COMPARATIVE STUDY ON WATER- AND AIR-COOLED SOLAR ABSORPTION

COOLING SYSTEMS

D.S. Kim
*
, C.H.M. Machielsen
**
Refrigeration and Indoor Climate Control, Mechanical Engineering and Marine Technology,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
*
Phone: +31 (0)15 278 69 78, fax: +31 (0)15 278 24 60, d.s.kim@wbmt.tudelft.nl
**
Phone: +31 (0)15 278 44 55, fax: +31 (0)15 278 24 60, c.h.m.machielsen@wbmt.tudelft.nl

ABSTRACT
Water-cooled Single-effect LiBr/H2O chiller and several kinds of air-cooled chillers have
been compared. Design and simulation programs were developed for system evaluation in cost
and performance. For this study10kW systems have been evaluated with standard meteorological
data. One air-cooled system has been selected from the results and compared with water-cooled
systems using twenty-year-averaged mid-summer meteorological data of Milan and Naples. The
proposed air-cooled solar driven chiller has shown promising characteristics for a low-cost
competitive air-cooled solar cooling system.


INTRODUCTION
The advantage of a solar cooling system is related to primary energy savings from the use of
free solar energy. The solar energy, however, does not come so cheap as we hope.
Most of the absorption chillers require a high driving temperature, as high as 90~110
o
C. Some
water-cooled absorption chillers can be driven with a lower temperature heat but generally, the
COP of the chiller then drops sharply. Since solar radiation is not always high enough to drive
such high-temperature driven systems with low-cost collectors, many systems are now equipped
with highly efficient but expensive collectors. This capital investment, consequently, is quite
often so high as to counteract primary energy savings from solar-driven operation.
Most of the solar absorption systems developed in the past were based on water-cooled
LiBr/H
2
O chillers. Water-cooled systems can be driven with low-temperature heat. And
LiBr/H
2
O yields to a high COP. The combination of those two facts is certainly most favourable
to solar absorption cooling systems. Some drawbacks, however, are associated with the cooling
towers. Initial and operation cost for water-cooled system is the burdensome for the small- and
medium-sized systems. Hygienic concerns, scarcity of water, unfavourable climate conditions
also can be decisive factors.
Since air-cooled systems has no such problems, many efforts have been projected to develop
air-cooled solar absorption systems. Biggest problem of the air-cooled solar-driven chiller is its
requirement of high-temperature driving heat. A single-effect air-cooled chiller needs roughly a
20 K higher temperature than a water-cooled chiller. That is why some air-cooled systems have
been equipped with a large area of vacuum type collectors, which makes the systems still stay out
of market.
This paper is about the 2
nd
comparative study in an effort to develop an air-cooled solar
absorption cooling system. Kim and Machielsen [1] have carried out a comparative study on
several kinds of air-cooled systems. One of the conclusions made in this study was that the
development of half-effect or other type of low-temperature driven chillers is recommended for
air-cooled solar cooling systems. In this study such a low-temperature driven chiller is proposed
and compared with water-cooled systems to evaluate its competitiveness.

WORKING PAIRS FOR CHILLERS
In the following paragraph an overview is given about the working pairs used in this study and
introductions of related studies.

H
2
O/LiBr There have been some efforts to develop air-cooled (high-lift) H
2
O/LiBr chillers.
Most of them were focused on avoiding crystallisation by using special cycles or altering
compositions of the mixture.
Wilbur and Mitchel[2] showed that a smaller cooling tower or an air-cooled heat exchanger could
be used with a certain type of solar-driven H
2
O/LiBr chiller. It was actually the same
conventional absorption chiller with extra refrigerant and cooling water tanks serving as buffers,
which could take advantage of time delay between cooling supply and demand. The LiBr
concentrations in the absorber and generator were controlled not to exceed 63% to avoid
crystallisation.
NH
3
/H
2
O This pair has been adopted in many applications where H
2
O/LiBr is inapplicable,
especially in refrigeration and small size air-cooled systems. For many years, the air-cooled gas-
fired chiller using this pair has been available in the market. The recently introduced air-cooled
gas-fired GAX chiller performs qua efficiency equal to water-cooled single-effect H
2
O/LiBr
chillers.
NH
3
/LiNO
3
A rectifier is necessary to remove the water content in the refrigerant vapour for
NH
3
/H
2
O systems. The need for rectification is greater with higher generator temperatures and
therefore significantly deteriorates the performance. In order to avoid this problem, attempts were
made to replace water with salt. Among them, most promising ammonia salt mixtures may be
NH
3
/LiNO
3
. Infante Ferreira [3,4] has shown that this pair starts generating refrigerant vapour at
lower temperatures than NH
3
/H
2
O. A recent study by Antonopoulus et al.[5] showed that the
NH
3
/LiNO
3
system could reach maximum cooling and heating power of 355, 344 W/m
2

respectively under climate conditions in Athens. In this study, the superiority of NH
3
/LiNO
3

seemed to have originated mainly from its lower generation temperature.


