Sunteți pe pagina 1din 15

Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A high efcient combined multi-effect evaporationeabsorption heat


pump and vapor-compression refrigeration part 1: Energy and
economic modeling and analysis
Iman Janghorban Esfahani a, Yong Tae Kang b, ChangKyoo Yoo a, *
a

Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Studies, Kyung Hee University, Seocheon-dong 1,
Giheung-gu, Yongin-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, 446-701, South Korea
School of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, 145, Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-701, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 February 2014
Received in revised form
16 July 2014
Accepted 24 July 2014
Available online 21 August 2014

A novel combined system that combines a MEEeABHP (multi-effect evaporationeabsorption heat pump)
with a VCR (vapor-compression refrigeration) cycle is proposed to simultaneously generate cooling and
fresh water. In the combined system, the condenser of the VCR system is replaced by the MEEeABHP
system, where a portion of the fresh water produced in the last effect of the MEE (multi-effect evaporation) system is used as the refrigerant for the VCR system. In Part 1 of this two-part paper, model-based
energy and cost analysis is developed to quantify and qualify the performance of the combined system.
Parametric analysis is carried out to investigate the effects of absorber pressure (PA), temperature difference between effects of the MEE subsystem (DTMEE), temperature of the strong solution from absorber
(T1), and temperature of the weak solution from generator (T4) on the performance of the system. In Part
2, thermo-economic and exergy analysis is conducted to evaluate the exibility of the system for fuel
allocation from different available power and heat energy sources. The results of Part 1 showed that the
combined system can save 57.12%, 5.61%, and 25.6% in electric power, heat energy, and total annual cost
compared to the stand-alone VCR and MEEeABHP systems, respectively.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Combined system
Desalination
Refrigeration
Absorption
MEE (multi-effect evaporation)
VCR (vapor-compression refrigeration)

1. Introduction
In the Middle East, which is water-decient region with a warm
climate, fresh water and cooling are often required simultaneously
and are generated separately by stand-alone desalination and
refrigeration systems [1]. The two most widely used desalination
techniques are RO (reverse osmosis) membrane separation and
thermal desalination. In the thermal desalination salt is separated
from water by evaporation and condensations processes, whereas
in the RO process semi-permeable and driving forces like pressure
are used to separate salts from water. The membrane processes
have rapidly developed and surpassed the thermal process because
of the lower energy consumption, higher recovery factor and lower
desalted water costs. Despite of higher energy consumption, thermal desalination systems have remained the most frequently
applied technology due to lack of the discharge of brine chemical

DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.082.


* Corresponding author. Tel.: 82 31 201 3824; fax: 82 31 202 8854.
E-mail address: ckyoo@khu.ac.kr (C. Yoo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.081
0360-5442/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

solution in to the sea, capability in waste heat recovery from the


coast-based power plants, iron and steel plants, and paper and pulp
industries, and the low cost of fossil fuel in many regions such as
Middle East countries [2,3]. Among thermal desalination systems,
LT-MEE (low-temperature multi-effect evaporation) desalination
has received more attention in recent years because it has a lower
corrosion rate, consumes less power, and costs less than MSF
(multi-stage ash) desalination systems [4,5]. The LT-MEE desalination systems are often combined with heat pumps such as a SJE
(steam jet ejector) and ABHP (absorption heat pump), which are
known as MEE-TVC and MEEeABHP (multi-effect evaporationeabsorption heat pump) respectively, to increase fresh water
production compared to a stand-alone LT-MEE with the same
driving heat source conditions [5].
Recently, several researchers have studied the MEE (multi-effect
evaporation) desalination combined with SJE and ABHP systems
[4e10]. Janghorban Esfahani et al. [4] analyzed and optimized a
MEE-TVC desalination system that combines LT-MEE desalination
system with a SJE. They applied MOO (multi-objective optimization) to minimize the total annual cost, to and maximize the fresh
water ow rate, and to gain the output ratio. Wang and Lior [5]

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

investigated a LT-MEE desalination system combined with a singleeffect LiBreH2O ABHP with regard to energy and economics to
improve the understanding of the system. Li et al. [6] studied the
feasibility of using low-grade heat for thermal desalination via a
hybrid absorption heat pump system with ammonia-water working uid. Their results showed that the proposed system was
competitive with the reverse osmosis technology with regard to
power consumption. Gomri [7] compared the inuence of absorber
temperature and intermediate heat source temperature on energy
efciency, exergy efciency, and freshwater production of single
effect and double effect absorption heat pumps system used for
seawater desalination.
As investigated in the literature, the absorption cycles are
combined with the desalination system only to increase the fresh
water production not for cooling. Therefore, cooling is often separately generated by refrigeration cycles. The two most widely used
techniques to generate cooling are vapor compression and absorption. Recently, several studies have been carried out on application of refrigeration cycles [11e23]. To continue the refrigeration
cycle in both systems, the heat should be absorbed from the cold
environment by an evaporator and released to the hot environment
by a condenser, which can be recovered as a heat source for many
purposes such as the desalination process [24].
Therefore, refrigeration and desalination systems can be combined to simultaneously generate cooling and fresh water more
efciently and economically than two single-generation systems.
Recently, several studies have been conducted on combining
desalination systems and refrigeration cycles by recovering the
waste heats from the refrigeration cycle as an energy source for the
thermal desalination system.
Gude and Nirmalakhandan [25] presented a combined lowgrade desalination system with a modied absorption refrigeration system. In their study, heat rejected by the condenser of the
absorption refrigeration system was upgraded as an energy source
for desalination. Hou et al. [26] presented an open air-vapor
compression refrigeration system for both air-conditioning and
desalination on ships. In their proposed system, fresh water is obtained using humid-air dehumidication and a ash desalination
process. Wang and Lior [27] proposed a combined absorption
refrigeration cycle with a LT-MEE desalination system in which the
condenser of the absorption system is replaced by the rst effect of
the LT-MEE system. Janghorban Esfahani et al. [28] proposed a new
combined GT (gas turbine) and RO (reverse osmosis) desalination
system that uses a vapor compression refrigeration system to cool
the compressor inlet air and preheat the RO feed water by recovering waste heat from the refrigeration system condenser.
As investigated in the literature, recent research efforts have
focused on waste heat recovery from the refrigeration cycle as an
energy source for an LT-MEE desalination system. However,
combing highly efcient desalination systems such as MEEeABHP
with refrigeration systems to co-generate fresh water and cooling is
scarce.
This study proposes a new combined MEEeABHP with a VCR
(vapor-compression refrigeration) system that simultaneously
generates cooling and fresh water with lower energy consumption
and total annual cost compared to the systems proposed in the
literature. In the combined system, the condenser of the VCR system is replaced by a MEEeABHP system, where a portion of the
fresh water produced in the last stage of the MEEeABHP system is
used as the refrigerant for the VCR system. Two compressors are
used to compress the refrigerant, which increases the exibility of
the system by using both electricity and heat as energy sources. A
low pressure compressor is used to compress a portion of the
refrigerant, which is condensed in the absorber of the ABHP subsystem. A high pressure compressor is used to provide a portion of

