector outlet temperature is selected for the optimum power
output in the simulation, i.e., 122.6 °C. Considering the solar ORC using TDP, the periods for the pre-
Energies 2019, 12, 829 12 of 22

. .
fluid flow rate, mwf ; (4) fluid flow rate of solar collector, msc ; (5) isentropic efficiency of the expander;
(6) efficiency of heat exchanger. A single parameter was adjusted while the others were held constant
in the parametric analysis. The solar collector outlet temperature is selected for the optimum power
output in the simulation, i.e., 122.6 ◦ C. Considering the solar ORC using TDP, the periods for the
pre-expansion process and power generation under the condition of different parameters were selected
based on the results of our previous experimental work [50]. R134 is selected as a typical working fluid
which aims to show the minimum influence by using TDP.
Figure 8 reveals the power outputs of the solar ORC using and not using TDP when the
evaporating temperature varies from 75 ◦ C to 100 ◦ C. It is worth noting that the power output
of the solar ORC using TDP ranges from 72 W to 82 W, which is improved by up to 3.3% at a 100 ◦ C
evaporating temperature when compared with that of the conventional ORC. It is demonstrated that
the power output for conventional ORC system climbs slightly from 90 ◦ C to 95 ◦ C and then fall
rapidly after 95 ◦ C. This is mainly due to the fact that with an increase of the evaporating temperature,
the working fluid requires more heat for evaporation, which results in a decrease in the superheating
capacity of the working fluid when constant heat is transferred by the solar collector. Then, the decrease
in the expander inlet pressure leads to the decline in power output. Additionally, the power output of
the solar ORC with TDP is higher than that of the conventional ORC when the evaporating temperature
is higher than 90 ◦ C. This is mainly because the working fluid pump consumes more electricity when
the evaporating temperature increases, which exceeds the difference between the power output of the
ORC using TDP and that of the conventional ORC. Thus, increased power output is achieved using
Energies
the ORC 2019,
with12, TDP
x FORin
PEER REVIEW with that using the conventional ORC.
comparison 12 of 21

85
R134a
Power output (W)

Conventional ORC
80

ORC with TDP

75

70
75 80 85 90 95 100
Evaporating temperature (°C)

Figure8.8.Power
Figure Poweroutputs
outputsof
oftwo
twosolar
solarORCs
ORCsvs.
vs.different
differentevaporating
evaporatingtemperatures.
temperatures.

Figure
Figure9 indicates
9 indicatesthatthat
the power outputs
the power of both solar
outputs ORCs
of both when
solar the working
ORCs when the fluidworking
condensation
fluid
temperature is increased from 15 ◦ C to 35 ◦ C. With the increasing of condensation temperature,
condensation temperature is increased from 15 °C to 35 °C. With the increasing of condensation
the expander outlet
temperature, pressureoutlet
the expander increases, thus increases,
pressure the decreases
thusofthe
30.5% are found
decreases in power
of 30.5% outputs
are found infor the
power
ORC withfor
outputs TDP
the and
ORC33.6%
with for
TDP the conventional
and ORC.
33.6% for the The working
conventional fluid
ORC. can
The be fullyfluid
working cooledcandown to
be fully
saturated liquid for more power output when the temperature of cooling water is
cooled down to saturated liquid for more power output when the temperature of cooling water is lower. The power
outputs of solar
lower. The power ORCs using
outputs ofand
solarnot using
ORCs TDPand
using range
notfrom
using61.8
TDP Wrange
to 88.9 W and
from 61.858.8
W toW88.9
to 88.5
W andW,
respectively. The difference between two ORCs becomes larger with the increment
58.8 W to 88.5 W, respectively. The difference between two ORCs becomes larger with the increment of condensation
temperature sincetemperature
of condensation conventionalsince
ORCconventional
generates lessORC
workgenerates
at higher less
condensation temperature.
work at higher condensation
temperature.

90
R134a
wer output (W)

80 ORC with TDP

70
Conventional ORC
outputs for the ORC with TDP and 33.6% for the conventional ORC. The working fluid can be fully
cooled down to saturated liquid for more power output when the temperature of cooling water is
lower. The power outputs of solar ORCs using and not using TDP range from 61.8 W to 88.9 W and
58.8 W to 88.5 W, respectively. The difference between two ORCs becomes larger with the increment
of condensation
Energies 2019, 12, 829 temperature since conventional ORC generates less work at higher condensation
13 of 22
temperature.

90
R134a

Power output (W)

80 ORC with TDP

70
Conventional ORC

60

15 20 25 30 35
Condensation temperature (°C)
Figure
Figure 9. Power outputs
9. Power outputs of
of two
two solar
solar ORCs
ORCs vs. different condensation
vs. different condensation temperatures.
temperatures.