ABSORPTION CYCLES
The following absorption cycles were considered.

SE (Single-Effect) Cycle

(a). Block diagram (b) PTX diagram

Figure 1. Single-effect cycle

This is the basic form of all cycles with moderate generator temperature. It has one major
recuperative heat exchanger, SHX (Solution Heat Exchanger). Also a RHX (Refrigerant Heat
Exchanger) is generally used in high-pressure systems. Block and PTX diagrams are shown in
figure 1.
From the bottom of absorber (point 7 in figures 1 and 2), strong solution (rich in refrigerant) is
pumped to the solar-fired generator (6-10) through the REC (rectifier) and SHX (7-6).
Meanwhile, impure refrigerant vapour (NH
3
/H
2
O system, 19-17) and weak solution (poor in
refrigerant, 10-9) from generator cools down by strong solution in REC and SHX respectively.
Then the weak solution returns back to the absorber through the expansion device (9-8).
Refrigerant vapour (4) is absorbed in the absorber (8-7) and the is rejected to the cooling medium
(71-72). After being cooled by the cooling medium (61-62) in the condenser (17-3), the
temperature of the refrigerant is further decreased (3-2) in the RHX (Refrigerant Heat Exchanger)
by loosing heat to the cold vapour (18-4) from the evaporator. Refrigerant evaporates in the
evaporator (1-18) lowering the chilled water temperature in the evaporator (81-82) and goes to
the absorber through RHX.
In LiBr/H
2
O systems, there is no refrigerant heat exchanger and rectifier. In the following text
a brief explanation about SE chiller modelling is given.
Superheated or subcooled regions in the condenser and the evaporator were neglected in heat
transfer calculations. Heat transfer and energy equations for the condenser and evaporator are
given below:

03 17 03 61 61 62 61
( ) ( ) ( )
con v l con con
Q m h h m Cp T T UA LMTD = = =
&
& & (1)
03 01 01 01 81 81 82 81
( ) ( ) ( )
eva v l p eva eva
Q m q h h m C T T UA LMTD = = =
&
& & (2)
Term q
01
in eq.(2) is the vapour quality at evaporator inlet and can be
determined by eq.(3), assuming an adiabatic throttling process in the expansion device.
02 01
03
01 01
l l
v l
h h
q
h h

(3)
Term h
l02
in eq.(3) is a function of the upstream temperature of expansion device, T
02
, which is
determined by heat transfer eq. (4) and energy eq. (5) for RHX (Refrigerant Heat eXchanger).
04 18 03 18
(
rhx
T T T T ) = + (4)
04 18
02 03
03
(
v v
h h
T T
Cp

=
)
)
(5)
For the SHX (Solution Heat eXchanger), the following equations can be applied:
09 10 10 07
(
shx
T T T T = (6)
10
06 07 10 09
07
1
(
Cp
T T T T
Cp
)

= +
(7)
The term on the right hand side of eq.(7) is called the circulation ratio and defined by eq.(8).
10
07 10
1 X

X X

(8)

The rectifier separates refrigerant from absorbent. Rectification heat and its UA value are
determined by eq.(9). In this study, rectification heat is rejected to ambient.
03 19 17 20
[( ) ] ( )
rec v v l rec rec
Q m 1 R h h R h UA LMTD = + =
&
& (9)
Term R in eq.(9) is called the reflux ratio and defined by eq.(10).
17 19
19 20
Y Y
R
Y X