313

the heat energy required by the MEEeABHP system by compressing


another portion of the refrigerant, which is condensed through the
tube side of the rst stage of the MEE subsystem.
Part 1 of this two-part paper consists of two major parts. First,
simulation models based thermodynamic and economic equations
are developed to simulate and calculate the energy consumption
and TAC (total annual cost) of the proposed system by using EES
(Engineering Equation Solver) software [29]. Second, parametric
and sensitivity analysis are carried out to investigate the four key
parameters of absorber pressure (PA), temperature difference between effects of MEE subsystem (DTMEE), temperature of the strong
solution from absorber (T1), temperature of the weak solution from
generator (T4) and how they inuence the performance of the
combined system with one compressor to better understand the
process. Part 2 as a separate paper consists of the thermo-economic
analysis and optimization of the combined system with two compressors to evaluate the exibility of the system to allocate the
different energy sources.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. System conguration
Fig. 1 shows the proposed system, which combines a MEEeABHP desalination system with six stages in the MEE subsystem
by a VCR system. In the proposed system, the condenser of the VCR
system is replaced with the MEEeABHP desalination system to
recover the waste heat of the VCR condenser as a heat energy
source for the MEE system. For this purpose, a portion of the fresh
water produced in the last stage of the MEEeABHP system (which
has a lower pressure than the other stages) is used as refrigerant for
the VCR system. The refrigerant is expanded through the expansion
valve (EV2) and passes through the evaporator. The saturated vapor
refrigerant coming from the evaporator (stream 15) is compressed
by the compressor and, with the vapor coming from the last stage
of the MEEeABHP system (stream 10), is sent to the absorber (A)
and absorbed by the strong solution (stream 6). Stream 6 leaves the
absorber with a weak LiBr concentration (stream 1) and is then
pumped to the generator at a higher pressure through the SHX
(solution heat exchanger). The weak solution (stream 2) is preheated by heat recovered from the strong solution (stream 4)
coming from the generator. The strong liquid solution (stream 4)
returns to the absorber through the solution heat exchanger and
expansion valve (EV1). The heating steam (stream 0) for the MEE
subsystem is provided by two sources: the rst is stream 7, which is
generated by boiling off the LiBreH2O by heat provided by the
motive steam (stream 8) in the generator; the second is stream 12,
which is a portion of the condensed vapor in the tube side of the
rst stage of the MEEeABHP system vaporized by recovering the
released heat of the solution and the compressed vapor in the
absorber [5,24,30,31]. Stream 0 is introduced to the tube side in the
rst stage and condensed by releasing its latent heat into the feed
water for evaporation. Part of the condensate returns to the
absorber (stream 11), and another part passes into the rst ashing
box. Demisted vapor formed in the rst stage and the ashed vapor
from the rst ashing box are used together as heating sources in
the rst pre-heater to preheat the feed water to the rst stage. The
combined vapor from the rst pre-heater passes into the second
stage and is used as the heat source to vaporize the feed water in
the second stage. This process is repeated for all stages. At the end,
the generated vapor of the last stage passes through the condenser.
A portion of the condensed vapor is used as the refrigerant (stream
13), and the other portion (stream 18) is introduced into the
distillate tank. The cooling water (stream 17) is divided into two
parts. The rst part is used as feed and is distributed among the

314

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

Fig. 1. Schematic of the proposed combined MEEeABHP system with VCR system.

stages, and the other part is rejected back to the sea (stream 19)
[32,33].
The system presented in Fig. 2 is suggested in order to replace a
portion of the required energy for the MEE system with electric
power; the system combines the MEEeABHP system and VCR
system with two compressors. In this system, the refrigerant
coming from the evaporator is divided into two parts: one part is
compressed by the low pressure compressor and sent to the
absorber, and the other part is compressed by a high pressure
compressor and sent to the tube side of the rst stage as an energy
source. The high pressure compressor operates as a mechanical
heat pump for the MEE subsystem, which can reduce the energy
consumption of the MEE system and consume electric power

instead of the motive steam ow rate to produce fresh water.


Therefore, the combined system with two compressors has the
exibility to allocate heat energy and electric power energy as
energy sources.
2.2. Thermodynamic and economic models of the MEEeABHPeVCR
system
2.2.1. Thermodynamic model
The thermodynamic properties of the systems must be specied
to conduct energy analyses of the MEEeABHPeVCR system, which
is usually done through modeling based thermodynamic equations.
This section includes the mass, salinity, and energy balance

Fig. 2. Schematic of the proposed combined MEEeABHP system with VCR system with two compressors.