Figure
Figure 10 10illustrates
illustratesthethepower
power outputs
outputs of of
two ORCs
two ORCswith the increase
with in solar
the increase collector
in solar fluid mass
collector fluid
flow rate. Given that the flow rate of solar collector fluid varies from 0.01 kg · s −1 to 0.2 kg·s−1 , the work
mass flow rate. Given that the flow rate of solar collector fluid varies from 0.01 kg·s−1 to 0.2 kg·s−1, the
outputs
work outputs of ORCs using using
of ORCs and notandusing
not TDP
usingtend
TDPtotendbe steady at solaratcollector
to be steady mass flow
solar collector massrateflowabove
rate
0.05 kg · s −1 . It can be noted that the rapid rise of power output exists before flow rate of 0.05 kg·s−1 .
above 0.05 kg·s . It can be noted that the rapid rise of power output exists before flow rate of 0.05
−1

This
kg·s−1is. This
mainly becausebecause
is mainly lower solar
lowerfluid
solarflow
fluidrate which
flow rate has a higher
which has a outlet
highertemperature will lead
outlet temperature to
will
more
lead tosuperheating
more superheating capacity of the working
capacity fluid. The
of the working increase
fluid. of the expander
The increase inlet pressure
of the expander leads
inlet pressure
to considerable
Energiesto
leads 2019, increment
12, x FOR PEER
considerable in power output. It is also observed that the power
REVIEW in power output. It is also observed that the power output of
increment output of ORC with
13 ORC
of 21
TDP approaches that of conventional ORC with the increase of solar collector
with TDP approaches that of conventional ORC with the increase of solar collector fluid flow rate. fluid flow rate. Because
power
flow rateoutput
Because of solar
flow between
rate collectortwo
of solarfluidsolar
collector ORCs
has little
fluid could
influence
has beinfluence
on
little negligible
pump on when
work, the
thus the
pump collector
difference
work, thus the fluid
of power flow rate
output
difference of
infinitelytwo
between increases.
solar ORCs could be negligible when the collector fluid flow rate infinitely increases.

100
R134a
90
Power output (W)

80

70
ORC with TDP
60
Conventional ORC
50

40
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Solar collector fluid mass flow rate (kg⋅s-1)

solar collector
Figure 10. Power outputs of two solar ORCs vs. various mass flow rates of solar collector fluid.
fluid.

The work outputs of two solar ORCs in terms of various ORC working fluid mass flow rates are
also observed
observed in in Figure
Figure 11.
11. Similar to Figure 10, the power output of convention ORC tends to be flat
when
when refrigerant flow ratevaries
refrigerant flow rate variesfrom
from0.001
0.001kg ·s−−11 to
kg·s to 0.02
0.02 kg ·s−−11.. The
kg·s The higher
higher flow
flow rate reduces the the
degree ofof superheating
superheating capacity required to operate operate the the expander.
expander. In contrast,
contrast, the power
power output
output of
of
ORC with TDP keeps increasing with the increment of flow rate. Additionally,
ORC with TDP keeps increasing with the increment of flow rate. Additionally, the difference of the difference of power
output between
power output two solar
between twoORCs
solarescalates as the working
ORCs escalates fluid mass
as the working fluidflow rate
mass increases.
flow It is mainly
rate increases. It is
because the largerthe
mainly because flow rate results
larger flow ratein higher
resultspump work pump
in higher of conventional ORC, which enlarges
work of conventional their
ORC, which
difference of power
enlarges their outputs.
difference of power outputs.

180
R134a
160

140 ORC with TDP

)
when refrigerant flow rate varies from 0.001 kg·s−1 to 0.02 kg·s−1. The higher flow rate reduces the
degree of superheating capacity required to operate the expander. In contrast, the power output of
ORC with TDP keeps increasing with the increment of flow rate. Additionally, the difference of
power output between two solar ORCs escalates as the working fluid mass flow rate increases. It is
mainly because the larger flow rate results in higher pump work of conventional ORC, which
Energies 2019, 12, 829 14 of 22
enlarges their difference of power outputs.

180
R134a
160

140 ORC with TDP

Power output (W)

120

100
Conventional ORC
80

60

40
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
ORC working fluid mass flow rate (kg⋅s-1)

Figure 11. Power outputs of two solar ORCs vs. various working fluid mass flow rates.

In reality,
In reality, the
the isentropic
isentropic efficiencies
efficiencies ofof the
the working
working fluid
fluid pumppump andand expander
expander of small-scale ORC
of small-scale ORC
systems may be even lower than those of the simulation in this paper, i.e., 0.65 and 0.75, due to the
systems may be even lower than those of the simulation in this paper, i.e., 0.65 and 0.75, due to the
limited selection
limited selection andand inappropriate design of
inappropriate design of ORC
ORC systems. Therefore, the
systems. Therefore, the relatively
relatively higher
higher power
power
output can
output can be be obtained
obtained fromfrom thethe ORC with TDP,
ORC with TDP, which
which is is quite
quite competitive
competitive with with the
the conventional
conventional
ORC in household applications. With the decline of pump efficiency,
ORC in household applications. With the decline of pump efficiency, the conventional ORC the conventional ORC hashas a
a
higher pump
higher pump work workwhichwhichresults
resultsinina lower
a lower power
power output.
output. In contrast,
In contrast, the power
the power output
output of ORC
of ORC with
Energies
with TDP 12, x FOR
2019,keeps PEER REVIEW
constant at various pump efficiencies. 14 of 21
TDP keeps constant at various pump efficiencies. It is alsoItworth
is also worth
noting noting
that that the isentropic
the isentropic efficiency
efficiency of the expander varies dramatically with regard to different external
of the expander varies dramatically with regard to different external partial loads in real applications. partial loads in real
Figure 12 shows the generated power outputs of two solar ORCs when
applications. Figure 12 shows the generated power outputs of two solar ORCs when the isentropic the isentropic efficiency varies
from 0 to 0.75. It is demonstrated that the ORC with TDP has a superior
efficiency varies from 0 to 0.75. It is demonstrated that the ORC with TDP has a superior power output power output when
compared
when compared with that
with of the
that of conventional
the conventional ORC.ORC.WithWiththethe increment
incrementofofisentropic
isentropicefficiency,
efficiency, the
the
difference
difference of generated power of two solar ORCs decreases. The isentropic efficiency of
of generated power of two solar ORCs decreases. The isentropic efficiency of expander
expander
selected
selected in in our
ourprevious
previousexperimental
experimentalwork workranges
ranges from
from 0.42
0.42 to 0.6
to 0.6 in terms
in terms of various
of various partial
partial loadsloads
[50].
[50]. Under this scenario, the power outputs of two solar ORCs range
Under this scenario, the power outputs of two solar ORCs range from 40 W to 62 W and from 46 W from 40 W to 62 W and from
46 W W,
to 65 to 65 W, respectively.
respectively. In ideal
In ideal operation
operation conditions,
conditions, the isentropic
the isentropic efficiency
efficiency of this
of this expander
expander can
can vary from 0.4 to 0.75. When the isentropic efficiency is 0.75, the
vary from 0.4 to 0.75. When the isentropic efficiency is 0.75, the maximum power output of twomaximum power output ofsolar
two
solar
ORCsORCs are 80.6areW 80.6
andW81.8 andW,81.8 W, respectively,
respectively, which which could indicate
could indicate the minimum
the minimum influenceinfluence
using TDPusing
as
TDP as mentioned
mentioned above. above.