(10)
The heat transfer rate in the generator and the UA value can be determined by eq.(11).
03 10 19 06 20 51 51 52 51
[( 1) ( ) ] ( ) ( )
gen l v l l gen gen
Q m h 1 R h h R h m Cp T T UA LMTD = + + = =
&
& & (11)
From the heat balance between generator and solar collectors, the solar collector area and heat
transfer can be determined by eq.(12) and (13). I is the total radiation normal to the collector
surface. The relationship of I with beam and diffuse radiation was assumed with eq.(13). The
t
,

z
and s is incidence, zenith and slope angle, respectively.
gen sol sol
Q I =
&
A (12)
cos( ) 1 cos( )
cos( ) 2
t
beam diffuse
z
s
I I I

+
= +
(13)
The heat transfer rate in the absorber can be determined by eq.(14).
03 09 04 07 03 71 72 71
[( 1) ] ( ) ( )
abs l v l abs abs
Q m h h h m Cp T T UA LMTD = + = =
&
& & (14)
In order to measure the overall performance of a system during a day, the following average
cooling efficiency was defined. It means an efficiency of a system converting daily solar
radiation irradiated onto its solar collectors into cooling.
cool
cool
sol
Q dt
I A dt
=

&
(15)

Double-Lift Half-Effect (DLHE) Cycle
This cycle has two solution circuits. The mid-pressure absorber (8-7) is connected to the mid-
pressure generator (16-11). Refrigerant from the evaporator goes through two solution pumps to
the condenser. This is why it is called a two-stage or double-lift cycle. It can provide cooling with
a low-temperature heat source. The cooling COP is roughly half of the SE (Single-Effect) cycle
and is called also HE (Half-Effect) cycle. In order to avoid confusion with another kind of HE
cycle below, it has been named DLHE (Double-Lift Half-Effect) cycle


(a). Block diagram (b) PTX diagram
Figure 2. Double-lift half-effect Cycle
Single-Lift Half-Effect (SLHE) cycle


(a). Block diagram (b) PTX diagram
Figure 3. Single-lift half-effect cycle

This is another kind of HE cycle. Like the DHLE cycle, its COP is also roughly half of the SE
cycle. The difference is that it has only one solution circuit with a single solution pump. For this
reason, it has been named SLHE (Single-Lift Half-Effect) cycle in contrast to the DLHE cycle.
Thanks to the simpler construction, its cheaper to build.
The idea is quite straightforward. Among two absorbers, the low-pressure absorber (19-18) is
cooled by part of the refrigerant, not by external cooling medium. In this way, the temperature of
the low-pressure absorber can be lowered considerably below ambient temperature resulting in a
higher concentration of refrigerant in the strong solution. This makes low-temperature vapour
generation possible in the generator. One special advantage is that LiBr/H
2
O can be used in this
cycle without the risk of crystallisation for air-cooled system.

SOLAR COLLECTORS
Three different non-evacuated flat collectors were considered. Their specifications are
summarised in Table 1.


Table 1. Solar collectors
Type Efficiency*

0
/a
1
/a
2

Efficiency
at T
*
m
=0.05
Dimension
LxWxH
Relative Price (%)
Collector I Flat 0.723/2.65/0.0110 0.57 1.27x2.45x0.11 100
Collector II Flat 0.682/4.30/0.0077 0.45 1.94x1.03x0.08 75
Collector III Flat 0.752/6.44/0.0214 0.39 2.14x1.01x0.1 50
*
sol
=
0
-a
1
T
*
m
-a
2
I T
*
m
2
, T
*
m
=(t
m
-t
a
)/I, Gross efficiency with wind.[6]

Collector prices in table 1 are based on information from an institution [6] and expressed in a
percentage related to Collector I.

SYSTEM DESIGN AND SCREENING
In order to simplify calculations and compare various systems under the same conditions as
possible, following assumptions were made in system design and simulations:
- Liquid-vapour mixtures are in state of equilibrium
- Pure refrigerant in condenser and evaporator
- Instantaneous heat transfer
- External heat source and sink have infinitely large thermal capacities

The last assumption makes it possible to exclude effects of variation of heat transfer fluids
parameters on the performance of a system so that characteristics of working pairs and cycle can
be clearly represented.
In addition to the assumptions above, the following design parameters were adopted for the
system design.
Air-cooled system
- CAT
abs
= CAT
con
=8 K, CAT
eva
= 4K, CAT
gen
= 5 K
- Effectiveness 0.9 for all internal heat exchangers
- Cooling air temperature T
air
= T
sink
= 35
o
C, Chilled water temperature T
chil
= 7
o
C

Water-cooled system
- CAT
abs
=CAT
con
= 8 K, CAT
eva
= 4 K, CAT
gen
=5 K, CTA(Cooling Tower Approach) =5 K
- Effectiveness 0.9 for all internal heat exchangers
- Wet bulb temperature T
wb
= 28
o
C, Chilled water temperature T
chil
= 7
o
C

Since for the cooling water an infinitely large thermal capacity is assumed, the performance of
the cooling tower cannot be included. So in this study no thermodynamic cooling tower
modelling was used and CTA was taken constant. In total six chillers (see Table 2) have been
designed. One is water-cooled and the others are air-cooled. Some of the design results are also
summarised in table 2. The results are based on a cooling capacity of 10 kW.