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

equations that determine the thermodynamic simulation model of


the combined system to calculate the energy consumption of the
system. The models based thermodynamic equations developed by
Janghorban Esfahani et al. [33], Huicochea et al. [31], and Hong et al.
[34] are used in this study. Several simplifying assumptions made
in the development of the thermodynamic model are listed below:
 The systems are operated under steady state conditions.
 Heat losses and pressure drops in piping and the components
are negligible.
 The water/lithium bromide concentration is zero in the steam
phase.
 The water/lithium bromide solution in the generator and
absorber outlet is saturated.
 The refrigerant in the evaporator and condenser outlet of the
vapor compression refrigeration cycle is saturated.
Each system has been modeled as two subsystems including
MEE-ABHP, and VCR systems, as described below.
2.2.1.1. MEEeABHP subsystem. The MEEeABHP subsystem components including generator, solution heat exchanger, absorber,
expansion value, solution pump, and MEE are simulated through
Eqs. (1) to (24) as follows:
2.2.1.1.1. G. (generator). Mass, concentration, and energy balance equations are presented in Eqs. (1)e(3) [31].

m_ 3 m_ 7 m_ 4

(1)

m_ 3 x3 m_ 7 x7 m_ 4 x4

(2)

Q_ G: m_ 4 h4 m_ 7 h7  m_ 3 h3

(3)

(4)

2.2.1.1.3. EV. (solution expansion valve). Mass and energy balance equations for the solution expansion valve are given by Eqs.
(5) and (6), respectively [33].

m_ 5 m_ 6

(5)

m_ 5 h5 m_ 6 h6

(6)

2.2.1.1.4. SP. (solution pump). The power consumption of the


solution pump is given by Eq. (7) [24].

_ pump m_ 1 $v$PG  PA
W
hpump

(7)

where hpump and v are isentropic efciency of the pump and the
specic volume of the solution.
2.2.1.1.5. A. (absorber). Mass, concentration, and energy balance
equations are presented in Eqs. (8)e(10), respectively [33].

m_ Di $Li m_ F1 $Cp Ti  Tf i

i

m_ 1 m_ 10 m_ 6 m_ 16

(8)

m_ 1 x1 m_ 6 x6

(9)

Q_ A: m_ 6 h6 m_ 10 h10 m_ 16 h16  m_ 1 h1

(10)

where Q_ A: is the released heat in the absorber.


2.2.1.1.6. MEE. (multi-effect evaporation). The MEE subsystem is
modeled in Eqs. (11) to (21).
Mass balance equations of the rst stage, second to nth stages,
and end condenser are given by Eqs. (11)e(13).

m_ B1 m_ F1  m_ D1

(11)
2

m_ Bi m_ Fi m_ Bi1  m_ Di

4yi1 $@m_ Dr

i2
X

13
m_ Dj A5

(12)

j1

 i  1$m_ Fi1 $yi1

"
m_ DCon: m_ Dn  m_ Dr yn $ m_ Dr $

n
1
X

!#
m_ Di

(13)

i1

where subscripts B, F, and D represent brine, feed, and distillate


streams, respectively. Subscripts i and r represent the number of
stages and entrained steam, respectively, and y represents the ash
ratio.
The produced fresh water mass ow rate is given by Eq. (14).

"

where m_ is the mass ow rate, x is the solution concentration, and


Q_ G: is the heat requirement of the generator.
2.2.1.1.2. SHX. (solution heat exchanger). The energy balance for
the SHX component is given by Eq. (4) [34].

m_ 2 h3  h2 m_ 4 h4  h5

315

m_ 18 1  yn $ m_ Dr

n1
X

!#
m_ Di

"
 yn1

m_ Dr

i1

"
 yn3 m_ Dr

n4
X

n2
X

!#
m_ Di

i1

!#
m_ Di

"
 yn4 m_ Dr

i1

n5
X

!#
m_ Di

i1



 yn5 $m_ Dr m_ DCon:  m_ 13
where m_ 18 and m_ 13 are fresh water and refrigerant mass ow rates,
respectively.
The salinity balance equations for the rst stage and second to
nth stages are given by Eqs (15) and (16).

Xsw $m_ F1 XB1 $m_ B1

(15)

Xsw $m_ F1 XBi1 $m_ Bi1 XBi $m_ Bi

(16)

where X is salinity, and subscripts i and B represent the number of


stages and the brine stream, respectively.
Energy balance equations of the rst stage and second to nth
stages are given by Eqs. (17) and (18), respectively.


h
     i
m_ 0 $L0
m_ D1 $L1 m_ F1 $ Cp T1 $T1  Cp Tf 1 $T
1

0
1
3
2
i2
X




 

m_ Di1 $Li1 4yi1 $@m_ Dr
m_ Dj A$Li1 5  i  1$m_ Fi1 $yi1 $Li1 m_ Bi1 $C$ DTi1;i
j1

(14)

(17)

(18)

316

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

where L is the latent heat of the stream. m_ 0 is the mass ow rate


of stream 0, and DTi1;i is temperature difference between ith and
i-1st effects, respectively which are calculated by Eqs. (19) and
(20).

the performance criteria to comprise the performance of combined


system with the stand-alone systems are given by Eqs. (28) and (29)
[4,38].

m_ 0 m_ 7 m_ 23 m_ 12

(19)

COPVCR

DTi1;i Ti1  Ti

(20)

In order to achieve the optimum operating conditions the


temperature difference between effects are assumed to be equal as
follow [4]:

DTi1;i Ti1  Ti DTMEE

(21)

Enthalpy and entropy for pure water, water/LiBr and seawater


have been calculated by the correlations from previous research
[35e37] which are presented in Appendixes A and B.
2.2.1.2. VCR subsystem. The VCR subsystem components including
expansion valve, evaporator, and compressors, are simulated by
Eqs. (22)e(26) as follows:
2.2.1.2.1. REV. (refrigerant expansion valve). Mass and energy
balance for the REV are given by Eqs. (22) and (23), respectively.

m_ 13 m_ 14

(22)

m_ 13 h13 m_ 14 h14

(23)

2.2.1.2.2. Eva. (evaporator). The energy balance equation of the


evaporator is given by Eq. (24).