80 R134a
Power output (W)

60

Conventional ORC
40
ORC with TDP

20

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Isentropic efficiency

Figure
Figure 12.
12. Power
Power outputs
outputs of
of two
two solar
solar ORCs
ORCs vs.
vs. different
different isentropic
isentropic efficiencies
efficiencies of
of expander.
expander.

Figure 13 also shows the results of power outputs when the heat exchangers efficiency varies. It
can be observed that two solar ORCs have similar increasing trends with the increment of heat
exchanger efficiency. ORC using TDP still performs better than conventional ORC. In the most cases,
the heat exchanger efficiency is above 0.9. Thus, the power outputs of ORCs using and not using TDP
at this interval range from 80.7 W to 81.8 W, and 79.4 W to 80.6 W, respectively.
 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Isentropic efficiency
Energies 2019, 12, 829 15 of 22
Figure 12. Power outputs of two solar ORCs vs. different isentropic efficiencies of expander.

Figure 13
Figure 13 also
also shows
showsthetheresults
resultsof
ofpower
poweroutputs
outputswhen
whenthetheheat exchangers
heat exchangersefficiency varies.
efficiency It
varies.
can
It bebeobserved
can observedthat
thattwo
twosolar
solarORCs
ORCshave
havesimilar
similarincreasing
increasingtrends
trends with
with the
the increment
increment of heat
of heat
exchanger efficiency.
exchanger efficiency. ORC
ORC using
using TDP
TDP still
still performs
performs better
better than
than conventional
conventional ORC.
ORC. InIn the
the most
most cases,
cases,
the heat
the heat exchanger
exchanger efficiency
efficiency is
is above
above 0.9.
0.9. Thus,
Thus, the
the power
power outputs
outputs ofof ORCs
ORCs using
using and
and not
not using
using TDP
TDP
at this
at this interval
interval range
range from
from 80.7
80.7 WW to
to 81.8
81.8 W,
W, and
and79.4
79.4WWtoto80.6
80.6W,
W,respectively.
respectively.

82
R134a
80
Power output (W)

78 ORC with TDP

76

74

72 Conventional ORC

70

68
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Heat exchanger efficiency

Figure 13.
Figure Power output
13. Power output of
of two
two solar
solar ORCs
ORCs vs. heat exchangers
vs. heat exchangers efficiencies.
efficiencies.

4.3. Thermal Performance of Solar ORCs throughout the Day

This section aims to investigate the thermal performance of solar ORCs using and not using
TDP in terms of various evaporating temperatures. Similar with Section 4.2, the solar collector outlet
temperature is set as 122.6 ◦ C for the maximum power output. Figure 14 indicates the energy and
exergy efficiencies of the solar ORC using TDP when compared with those of the conventional ORC,
with R134a as the working fluid. Figure 14a demonstrates that the energy efficiency of the solar ORC
using TDP increases with the increase in evaporating temperature. When the temperature increases
from 75 ◦ C to 100 ◦ C, the energy efficiency ranges from 11.3% to 12.6%. In order to further illustrate
the significance of solar ORC using TDP, the energy efficiencies of two systems are compared with
the results from references [1,10,56]. It is indicated that the energy efficiencies in the present work
are much higher than the results from references [10,56] which are 8.58% and 5.6% when evaporating
temperatures are 78.8 ◦ C and 85 ◦ C, respectively. It proves that the high efficiency evacuated flat-plate
collector used in this study could supply a higher solar collector outlet temperature, which improves
the overall energy efficiency of system. The difference of energy efficiency between present work
and reference [1] is relatively small which is mainly because different working fluid flow rates.
The efficiency of ORC using TDP is quite desirable when considering that the heat source temperature
is relatively low, and it represents an advantage of the ORC using TDP. Similar to power output, the
energy efficiency of the ORC using TDP becomes higher than that of conventional ORC when the
temperature is higher than 90 ◦ C. The difference in energy efficiency between the two solar ORCs
increases remarkably with the increase in evaporating temperature. The largest percent increment
in energy efficiency can reach 3.27% at a 100 ◦ C evaporating temperature when compared with the
conventional ORC. A similar trend for exergy efficiency can be found for the ORC using TDP, as shown
in Figure 14b. Exergy efficiency ranges from 45.8% to 51.3% when the evaporating temperature
increases from 75 ◦ C to 100 ◦ C. Results show that both energy efficiency and exergy efficiency of
conventional ORC climb from 75 ◦ C to 90 ◦ C, followed by a slight increase, and it then decline rapidly
from 95 ◦ C to 100 ◦ C. The main reason for the improved energy efficiency and exergy efficiency is that
a higher power output is obtained from the ORC with TDP.
 with the conventional ORC. A similar trend for exergy efficiency can be found for the ORC using
TDP, as shown in Figure 14b. Exergy efficiency ranges from 45.8% to 51.3% when the evaporating
temperature increases from 75 °C to 100 °C. Results show that both energy efficiency and exergy
efficiency of conventional ORC climb from 75 °C to 90 °C, followed by a slight increase, and it then
decline
Energies rapidly
2019, 12, 829from 95 °C to 100 °C. The main reason for the improved energy efficiency and exergy
16 of 22
efficiency is that a higher power output is obtained from the ORC with TDP.