Table 2. Some system design results (10 kW cooling capacity)
Cycle Working
pair
Max. gen.
temp. (
o
C)
COP
chiller
Collector area (m
2
)
I/II/III
Chiller I SE Water-cooled LiBr/H
2
O 90 0.76 36/ 54/ 71
Chiller II SE Air-cooled NH
3
/LiNO
3
103 0.60 52/ 88/140
Chiller III SE Air-cooled NH
3
/H
2
O 107 0.56 58/106/191
Chiller IV DLHE Air-cooled NH
3
/LiNO
3
77 0.33 70/ 93/103
Chiller V DLHE Air-cooled NH
3
/H
2
O 78 0.33 72/ 95/106
Chiller VI SLHE Air-cooled LiBr/H
2
O 72 0.40 56/ 71/ 77


For each chiller, three collector options (Collector I~III) were considered. By assuming an unit
price of the heat exchanger and collector area, the cost of each system could be estimated.
Figure 4 shows some examples of the results. In this figure, cost values have been normalised
with the minimum cost of the Chiller I + Collector I system which does not include the cooling
tower cost. As shown in the figure, the minimum cost point of a system exists at a certain
generator temperature. Generally, the minimum cost point should be chosen as design point.
Design conditions of systems, however, have been chosen at somewhat higher temperatures for
all systems, because of excessive circulation ratio and pumping work.
As can be seen in Table 2, the COP of Chiller I is incomparably high, which minimises the
necessary collector area for the same cooling capacity. The COP of Chiller II is the 2
nd
highest.
But because the generator temperature is higher than Chiller I, all collector efficiencies are lower,
resulting in a larger collector area.


80 90 100 110 120
Maximum generator temp.(
o
C)
50
100
150
200
250
300
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
(
%
)
Collector I
Collector II
Collector III

70 80 90 100
Maximum generator temp.(
o
C)
160
200
240
280
320
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
(
%
)
Collector I
Collector II
Collector III

(a) Chiller I (b) Chiller VI
Figure 4. Comparison of system costs (I=800W/m
2
)

It is interesting to compare Chiller II and Chiller VI. In spite of the much lower COP, Chiller
VI needs similar or less collector area than Chiller II. The low generator temperature of Chiller
VI causes this result.
In order to select the best air-cooled chiller, all systems have been simulated under standard
meteorological data. Standard meteorological data shown in figure 5 have been devised to test
solar cooling systems under radiation levels and ambient conditions varying with time and day.
The maximum radiation level of each day was varied from 500 to 800 W/m
2
. Dry and wet bulb
temperatures were varied within 30~35
o
C and 24~28
o
C respectively, during the daytime. These
conditions are similar to mid-summer conditions of southern Europe.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Time of Day (hr)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
I

(
k
W
/
m
2
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
T
a
m
b

(
o
C
)
Total radiation
Dry bulb temp.
Wet bulb temp.

Figure 5. Standard meteorological data

The characteristics of a system can be seen clearly in the following simulation results. In fig.
6, cooling efficiency values defined by eq.(15) are shown against daily solar radiation.
All efficiency values decrease as collector efficiency becomes worse, from Collector I to III.
Superiority of a system over the others, however, depends on collector type and radiation level.
The efficiency of the Chiller I system, for example, is the highest with Collector I (Fig. 6a). But,
with Collector II, the Chiller VI system performs better in the low radiation region (Fig. 6b).
With Collector III, the efficiency of the Chiller VI system is the highest (Fig. 6c).
Chiller IV and V systems perform better than Chiller II and III systems except at high
radiation with Collector I (Fig. 6a). Their efficiency curves cross even that of the Chiller I system
(Fig. 6c).