Q_ Eva: m_ 14 h15  h14

(24)

where Q_ Eva: is the cooling load of the evaporator.


2.2.1.2.3. Com. (compressors). The power consumptions of the
low pressure and high pressure compressors are given by Eqs. (25)
and (26), respectively.



_
_ com: m21 h16is  h21
W
LP
hcom:LP

(25)



_
_ com: m22 h23is  h22
W
HP
hcom:HP

(26)

m13  m_ 21
m_ 13

GORMEEABHP

(27)

where RR is refrigerant ratio which can be from 0 to 1. The values of


0, 1, and the values between 0, and 1 indicate that the system
operates with a low pressure compressor, high pressure
compressor, and low and high pressure compressors, respectively.
2.2.1.3. Performance criteria. The COP (coefcient of performance)
of VCR system and GOR (gain output ratio) of MEEeABHP system as

(28)
m_ fresh water
m_ 8

(29)

The exergy efciency as the robust performance criterion for the


systems with different products is given in Part 2 of this paper for
comparison of the MEEeABHPeVCR system with stand-alone
MEEeABHP and VCR systems in exergy point of view.

2.2.2. Economic model


In this section we detail the equations that form the economic
model for the VCR, MEEeABHP, and MEEeABHPeVCR systems to
calculate the total annual cost. The models, developed by Janghorban Esfahani and Yoo [39], Alasfour and Bin Amer [40], Garousi
Farshi et al. [41], Nafey et al. [42], and Sayyaadi and Nejatolahi [43]
are used for our economic model.
The total annual cost of the system is given by Eq. (30).

TAC ACC AOC

(30)

where ACC and AOC are the annual capital cost and annual operating cost, respectively. The economic model equations that are
used to calculate TAC are presented by Eqs. (31)e(47).
The capital cost of the generator, condenser, evaporator,
absorber, and solution heat exchanger are calculated by the power
law relation given by Eq. (31) [41].


Zk ZR:k $

Ak
AR

0:6
(31)

where Zk is capital cost of the component k, and ZR,k is the reference


cost of the component k at the reference year. Ak and AR are the heat
transfer area of component k, and reference heat transfer area,
respectively. The reference costs of the heat exchangers for the
reference year 2000 are listed in Table 1 [41]. The component costs
calculated by Eq. (31) using the reference costs presented in Table 1
are not reliable because the costs are valid around the year 2000.
Therefore all the component costs obtained from Eq. (31) are
updated to the year 2009, which is more reliable for economic
analysis of this study using Eq. (32).

where subscripts LP, HP, and is represent low pressure and high
pressure, and isentropic, respectively. The specic enthalpy of
steam is calculated by IPAWS-97 thermodynamic property function
built in EES software [29].
The RR (refrigerant ratio) from the low pressure compressor to
the high pressure compressor is calculated by Eq. (27).

RR

Q_ Eva:
_ com:
W

Zk;2009 Zk

CI2009
CI2000


(32)

where Zk,2009 is the component cost at year 2009, Zk is the


component cost at year 2000 which is calculated by Eq. (31) and

Table 1
Reference costs of components (AR 100 m2, WR,pump 10 kW,
WR,Motor 10 kW) [41].
Component (k)

Reference cost (ZR) $

Generator
Absorber
Solution heat exchanger
Evaporator
Condenser
Expansion valve

17,500
16,500
12,000
16,000
8000
300

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

Table 1. CI2009, and CI2000 are the Marshall and Swift equipment cost
index at year 2009, and 2000, respectively, which can be found in
Ref. [41].
The heat transfer area of each component in Eq. (31) is given by
Eq. (33).

Ak

Qk
Uk $LMTDk

(33)

where A is heat transfer area, Q is heat transfer ow rate through


the component, U is heat transfer coefcient which considered as
1.5, 1.5, 0.7, 1 kW/m2K for generator, evaporator, absorber, and
solution heat exchanger respectively [44], and LMTD is logarithmic mean temperature difference which is calculated by
Eq. (34).

LMTDk


 

Th;i  Tc;i  Th;e  Tc;e

(34)

T T

h;i
c;i
ln Th;e
Tc;e

where, h and c represent hot and cold streams, i and e represent


inlet and outlet streams.
The heat transfer area, overall heat transfer coefcients, and the
logarithmic mean temperature differences for each effect, the preheaters, the condenser, and the total heat transfer area can be obtained by using Eqs. (C.1)e(C.14) as presented in Appendix C.
The capital cost of the pump is calculated by Eq. (35) [43].
Cpump

_
Zpump 308:9$W
pump

317

are calculated through Eqs. (31)e(34) for evaporators and


condenser of MEE subsystem. As the plant is assumed to operate
330 days, the pf (plant load factor) is considered to be 0.9.
The ACC (annual capital cost) is obtained by multiplying capital
cost by the amortization factor. The amortization factor is given by
Eq. (47).

CRF

i$1 iLC

(37)

1 iLC  1

where CRF is amortization factor. i and LC are interest rate and plant
life cycle which are assumed to be equal to 15% and 20 years,
respectively.
The AOC (annual operating cost) mainly includes the cost of
energy (heat and power), labor cost, chemical cost, and insurance
cost. The equations for calculation of last three terms of the annual
operating cost are presented in Table 2. The costs of the power and
heat are assigned based on the price of electricity and saturated
steam at pressure 0.25 MPa being 0.07 $/kWh and 11 $/ton [5].
2.3. Model validation
The simulated models were validated by comparing the simulation results of the MEEeABHP and VCR systems with those found
in the relevant literature [1,4,24] under the same conditions (for
example, the relative errors of the net power generation of the SIGT
and the gain output ratio of the METVC desalination system are
both within 2.75%).

(35)

_ pump is the power consumption of pump, Cpump is 0.25 for


where W
pump power consumption in the range of 0.02e0.3 kW, 0.45 for
pump power consumption in the range of 0.3e20 kW, and 0.84 for
pump power consumption in the range of 20e200 kW [43].
The capital cost of the compressor is given by Eq. (36) [42].