0.52
0.13
R134a
R134a
0.12
Conventional ORC
0.11 ORC with TDP
Energy efficiency

0.50

Exergy efficiency
0.10 Ref.[1]
Conventional ORC
0.09
0.48
0.08
Ref.[51]
0.07 ORC with TDP
0.06 Ref.[7] 0.46

0.05
75 80 85 90 95 100 75 80 85 90 95 100
Evaporating temperature (°C) Evaporating temperature (°C)
(a) (b)
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Energy
Energyand exergy
and efficiencies
exergy of two
efficiencies solarsolar
of two ORCsORCs
(a) energy efficiency;
(a) energy and (b) and
efficiency; exergy
(b)
efficiency.
exergy efficiency.

Figure
Figure15 15shows
showsthe theexergy
exergy destruction
destruction in in each system component
component for for solar
solarORCsORCsusing usingand
andnotnot
using ◦ ◦
usingTDPTDPunder
underthe theconditions
conditions of of aa 95
95 °CC evaporating temperature and
evaporating temperature and aa 122.6
122.6 °CCsolarsolarcollector
collector
outlet
outlettemperature.
temperature.Considering
Considering thethe conventional
conventional ORC system, it is is worth
worth noting
notingthatthatthethemajority
majorityofof
theexergy
the exergyisislost
lostininthe
the preheater,
preheater, expander,
expander, evaporator
evaporator and condenser. This This isisinevitable
inevitablewhen whensolar
solar
thermalisisconverted
thermal converted to to mechanical
mechanical work.
work. The maximum
maximum amount
amountof of heat
heatcan canbe betransferred
transferredininthe the
preheater,
preheater, which
which results
results inina
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW a largest
largest difference
difference between
between the
the output
output and and inlet
inlet exergy
exergy of of
the the preheater.
preheater.16 of is
It 21
It is indicated
indicated that thethat the exergy
exergy destruction
destruction of the ORCof the ORC
using TDPusing
can TDP can be2.86
be reduced reduced
W when 2.86eliminating
W when
eliminating
the the pump. Additionally,
pump. Additionally, the exergy
the exergy destruction destruction
is reduced in the is evaporator
reduced inand thecondenser
evaporator byand
up
condenser by up to 92% and 2%, respectively. In contrast, the exergy destruction
to 92% and 2%, respectively. In contrast, the exergy destruction increases in the expander, preheater, increases in the
expander, preheater,
superheater superheater
and regenerator. and regenerator.
The increased The increased
exergy destruction exergy
in the heat destruction
exchangers in the heat
is probably due
exchangers
to is probably due
the larger temperature to thebetween
difference larger temperature
the entering difference
and exitingbetween
fluids of the entering andAnother
the component. exiting
fluids of
reason the component.
is that the preheater Another reason
has a lower is that
inlet the preheater
temperature, hasregenerator
and the a lower inletand temperature,
superheaterand the
could
regenerator
have and superheater
lower outlet temperatures could have
of the lower outlet
working temperatures
fluid during of the working
the pre-expansion fluidofduring
process the ORC the
pre-expansion
using TDP. Since process
no power of the ORC usingfrom
is generated TDP. Since
the no power
expander duringis generated from the process,
the pre-expansion expander it during
brings
the pre-expansion
about a higher exergy process, it brings
destruction in the about
expandera higher exergy destruction
when compared with that ofinthe the expander when
conventional ORC
comparedwithin
operating with thatthe of the cycle
same conventional
time. ORC operating within the same cycle time.

Conventional ORC
80 R134a
ORC with TDP
Exergy destruction (W)

60

40

20

0
p
er

or

r
te

se

to
te
m
nd

at
ea

ea

ra
en
Pu

or
pa

ne
eh

rh

nd
ap
Ex

pe

ge
Pr

Co
Ev

Su

Re

Figure 15.
Figure 15. Exergy
Exergy destruction
destruction of
of each
each component
component between
between two
two solar
solar ORCs
ORCs using
usingR134a.
R134a.