4 5 6 7
Daily solar radiation(kWh/m
2
day)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
C
o
o
l
i
n
g

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Chiller I
Chiller VI
Chiller II
Chiller III
Chiller IV Chiller V

4 5 6 7
Daily solar radiation(kWh/m
2
day)
0
4
8
12
16
20
Chiller I
Chiller VI
Chiller II
Chiller III
Chiller IV
Chiller V

4 5 6 7
Daily solar radiation(kWh/m
2
day)
0
4
8
12
16
Chiller I
Chiller VI
Chiller II
Chiller III
Chiller IV
Chiller V

(a) Collector I (b) Collector II (c) Collector III
Figure 6. Average cooling efficiency

A higher cooling efficiency means less collector area for the same amount of cooling. The
amount of cooling delivered from solar operation, however, is not necessarily proportional to
cooling efficiency. Since daily cooling is the time integration of cooling power from solar-
operation during a day, it can be greater for a less efficient system if its generator temperature is
low enough.


4 5 6
Daily solar radiation(kWh/m
2
day)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
C
o
o
l
i
n
g
(
k
W
h
)
Chiller I
Chiller VI
Chiller II
Chiller III
Chiller IV
Chiller V

4 5 6
Daily solar radiation(kWh/m
2
day)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Chiller I
Chiller VI
Chiller II
Chiller III
Chiller IV
Chiller V

4 5 6
Daily solar radiation(kWh/m
2
day)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Chiller I
Chiller VI
Chiller II
Chiller III
Chiller IV
Chiller V

(a) Collector I (b) Collector II (C) Collector III
Figure 7. Daily solar cooling capacity

Daily solar cooling values are shown in Figure 7. They decrease from Collector I to III. But,
unlike the cooling efficiency, there are no changes in relative positions. And the differences
between the systems get bigger with a low-efficiency collector.
Greater daily solar cooling means higher solar fraction. System of higher solar fraction can
provide more savings and consequently shorter payback time can be expected. From figure 7 can
be concluded that an air-cooled SE system cannot compete with a water-cooled system in this
aspect. Only the air-cooled HE systems may have a chance. Among them, the Chiller VI system,
the air-cooled SLHE LiBr/H
2
O system is the best in all aspects.
Daily solar cooling of the Chiller VI system is higher than of the Chiller I system by 8~27%
with Collector I (Fig. 7a), 13~86% higher with Collector II (Fig. 7b) and 28~286% higher with
Collector III (Fig. 7c).

EVALUATION OF THE AIR-COOLED SLHE SYSTEM
From the preliminary results above, the SLHE chiller has been proven to be the most
promising for an air-cooled system. In order to compare its performance with water-cooled
system in more realistic conditions, meteorological data of two cities in Italy have been chosen.

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
Day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
W
/
m
2
)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
o
C
)
Total solar radiation
Dry bulb temperature
Wet bulb temperature

Figure 8. Meteorological data: June~August, 2000, Milan(Linate)
I
avg
=462.6W/m
2
, T
db,avg
=24.4
o
C, T
wb, avg
=18.8
o
C

Twenty-year-averaged (1951-1970) June and August data have been collected from Milan
(Linate) and the weather station in Naples. As an example the Milan data are shown in figure 8.
Maximum radiation, dry and wet bulb temperature in the period was 1012 W/m
2
, 33.5
o
C and
24.4
o
C respectively.
For Naples, average daily radiation, dry and wet bulb temperature was 537 W/m
2
, 25.6
o
C and
19.5
o
C respectively; all higher than Milan.
Six systems (Chiller I, VI x Collector I~III) have been simulated with the Milan and Naples
data.

As an example the daily solar cooling and average solar collector efficiency of Chiller VI +
Collector I system are shown in figure 9.

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
Day
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
D
a
i
l
y

C
o
o
l
i
n
g
(
k
W
h
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Daily Cooling
Collector efficiency

Figure 9. Performance data: Chiller VI + Collector I, Milan(Linate)

Figure 10 shows average cooling efficiency values for Milan and Naples. For both cities, the
cooling efficiency of the Chiller I system is considerably higher than that of Chiller VI, but only
when its combined with Collector I. With Collector II, the efficiency of the Chiller I system is
slightly higher than the Chiller VI system; only by 2~3%. The Chiller VI system is better with
Collector III.