 
Po
hcom:
$
Zcom: 7364$m_ refrigerant $
Pi
1  hcom:

(36)

where Po and Pi are outlet and inlet pressures of the compressor,


respectively.
The capital cost of the MEE subsystem is calculated by Eqs.
(37)e(43) listed in Table 2 [40]. Zeffects,MEE, and Zcon.,MEE in Table 2

Table 3
Initial operating parameters and thermodynamic parameters for VCR, MEEeABHP,
and MEEeABHPeVCR systems.
Parameter

Equations

Descriptions

Capital costs
Area cost ($)
CA Zeffects;MEE Zcon;MEE

(38)

Ceq 4$CA

(39)

Csite 0.2$Ceq
Ctr 0.05$(CA Ceq Cs)
Cb 0.15$Ceq
Cen 0.1$Ceq
Cc 0.1$(CA Ceq Cs)
Operating cost
Cl 0.1 pf$Q$365
Cch 0.04 pf$Q$365
Cin 0.005$CA

(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)

Equipment cost
(evaporator, condenser)
Site cost ($)
Transportation costs ($)
Building costs ($)
Engineers and salary costs ($)
Contingency costs ($)

(45)
(46)
(47)

Labor cost ($/yr)


Chemical material costs ($/yr)
Insurance costs ($/yr)

Units

10
10
91
Steam
40
6
30,000
0.07

C
C
%
e

C

C
kW
$/kWh

7.5
6
3
500
91
30,000
70,000
79.2
117.4
15,000
11

kPa
e

C
kPa
%
ppm
ppm

C

C
m3/d
$/ton

7.5
6
3
500
91
91
30,000
70,000
79.2
117.4
6
15,000
30,000
0.07
11

kPa
e

C
kPa
%
%
ppm
ppm

C

C

C
m3/d
kW
$/kWh
$/ton

VCR system

DTmin,Eva.
DTmin,con.
hcom
Refrigerant type
Tamb.
T14
Qcooling
Electric power price
MEEeABHP system
PA
Effect number
DTMEE
Pmotive steam

hpump

Table 2
Economic model equations for MEE subsystem for the calculations of the capital and
operating costs [40].

Value

Xsw
XB6
T1
T4
Qfresh water
Price of steam
MEEeABHPeVCR system
PA
Effect number
DTMEE
Pmotive steam

hcom
hpump

Xsw
XB6
T1
T4
T14
Qfresh water
Qcooling
Electric power price
Price of steam

318

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

3. Energy and cost analyses


The energy and cost analyses were conducted to determine the
energy consumption and TAC (total annual cost) of the MEEeABHPeVCR system with one compressor under the specied
conditions presented in Table 3. As presented in Table 3, the systems operate to generate 15,000 m3/d of fresh water and cooling of
30,000 kW, which are generated separately by the MEEeABHP
desalination system and VCR system, respectively, and simultaneously by the MEEeABHPeVCR system. Parametric and sensitivity
analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of four key
parametersdabsorber pressure (PA), temperature difference between effects of the MEE subsystem (DTMEE), temperature of the
strong solution from absorber (T1), and temperature of the weak
solution from generator (T4)don the energy consumption and total
annual cost of the combined system with one compressor (Fig. 1). In
the parametric analysis, one parameter was varied while others
were kept constant.
3.1. Parametric analysis
In the MEEeABHPeVCR system with one compressor, the effects
of PA, DTMEE, T1, and T4 on the net power consumption, heat energy
consumption, and TAC of the combined system were analyzed. The
variation range of PA, DTMEE, T1, and T4 are considered from 5 to
12 kpa, 2e4  C, 74e84  C, and 112.5e122.5  C, respectively.
3.1.1. Effect of the absorber pressure (PA)
Fig. 3aec shows the effect of absorber pressure on energy consumption, TAC, ACC (annual capital cost), and AOC (annual operating cost), respectively, for the MEEeABHPeVCR system with one
compressor at a xed DTMEE (3  C), T1 (79.2  C), and T4 (117.4  C). As
shown in Fig. 3a, the net power consumption and the heat energy
consumption increases and decreases as PA increases.
According to Fig. 3b, increase of the absorber pressure results in
decrease of TAC until a given absorber pressure is reached, and then
further increase in absorber pressure results in increasing TAC.
Fig. 3c shows the effect of the absorber pressure on ACC (annual
capital cost) and AOC (annual operating cost) of the system. Since
the annual capital cost and annual operating cost of the system
increases and decreases, respectively, with the increase of absorber
pressure, total annual cost which is the sum of the annual capital
and annual operating costs decreases and increases with the increase of the absorber pressure.
3.1.2. Effect of the temperature difference between effects of the
MEE subsystem (DTMEE)
Fig. 4a-4c show the effect of the temperature difference between effects of the MEE subsystem (DTMEE) on the energy consumption, TAC, and annual capital and operating costs, respectively,
for the MEEeABHPeVCR system with one compressor at a xed PA
(7.5 kPa), T1 (79.2  C), and T4 (117.4  C).
As shown in Fig. 4a, the power consumption slightly increases
and heat energy consumption highly increases with the increase of
the DTMEE. Fig. 4b shows that the total annual cost decreases with
the increase of the DTMEE. The reason can be explained through
Fig. 4c which shows the effect of DTMEE on annual capital and
operating costs. As shown in Fig. 4c the annual capital cost decreases while the annual operating cost increases with the increase
of the DTMEE. Since the variation of the annual capital cost with
respect to the increase of the DTMEE is higher than that of the annual
operating cost, the TAC, which is the sum of the annual capital and
annual operating costs, decreases with the increase of the DTMEE.

Fig. 3. Effect of absorber pressure on (a) net power and heat energy consumptions (b)
total annual cost (c) annual capital and operating costs for an MEEeABHPeVCR system
with one compressor.