The exergy efficiency of each system component for both solar ORCs when using R134a is shown
in Figure 16. It can be observed that the expander has the maximum exergy efficiency of 76% for the
conventional ORC. The fluid pump also has a relatively higher exergy efficiency of 74.9%. An
improved exergy efficiency of the evaporator can be observed for the solar ORC using TDP. The
highest exergy efficiency of the evaporator can reach 96.9% for the ORC, and this is improved by 62%
when compared with that of the conventional ORC, i.e., 59.9%. In contrast, the other components
 0

p
er

or

r
te

se

to
te
m
nd

at
ea

ea

ra
en
Pu

or
pa

ne
eh

rh

nd
ap
Ex

pe

ge
Pr

Co
Ev

Su

Re
Energies 2019, 12, 829 17 of 22
Figure 15. Exergy destruction of each component between two solar ORCs using R134a.

The exergy
The exergy efficiency
efficiency of
of each
each system
system component
component for for both
both solar
solar ORCs
ORCs when
when using
using R134a
R134a is is shown
shown
in Figure
in Figure 16.16. It
It can
can bebe observed
observed that
that the
the expander
expander has has the
the maximum
maximum exergy exergy efficiency
efficiency of of 76%
76% for
for the
the
conventional ORC. The fluid pump also has a relatively higher exergy efficiency
conventional ORC. The fluid pump also has a relatively higher exergy efficiency of 74.9%. An improved of 74.9%. An
improved
exergy exergyofefficiency
efficiency of the can
the evaporator evaporator can for
be observed be observed
the solar ORC for the solar
using ORC
TDP. Theusing
highestTDP. The
exergy
highest exergy
efficiency of theefficiency
evaporator ofcan
the reach
evaporator
96.9% can reach
for the 96.9%
ORC, andfor thisthe
is ORC, and this
improved is improved
by 62% by 62%
when compared
whenthat
with compared with that ofORC,
of the conventional the conventional
i.e., 59.9%. In ORC, i.e.,the
contrast, 59.9%.
otherIn contrast, the
components showother components
relatively lower
show relatively
exergy efficiencies,lower exergyfor
especially efficiencies,
the preheater,especially
which hasfor the preheater,
the lowest which
exergy has the
efficiency of lowest
21.5%. exergy
This is
efficiency
mainly of 21.5%.
because the This is mainlyofbecause
temperature the temperature
the working fluid increasesof the workingduring
gradually fluid increases gradually
the pre-expansion
during the pre-expansion process, which may result in a lower
process, which may result in a lower inlet temperature of the working fluid. inlet temperature of the working fluid.

1.0
Conventional ORC R134a
ORC with TDP
0.8
Component exergy efficiency

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

r
p
er

or

to
te

te

se
m
nd

at
ea

ea

ra
en
Pu

or
pa

ne
eh

rh

nd
ap
Ex

pe

ge
Pr

Co
Ev

Su

Re

Figure 16. Exergy efficiency of each component between

between two
two solar
solar ORCs
ORCs using
using R134a.
R134a.

4.4. Further Exploration and Comparison

In order to have a comprehensive understanding for small-scale household application, the
solar ORC using TDP is compared with the conventional solar ORC in terms of system type,
system compactness, power output stability, thermal efficiency and capital cost, as shown in Table 6.
The conventional ORC is a continuous system, whereas the ORC using TDP is an intermittent system.
The system compactness of the solar ORC with TDP is superior to that of the conventional ORC due to
the elimination of the fluid pump. In many small-scale ORC experimental rigs, the fluid pump accounts
for 5–10% of the system volume, which can then be reduced by using the ORC with TDP. Considering
power output stability, the conventional ORC has a better performance than the solar ORC with s
TDP. It is worth noting that the relatively large fluctuation of the ORC with TDP may happen when
the condenser and evaporator are mutually altered. However, this only lasts for a very short period,
i.e., less than 10% of the cycle time when considering the total working process. For the solar energy
utilisation of a household, efficient battery technology is expected to solve this problem. This means
that the electricity is stored and then output constantly. Another possible solution is the introduction
of more heat exchangers to the ORC with TDP, with the aim of ensuring that the evaporator is always
generating power while other heat exchangers are either used for supplementing the working fluid
or for condensation. However, this method may have a small influence on the system compactness,
which could be the focus of our future work. Based on the above thermal analysis, the energy and
exergy efficiencies of the solar ORC with TDP are higher than those of the conventional ORC in most
operation cases. This improvement will become more advantageous to household application when
the heat source temperature and scale of the system decrease. As for cost, the main difference between
the ORC with TDP and the conventional ORC lies in the working fluid pump. The cost of the working
fluid pump is usually 2–3 times higher than that of the heat exchanger in small-scale ORC applications.
Thus, the total cost of the ORC using TDP could be reduced by at least 10% with regard to that of the
Energies 2019, 12, 829 18 of 22

whole system. In general, the solar ORC using TDP is superior to the conventional ORC, which reveals
the vast potential for small-scale household application, especially for places that have relatively low
solar radiation.

Table 6. Comparison between the conventional ORC and ORC with TDP driven by solar energy.