Collector I Collector II Collector III
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Chiller I
Chiller VI

Collector I Collector II Collector III
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Chiller I
Chiller VI

(a) Milan (b) Naples
Figure 10. Average cooling efficiency
Conclusively, the water-cooled system should be used with high-efficiency collectors like
Collector I to outperform the proposed air-cooled system.
Average daily solar cooling values are shown in figure 11. Daily solar cooling of an air-cooled
system is greater than the water-cooled one in all cases.

Collector I Collector II Collector III
0
20
40
60
80
100
D
a
i
l
y

c
o
o
l
i
n
g
(
k
W
h
/
d
a
y
)
Chiller I
Chiller VI

Collector I Collector II Collector III
0
20
40
60
80
100
D
a
i
l
y

c
o
o
l
i
n
g
(
k
W
h
/
d
a
y
)
Chiller I
Chiller VI

(a) Milan (b) Naples
Figure 11. Average daily solar cooling

One interesting point can be derived from the comparison of these results. In both cities,
highest cooling value of the water-cooled system (with Collector I, 64 kWh in Milan, 79.6 Wh in
Naples) is the same with or slightly higher than the lowest daily cooling value of the air-cooled
system (with Collector III, 63.4 kWh in Milan, 80 kWh in Naples). This means, an air-cooled
SLHE chiller equipped with the cheapest collector can provide the same cooling as the water-
cooled SE chiller can provide with the most expensive collector!

The design area of Collector III for the 10 kW air-cooled chiller was 77 m
2
(Table 2). Since
Collector I is twice more expensive than Collector III; 77m
2
of Collector III is equivalent to
38m
2
of Collector I in cost. Considering that the necessary area of Collector I for a water-cooled
chiller was 36 m
2
, one can conclude that only the installation area is the difference between the
collector requirements of the two systems; not the cost.
From all the results and analysis above, the SLHE system has shown the best cooling capability
among all the air-cooled systems considered. It is strongly recommended as the absorption chiller
for an air-cooled solar cooling system.


CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions can be made from this study.

- Water-cooled single-effect LiBr/H
2
O systems require minimum collector area.
- Daily cooling performance of water-cooled single-effect LiBr/H
2
O systems is less than
that of air-cooled half-effect systems.
- Single-lift half-effect LiBr/H
2
O chillers are the most promising among the air-cooled
systems considered.

The Single-lift half-effect Libr/H
2
O chiller seems to have promising characteristics as a solar-
driven chiller. It is recommended that this type of chiller will be further developed for low-cost
competitive solar cooling systems.




NOMENCLATURE
P Pressure (bar)
T Temperature (
o
C)
X Refrigerant concentration in liquid
Y Refrigerant concentration in vapour
A Area (m
2
)
Cp Specific heat (kJ/kg
o
C)
I Solar radiation normal to collector
surface (W/m
2
)
Q
& Heat transfer rate (kW/m
2
)
R Reflux ratio
h Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
m& Mass flow rate (kg/s)
q Vapour quality
s Slope

Greek letters
Effectiveness
Circulation ratio

Average cooling efficiency

t
Incidence angle

z
Zenith angle

Subscripts
l Liquid
v Vapour
strong Strong solution
weak Weak solution
ref Refrigerant
sol Solar collector; solar radiation
cool Cooling
sink Heat sink
chil Chilled water
wb Wet bulb
db Dry bulb
avg Average



REFERENCES
[1] Kim, D.S., Machielsen, C.H.M. (2002) Evaluation of Air-cooled Solar Absorption Cooling
Systems International Sorption Heat Pump Conference, Shanghai, China
[2] Wilbur, P.J., Mitchell, C.E. (1975) Solar Absorption Air Conditioning Alternatives. Solar
Energy, Vol 17, pp.193-199
[3] Infante Ferreira, C. A. (1984) Thermodynamic and Physical property data Equations for
Ammonia-Lithium Nitrate and Ammonia-Sodium Thiocyanate solutions, Solar Energy vol.
32., pp231-236
[4] Infante Ferreira, C. A. (1985) Vertical Tubular Absorbers for Ammonia-salt Absorption
Refrigeration, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology
[5] Antonopoulus, K.A., Rogdakis, E.D. (1996) Performance of Solar-Driven Ammonia-Lithium
Nitrate and Ammonia-Sodium Thiocyanate Absorption Systems Operating As Coolers or
Heat Pumps in Athens. Applied Thermal Engineering Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.127-147
[6] Solartechnik Prfung Forschung (SPF), Institute for Solar Technology at the University in
Rapperswil (HSR), www.spf.ch