3.1.3. Effect of the temperature of the strong solution from absorber


(T1)
Fig. 5a-5c show the effect of temperature of the strong solution
from absorber (T1) on net power consumption and heat energy
consumption, TAC, and annual capital and operating costs,
respectively, for the MEEeABHPeVCR system with one compressor
at a xed PA (7.5 kPa), DTMEE (3  C), and T4 (117.4  C).
As shown in Fig. 5a the heat energy consumption increases with
the increase of the T1 because the heat energy recovery through the
solution heat exchanger decreases with the increase of the T1. The
power consumption is constant with the increase of the T1. Since
the outlet pressure of the compressor is constant with the increase
of the T1.

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

319

Fig. 5. Effect of T1 on (a) net power and heat energy consumptions (b) total annual cost
(c) capital cost and operating cost for an MEEeABHPeVCR system with one
compressor.

Fig. 4. Effect of DTMEE on (a) net power and heat energy consumptions (b) total annual
cost (c) annual capital and operating costs for an MEEeABHPeVCR system with one
compressor.

According to Fig. 5b the total annual cost increases with the


increase of the T1 which is summation of annual operating and
capital costs. As shown in Fig. 5c the annual capital cost and annual
operating cost increase with the increase of the T1.

3.1.4. Effect of the temperature of the weak solution from generator


(T4)
Fig. 6aec shows the effect of temperature of the weak solution
from generator (T4) on net power consumption and heat energy
consumption, TAC, and annual capital and operating costs,

respectively, for the MEEeABHPeVCR system with one compressor


at a xed PA (7.5 kPa), DTMEE (3  C), and T1 (79.2  C).
As shown in Fig. 6a, the heat energy consumption decreases
with the increase of the T4. The power consumption which is
summation of compressor power consumption and pump power
consumption slightly decreases with the increase of the T4. The
pump power consumption decreases due to the decrease of the
mass ow rate through the pump with the increase of the T4, while
the compressor power consumption is kept constant with the increase of the T4 since the variation of the T4 has no effect on pressure ratio of the compressor.
Fig. 6b shows the effect of the T4 on the total annual cost. The
TAC decreases with the increase of the T4. As shown in Fig. 6c the
annual operating cost decreases with the increase of the T4 while
the annual capital cost is kept constant. Since the TAC is sum of the

320

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

Fig. 6. Effect of T4 on (a) net power and heat energy consumptions (b) total annual cost
(c) capital cost and operating cost for an MEEeABHPeVCR system with one
compressor.

annual capital and operating costs, the TAC decreases with the increase of the T4.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the sensitivity of the system responses including net power and heat energy
consumptions, TAC, and annual capital and operating costs for
MEEeABHPeVCR system with one compressor with respect to
various conditions of 4 parameters including PA, DTMEE, T1 and T4.

In order to dene the signicance of the parameter effects on


the system responses, the polynomial regression was used to model
the relationship between each response and each parameter by
tting a polynomial equation. The polynomial equations for ve
responses with respect to four parameters are presented in
Table D.1 in Appendix D. The goodness of t of the models was
checked by the multiple correlation coefcients (R2). The values of
R2 for each polynomial equation are presented in Table D.1 in
Appendix D. For all the models the values of R2 are very high,
which indicates the goodness of t of the models. Since the slope of
the polynomial equation corresponding to parameter value shows
the sensitivity of the response to change in the parameter, the
polynomial equation's derivative which is a function to calculate
the slope of the polynomial equation was dened for each
response. Since the values of the slope of the polynomial equations
varies with the variation of the parameter values, the maximum
slope of the polynomial equation was dened as the sensitivity
value of each response with respect to each parameter by maximizing the polynomial equation's derivative function in the range
of the each parameter. The polynomial equation's derivative functions with the sensitivity values are presented in Table D.2 in
Appendix D.
The sensitivity values for each response were normalized to
better comparison of signicance of the each parameter effect.
Fig. 7a to 7e show the normalized sensitivity values for heat
energy consumption, power consumption, annual capital cost,
annual operating cost, and total annual cost, respectively. As
shown in Fig. 7a the parameters of DTMEE, PA, T4, and T1 have the
highest to lowest inuence on the value of heat energy consumption, respectively. Since the sensitivity values of the DTMEE,
PA, and T1 are positive and the sensitivity values of the T4 is
negative, it can be concluded that the effects of the DTMEE, PA, and
T1 are additive while the effects of the T4 is ablative on the heat
energy consumption.
It can be seen in Fig. 7b that, the parameter of PA has the highest
sensitivity value with an ablative inuence on power energy consumption among the parameters. Also the effect of the DTMEE is
positive, and T1 and T4 have no any inuence on power consumption of the system.
According to Fig. 7c the sensitivity value of the DTMEE is higher
than the sensitivity value of the PA, which means the inuence of
DTMEE is higher than inuence of the PA on the value of annual
capital cost. Since the sensitivity values of DTMEE and PA are
negative, it can be concluded that the capital cost of the system
decreases with the increase of DTMEE and PA. Also it is found that
the effect of T1, and T4 appear to be negligible on annual capital
cost.
Fig. 7d illustrates that the parameters of DTMEE, PA, T4, and T1,
have the highest to lowest inuences on value of annual operating
cost, respectively. The inuences of DTMEE, and T1 on annual operating cost is additive while the inuence of PA, and T4 on operating
cost is ablative, which means that the annual operating cost of the
system increases with the increase of the DTMEE, A, and T1 while the
annual operating cost of the system deceases with the increase of
the PA, T4. The effect of DTMEE is found to be larger than the effect of
PA, and highly larger than the effects of T1 and T4. Also due to the big
difference between sensitivity values of DTMEE, and PA with T4 and
T1, it can be concluded that the effects of T4 and T1 on the operating
cost are negligible.
As shown in Fig. 7e among the parameters, PA, and DTMEE have
the highest and lowest sensitivity values, respectively, with the
negative sign, which means the effects of DTMEE and PA are ablative
on the total annual cost. It is also found that the effects of the T1 and
T4 on total annual cost appear almost negligible.