System Output Energy

Type System Type Cost
Compactness Stability Efficiency
Conventional ORC Continuous Moderate High Low High
ORC using TDP Intermittent High Low Moderate At least 10% less

5. Conclusions
In this paper, small-scale ORC systems driven by solar energy are presented to investigate
the overall performance in terms of the power output, energy efficiency, exergy efficiency and
exergy destruction of the components. Additionally, the thermal performance of the ORC using
TDP is compared with that of the conventional ORC. The parametric analysis of two solar ORCs
demonstrates that ORC with TDP has a superior performance to that of the conventional ORC under
most working conditions. The power output of the solar ORC using TDP ranges from 72 W to 82 W
when R134a is adopted as the working fluid and the evaporating temperature varies from 75 ◦ C to 100
◦ C. The performance is improved by up to 9.5% at a 100 ◦ C evaporating temperature when compared

with that of the conventional ORC. The energy and exergy efficiencies of the ORC using TDP increase
from 11.3% to 12.6% and from 45.8% to 51.3% when the evaporating temperature increases from 75
◦ C to 100 ◦ C. For the ORC using TDP, the exergy destruction in the evaporator and condenser can

be reduced by up to 92% and 2%, respectively. The highest exergy efficiency of the evaporator is
96.9% by using R134a, and this is an improvement of 62% compared with 59.9% of the conventional
ORC. For small-scale solar utilisation, the ORC using TDP is almost superior to the conventional ORC
in terms of system type, system compactness, power output stability, thermal efficiency and capital
cost. The large fluctuation of the ORC using TDP may last a very short period during the switch of
heat exchangers, which could be solved by using efficient battery technology. This technology could
be an alternative to household power supply and also serves as the main part of solar heating and
power generation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: R.W. and L.J.; methodology: R.W. and A.G.D.; supervision: L.J., Y.W.,
and A.P.R.; project administration: L.J., Z.M., and A.P.R.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number
51606118 and Heat-STRESS project EP/N02155X/1.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract
number 51606118 and Heat-STRESS project EP/N02155X/1 funded by Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council of UK.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
A Area of solar collector, m2
c Specific heat capacity, J·kg−1
c1 Collector heat loss coefficient, W·m-2 ·K−1
c2 Temperature dependence of the heat loss coefficient, W·m−2 ·K−2
c3 Wind speed dependence of the heat loss coefficient, J·m−3 ·K−1
c4 Long-wave irradiance dependence of the heat loss coefficient
c5 Solar collector effective thermal capacity, J·m−2 ·K−1
c6 Wind-dependence of the collector optical (zero-loss) efficiency, s·m−1
E Radiation (outside solar spectrum) onto the collector plane, W·m−2
.
E Exergy flow rate, W
Energies 2019, 12, 829 19 of 22

e Specific flow exergy, W·kg−1

F’ Collector efficiency factor
h Specific enthalpy, J·kg−1
I Irradiance, W·m−2
.
I Irreversibility rate, W
Kθ Solar collector Incident Angle Modifier
M Mass, kg
.
m Mass flow rate, kg·s−1
.
Q Heat flow rate, W
s Specific entropy, J·kg−1 ·K−1
t Time, s
T Temperature, K
u Wind speed in (parallel to) the collector plane, m·s−1
V Valve
W Work, W
Greek Letters
η Efficiency
θ Incidence angle, ◦
ρ Density, kg·m−3
(τα) Effective transmittance-absorptance product
Subscripts
0 Dead state
ave Average
b Direct (beam) radiation
c Cooling water
d Diffuse radiation
cond Condenser
eva Evaporator
ex Exergy
exp Expander
ext External environment
h Heat
in Inlet
ins Instantaneous power output
L Long wavelength
net Net power output
out Outlet
p Isobaric process
pu Pump
preheat Preheater
regen Regenerator
s Isentropic
sc Solar collector
sol Solar
superheat Superheater
superheated Superheated temperature
v Vapor
w Water
wf Working fluid
Abbreviations
ORC Organic Rankine cycle
RV Refrigerant valve
TDP Thermal driven pump
Energies 2019, 12, 829 20 of 22

References
1. Freeman, J.; Hellgardt, K.; Markides, C.N. Working fluid selection and electrical performance optimisation
of a domestic solar-ORC combined heat and power system for year-round operation in the UK. Appl. Energy
2017, 186, 291–303. [CrossRef]
2. Chen, Z.-G.; Shi, X.; Zhao, L.-D.; Zou, J. High-performance SnSe thermoelectric materials: Progress and
future challenge. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2018, 97, 283–346. [CrossRef]
3. Yang, L.; Chen, Z.-G.; Dargusch, M.S.; Zou, J. High Performance Thermoelectric Materials: Progress and
Their Applications. Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1701797. [CrossRef]
4. Cioccolanti, L.; Tascioni, R.; Arteconi, A. Mathematical modelling of operation modes and performance
evaluation of an innovative small-scale concentrated solar organic Rankine cycle plant. Appl. Energy 2018,
221, 464–476. [CrossRef]
5. Freeman, J.; Hellgardt, K.; Markides, C.N. An assessment of solar-powered organic Rankine cycle systems
for combined heating and power in UK domestic applications. Appl. Energy 2015, 138, 605–620. [CrossRef]
6. Freeman, J.; Hellgardt, K.; Markides, C.N. An Assessment of Solar–Thermal Collector Designs for Small-Scale
Combined Heating and Power Applications in the United Kingdom. Heat Transf. Eng. 2015, 36, 1332–1347.
[CrossRef]
7. Tzivanidis, C.; Bellos, E.; Antonopoulos, K.A. Energetic and financial investigation of a stand-alone
solar-thermal Organic Rankine Cycle power plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 126, 421–433. [CrossRef]
8. Petrollese, M.; Cocco, D. Robust optimization for the preliminary design of solar organic Rankine cycle
(ORC) systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 184, 338–349. [CrossRef]
9. Casartelli, D.; Binotti, M.; Silva, P.; Macchi, E.; Roccaro, E.; Passera, T. Power Block Off-design Control
Strategies for Indirect Solar ORC Cycles. Energy Procedia 2015, 69, 1220–1230. [CrossRef]
10. Quoilin, S.; Orosz, M.; Hemond, H.; Lemort, V. Performance and design optimization of a low-cost solar
organic Rankine cycle for remote power generation. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 955–966. [CrossRef]
11. Canada, S.; Cohen, G.; Cable, R.; Brosseau, D.; Price, H. Parabolic Trough Organic Rankine Cycle Power Plant;
No. NREL/CP-550-37077; National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2005.
12. Bellos, E.; Tzivanidis, C. Parametric analysis and optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle with nanofluid
based solar parabolic trough collectors. Renew. Energy 2017, 114, 1376–1393. [CrossRef]
13. Manolakos, D.; Kosmadakis, G.; Kyritsis, S.; Papadakis, G. On site experimental evaluation of a
low-temperature solar organic Rankine cycle system for RO desalination. Sol. Energy 2009, 83, 646–656.
[CrossRef]
14. Freeman, J.; Guarracino, I.; Kalogirou, S.A.; Markides, C.N. A small-scale solar organic Rankine cycle
combined heat and power system with integrated thermal energy storage. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 127,
1543–1554. [CrossRef]
15. Manfrida, G.; Secchi, R.; Stańczyk, K. Modelling and simulation of phase change material latent heat storages
applied to a solar-powered Organic Rankine Cycle. Appl. Energy 2016, 179, 378–388. [CrossRef]
16. Jing, L.; Gang, P.; Jie, J. Optimization of low temperature solar thermal electric generation with Organic
Rankine Cycle in different areas. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 3355–3365. [CrossRef]
17. Shi, L.; Shu, G.; Tian, H.; Deng, S. A review of modified Organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for internal
combustion engine waste heat recovery (ICE-WHR). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 95–110. [CrossRef]
18. Braimakis, K.; Karellas, S. Energetic optimization of regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
configurations. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 159, 353–370. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, X.D.; Zhao, L.; Wang, J.L. Experimental investigation on the low-temperature solar Rankine cycle
system using R245fa. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 946–952. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, H.; Goswami, D.Y.; Stefanakos, E.K. A review of thermodynamic cycles and working fluids for the
conversion of low-grade heat. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 3059–3067. [CrossRef]
21. Bao, J.; Zhao, L. A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic Rankine cycle. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2013, 24, 325–342. [CrossRef]
22. Shu, G.; Zhao, J.; Tian, H.; Liang, X.; Wei, H. Parametric and exergetic analysis of waste heat recovery
system based on thermoelectric generator and organic rankine cycle utilizing R123. Energy 2012, 45, 806–816.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 829 21 of 22