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

321

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis results for the MEEeABHPeVCR system parameters: (a) heat energy consumption (b) power energy consumption (c) annual capital cost (d) annual
operating cost (e) total annual cost.

3.3. Comparisons of the systems


Table 4 compares the power consumption, heat energy consumption, total annual cost, and performances of the VCR, MEEeABHP, and MEEeABHPeVCR systems under the operation
conditions presented in Table 3 with RR values of 0, 0.5, and 1.
The results show that, to generate 30,000 kW of cooling and to
produce 15,000 m3/d of fresh water, 11,486 kWh of electric power

and 41,208 kW of heat energy are consumed by the stand-alone


VCR and MEEeABHP systems, respectively.
As presented in Table 4, the MEEeABHPeVCR system with RR
values of 0, 0.5, and 1 can simultaneously generate 30,000 kW of
cooling and produce 15,000 m3/d of fresh water by consuming
4925, 6462, and 7999 kW of electric power and 38,896, 29,677, and
20,459 kW of heat energy. We conclude that the MEEeABHPeVCR
system decreases the heat energy consumption by 5.61, 27.98, and

Table 4
Comparison of energy consumption, total annual cost, and performance of the VCR, MEEeABHP, and MEEeABHPeVCR systems.
System

Heat energy
consumption (kW)

Electric power
consumption (kW)

Fresh water
production (m3/d)

Cooling
generation (kW)

TAC ($/yr)

GOR

COP

VCR
MEEeAHP
MEEeABHPeVCR (low pressure com.)
Comparison
MEEeABHPeVCR (RR 0.5)
Comparison
MEEeABHPeVCR (high pressure com.)
Comparison

e
41,208
38,896
5.61%
29,677
27.98%
20,459
50.35%

11,486
e
4925
57.12%
6462
43.74%
7999
30.36%

e
15,000
15,000
e
15,000
e
15,000
e

30,000
e
30,000
e
30,000
e
30,000
e

10,690,000
16,860,000
20,500,000
25.6%
20,340,000
26.17%
20,180,000
26.75%

e
9.19
9.736
5.61%
12.76
27.97%
18.51
50.35%

2.61
e
6.093
57.13%
4.64
43.7%
3.751
30.36%

322

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

50.35% and decreases electric power consumption by 57.12, 43.74,


and 30.36% compared to the stand-alone MEEeABHP and VCR
systems, respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that with increase in the share of high pressure compressor to compress the
refrigerant, the heat energy consumption of the MEEeABHPeVCR
system more decreases while the power consumption of the
MEEeABHPeVCR system less decreases than the stand alone
systems.
As presented in Table 4 the total annual cost of the VCR system
to generate 30,000 kW of cooling and total annual cost of the
MEEeABHP system to produce 15,000 m3/d of fresh water are
10,690,000 $/yr and 16,860,000 $/yr, respectively, while the total
annual cost of the MEEeABHPeVCR system to cogenerate
30,000 kW of cooling and 15,000 m3/d of fresh water are
20,500,000 $/yr, 20,340,000 $/yr, and 20,180,000 $/yr, respectively,
for MEEeABHPeVCR systems with RR values of 0, 0.5, and 1.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the MEEeABHPeVCR system
can save 25.6, 26.17, and 26.75% in total annual cost compared to
the stand-alone VCR and MEEeABHP systems.
According to Table 4 the COP and GOR of the stand-alone VCR
and MEEeABHP systems to generate 30,000 kW of cooling and
15,000 m3/d of fresh water are 2.61, and 9.19, respectively, while
the COP values of MEEeABHPeVCR systems are 6.093, 4.64, and
3.751 and the GOR values are 9.736, 12.76, and 18.51, respectively,
for MEEeABHPeVCR systems with RR values of 0, 0.5, and 1.
Therefore, MEEeABHPeVCR systems with RR values of 0, 0.5, and 1
can increase the COP of the cooling process by 57.13, 43.7, and
30.36%, and increase the GOP of the fresh water production process
by 5.61, 27.97, and 50.35% compared to the stand-alone MEEeABHP
and VCR systems, respectively.

Appendix A. Correlations for enthalpy calculation


Correlations for calculating the enthalpy of pure water, lithium
bromideewater, and seawater are as follow:
A.1. Pure water
The enthalpy of pure water states including saturated water,
saturated vapor, and superheated vapor can be calculated through
Eqs. (A.1)e(A.6).
The enthalpy of saturated water can be calculated by Eq. (A.1)
which is valid for 5  T  200  C [35].


hf 0:141355 4:20207$T  0:000535$T 2
.
1000
0:000004$T 3

(A.1)

The enthalpy of saturated vapor is calculated by Eq. (A.2) [45].

hv hf hfg

(A.2)

where hv is saturated vapor enthalpy, and hf is saturated water


enthalpy calculated by Eq. (A.1). hfg is latent heat of evaporation
calculated by (A.3) which is valid for 0  T  200  C [35].


hfg 2:501$106  2:369$103 $T 2:678$101 $T 2
.
1000
 8:103$103 $T 3  2:079$105 $T 4

(A.3)

4. Conclusions
In this study as Part 1 of two parts paper, new cooling and fresh
water combined system, which combines the MEEeABHP desalination system and VCR system, is suggested and investigated based
on energy and cost measurements. The energy and cost performance of the combined system are greater than those of the
MEEeABHP and VCR systems (which separately generate fresh
water and cooling) for three reasons. First, the condenser of the VCR
system is replaced by an MEEeABHP system as the waste heat of
the VCR system is recovered as an energy source for the MEEeABHP
system. Second, the pressure ratio of the compressor in the MEEeABHPeVCR system is less than that of the stand-alone VCR system. Third, the temperature of the compressor outlet stream is
increased by the ABHP subsystem and is used as an energy source
for the MEE system. The energy and economic analysis results show
that the electric power and heat energy can be decreased by 57.12%
and 5.6% and COP and GOR can be increased by 57.12% and 5.6% by
the MEEeABHPeVCR system with low pressure compressor
compared to the stand-alone systems for xed fresh water and
cooling production, respectively. Also, the total annual cost of the
MEEeABHPeVCR system is 25.6% less than that of the stand-alone
VCR and MEEeABHP systems.