23. Wei, D.; Lu, X.; Lu, Z.; Gu, J. Dynamic modeling and simulation of an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system
for waste heat recovery. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2008, 28, 1216–1224. [CrossRef]
24. Mago, P.J.; Chamra, L.M.; Srinivasan, K.; Somayaji, C. An examination of regenerative organic Rankine
cycles using dry fluids. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2008, 28, 998–1007. [CrossRef]
25. Nguyen, V.M.; Doherty, P.S.; Riffat, S.B. Development of a prototype low-temperature Rankine cycle
electricity generation system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2001, 21, 169–181. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, X.D.; Zhao, L. Analysis of zeotropic mixtures used in low-temperature solar Rankine cycles for power
generation. Sol. Energy 2009, 83, 605–613. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, J.L.; Zhao, L.; Wang, X.D. A comparative study of pure and zeotropic mixtures in low-temperature
solar Rankine cycle. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 3366–3373. [CrossRef]
28. Shu, G.; Wang, X.; Tian, H.; Liu, P.; Jing, D.; Li, X. Scan of working fluids based on dynamic response
characters for Organic Rankine Cycle using for engine waste heat recovery. Energy 2017, 133, 609–620.
[CrossRef]
29. Yang, J.; Sun, Z.; Yu, B.; Chen, J. Experimental comparison and optimization guidance of R1233zd(E) as a
drop-in replacement to R245fa for organic Rankine cycle application. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 141, 10–19.
[CrossRef]
30. Ayachi, F.; Ksayer, E.B.; Neveu, P.; Zoughaib, A. Experimental investigation and modeling of a hermetic
scroll expander. Appl. Energy 2016, 181, 256–267. [CrossRef]
31. Jiang, L.; Lu, H.; Wang, R.; Wang, L.; Gong, L.; Lu, Y.; Roskilly, A.P. Investigation on an innovative cascading
cycle for power and refrigeration cogeneration. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 145, 20–29. [CrossRef]
32. Garg, P.; Karthik, G.M.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, P. Development of a generic tool to design scroll expanders for
ORC applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 109 Pt B, 878–888. [CrossRef]
33. Gao, P.; Jiang, L.; Wang, L.W.; Wang, R.Z.; Song, F.P. Simulation and experiments on an ORC system with
different scroll expanders based on energy and exergy analysis. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 75, 880–888.
[CrossRef]
34. Hou, X.; Zhang, H.; Yu, F.; Liu, H.; Yang, F.; Xu, Y.; Tian, Y.; Li, G. Free piston expander-linear generator used
for organic Rankine cycle waste heat recovery system. Appl. Energy 2017, 208, 1297–1307. [CrossRef]
35. Baccioli, A.; Antonelli, M.; Desideri, U. Dynamic modeling of a solar ORC with compound parabolic
collectors: Annual production and comparison with steady-state simulation. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017,
148, 708–723. [CrossRef]
36. Papes, I.; Degroote, J.; Vierendeels, J. New insights in twin screw expander performance for small scale ORC
systems from 3D CFD analysis. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 91, 535–546. [CrossRef]
37. Ziviani, D.; Suman, A.; Lecompte, S.; De Paepe, M.; van den Broek, M.; Spina, P.R.; Pinelli, M.; Venturini, M.;
Beyene, A. Comparison of a Single-screw and a Scroll Expander under Part-load Conditions for Low-grade
Heat Recovery ORC Systems. Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 117–120. [CrossRef]
38. Kang, S.H. Design and experimental study of ORC (organic Rankine cycle) and radial turbine using R245fa
working fluid. Energy 2012, 41, 514–524. [CrossRef]
39. Song, P.; Wei, M.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, B. Effects of suction port arrangements on a scroll expander for a small scale
ORC system based on CFD approach. Appl. Energy 2015, 150, 274–285. [CrossRef]
40. Hou, X.; Zhang, H.; Xu, Y.; Yu, F.; Zhao, T.; Tian, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, R. External load resistance effect on the
free piston expander-linear generator for organic Rankine cycle waste heat recovery system. Appl. Energy
2018, 212, 1252–1261. [CrossRef]
41. Jiménez-Arreola, M.; Pili, R.; Wieland, C.; Romagnoli, A. Analysis and comparison of dynamic behavior of
heat exchangers for direct evaporation in ORC waste heat recovery applications from fluctuating sources.
Appl. Energy 2018, 216, 724–740. [CrossRef]
42. Dong, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J. Experimental investigation on heat transfer characteristics of plat heat exchanger
applied in organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 112, 1137–1152. [CrossRef]
43. Borsukiewicz-Gozdur, A. Pumping work in the organic Rankine cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 51, 781–786.
[CrossRef]
44. Tahir, M.B.I.N.M.; Yamada, N. Characteristics of Small ORC System for Low Temperature Waste Heat
Recovery. J. Environ. Eng. 2009, 4, 375–385. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 829 22 of 22

45. Kim, D.K.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, J.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, M.S. Parametric study and performance evaluation of an organic
Rankine cycle (ORC) system using low-grade heat at temperatures below 80 ◦ C. Appl. Energy 2017, 189,
55–65. [CrossRef]
46. Yamada, N.; Minami, T.; Anuar Mohamad, M.N. Fundamental experiment of pumpless Rankine-type cycle
for low-temperature heat recovery. Energy 2011, 36, 1010–1017. [CrossRef]
47. Akbarzadeh, A.; Johnson, P.; Nguyen, T.; Mochizuki, M.; Mashiko, M.; Sauciuc, I.; Kusaba, S.; Suzuki, H.
Formulation and analysis of the heat pipe turbine for production of power from renewable sources.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2001, 21, 1551–1563. [CrossRef]
48. Yamada, N.; Watanabe, M.; Hoshi, A. Experiment on pumpless Rankine-type cycle with scroll expander.
Energy 2013, 49, 137–145. [CrossRef]
49. Gao, P.; Wang, L.W.; Wang, R.Z.; Jiang, L.; Zhou, Z.S. Experimental investigation on a small pumpless
ORC (organic rankine cycle) system driven by the low temperature heat source. Energy 2015, 91, 324–333.
[CrossRef]
50. Jiang, L.; Lu, H.T.; Wang, L.W.; Gao, P.; Zhu, F.Q.; Wang, R.Z.; Roskilly, A.P. Investigation on a small-scale
pumpless Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system driven by the low temperature heat source. Appl. Energy
2017, 195, 478–486. [CrossRef]
51. Aspen Plus, version 8.8; Aspen Technology, Inc.: Cambridge, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.
aspentech.com/ (accessed on 7 November 2018).
52. Freeman, J.; Hellgardt, K.; Markides, C.N. Towards the Optimization of a Domestic-Scale Organic Rankine System
for Combined Heating and Power Provision in the UK; Department of Chemical Engineering; Imperial College:
London, UK, 2013; p. 53.
53. Perers., B.; Bales, C. A Solar Collector Model for TRNSYS Simulation and System Testing. Reporet of IEA
SHC—Task 26: Solar Combisystems; International Energy Agency, Solar Heating & Cooling Programme, 2002.
Available online: https://www.aee-intec.at/0uploads/dateien55.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2018).
54. BS EN 12975-2: Thermal solar systems and components. Solar collectors. Test Methods 2006.
55. Kaşka, Ö. Energy and exergy analysis of an organic Rankine for power generation from waste heat recovery
in steel industry. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 77, 108–117. [CrossRef]
56. Bekiloğlu, H.E.; Bedir, H.; Anlaş, G. Multi-objective optimization of ORC parameters and selection of
working fluid using preliminary radial inflow turbine design. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 183, 833–847.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).