The enthalpy of superheated vapor is calculated by (A.4) [37].



hp; t
t g0t grt
RT

(A.4)

where p p/p* and t T*/T with p* 1 MPa and T* is 540 K g0t


and grt are the ideal-gas and residual parts of dimensionless Gibbs
free energy respectively, which are given by Eqs. (A.5) and (A.6)
[37].

g0t

9
X

n0i Ji0 tJi 1

(A.5)

ni pIi Ji t  0:5Ji 1

(A.6)

i1

grt

43
X
i1

where the numerical values of the coefcients and exponents can


be found in Ref. [37].

Acknowledgments
A.2. Seawater
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (NRF2012R1A1B3001400).

The enthalpy of seawater is calculated by Eq. (A.7) [35] which is


valid for 10  T  120  C and. 0  X  0.12 kg/kg,

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

323

.
 
1000
hsw hf  X a1 a2 X a3 X 2 a4 X 3 a5 T a6 T 2 a7 T 3 a8 XT a9 X 2 T a10 XT 2
a1 2:348  104 ; a2 3:152  105 ; a3 2:803  106 ; a4 1:446  107 ; a5 7:826  103 ;
a6 4:417  101 ; a7 2:139  101 ; a8 1:991  104 ; a9 2:778  104 ; a10 9:728  101

where X and T are salinity and temperature of seawater,


respectively.
A.3. Lithium bromideewater

(A.7)


sf 0:1543 15:383$T  0:02996$T 2 0:00008193$T 3
.
1000
 0:000000137$T 4
(B.1)

The enthalpy of lithium bromideewater is calculated by Eq.


(A.8) [36] which is valid for 0  T  190  C and. 40  x  75 wt.%,

hLiBrwater

4
X
n0

an xn T

3
X

bn x n T 3 d 0

n0

a0 954:8; a1 47:7739; a2 1:59235; a3 2:09422  102 ; a4 7:689  105


b0 3:293  101 ; b1 4:076  102 ; b2 1:36  105 ; b3 7:1366  106
c0 7:4285  103 ; b1 1:5144  104 ; b2 1:3555  106
d0 2:269  106

(A.8)

B.2. Seawater
where x and T are solution concentration and temperature of
lithium bromideewater, respectively.
In all cases of entropy calculation the reference temperature is
considered as 25  C [35e37].

The entropy of seawater is calculated by Eq. (B.2) [35] which is


valid for 10  T  120  C and 0  X  0.12 kg/kg,

.
 
1000
ssw sf  X a1 a2 X a3 X 2 a4 X 3 a5 T a6 T 2 a7 T 3 a8 XT a9 X 2 T a10 XT 2
a1 4:231  102 ; a2 1:463  104 ; a3 9:880  104 ; a4 3:095  105 ; a5 2:562  101 ;
a6 1:443  101 ; a7 5:879  104 ; a8 6:111  101 ; a9 8:041  101 ; a10 3:035  101

Appendix B. Correlations for entropy calculation


Correlations for calculating the entropy of pure water, lithium
bromideewater, and seawater are as follow:

(B.2)

where X and T are salinity and temperature of seawater,


respectively.
B.3. Lithium bromideewater
The entropy of lithium bromideewater is calculated by Eq. (B.3)
[36] which is valid for 0  T  190  C and. 40  x  75 wt.%,

sLiBrwater a1 a2 a3 T 2 A4 x a5 xT a6 xT 2 a7 x2 a8 x2 T a9 x3 a10 x4
a1 1:01961E3; a2 1:101529E  1; a3 1:042150E  2;
a4 1:036935E2; a5 5:87032E  2; a6 8:63107E  5;
a7 3:266802; a8 3:16683E  4; a9 4:100993E  2;
a10 1:790548E  4

(B.3)

B.1. Pure water


The entropy of saturated water can be calculated by Eq. (B.1)
which is valid for 5  T  200  C [35].

where x and T are solution concentration and temperature of


lithium bromideewater, respectively.

324

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

Appendix C

Table C.1
Heat transfer area, heat transfer coefcient and logarithmic mean temperature difference equations [4].
Equations

Descriptions
Area of effect 1

m0 $L0
Ue1 $T0C  T1

Ae1

(C.1)
Area of effect 2 to n



Di1



Dr


 



i  1 $yi1 $Fi $Li1
j1 Dj $yi1 

Pi2

Aej

Uei $Tvi1  Ti

(C.2)
Total area of effects

Atot

n
X

Ai

(C.3)

i1


AHi

Pre-heaters area in effects 1 to n1



i$Fi $C$ Tf i  Tf i1

(C.4)

UHi $LMTDHi


AHn

Pre-heater area in effect n



n$Fn $ Tf n  Tf

(C.5)

UHn $LMTDHn

Condenser area

Acon:

Dcon:



Dr

Pn1
j1

Dj $yn


$Ln
(C.6)

Ucon: $LMTDcon:

For effect 1







2
3
2:3186  106 $T0c
Ue1 1:9394 1:40562  103 $T0c  2:07525  105 $T0c

(C.7)







Uei 1:9394 1:40562  103 $Tvi1  2:07525  105 $Tv2i1 2:3186  106 $Tv3i1

(C.8)

UHi 14:18251642 0:011383865$Tvi 0:013381501$Tf i1

(C.9)

For effects 2 to n

For pre-heaters of effects 1 to n2

For pre-heaters of effects n1


UHn1 14:18251642 0:011383865$Tvn1 0:013381501$Tf

(C.10)







Ucon: 1:6175 1:537  104 $Tvn  1:825  104 $Tv2n 8:026  108 $Tv3n

(C.11)

!



Tvi  Tf i1
LMTDHi Tf i  Tf i1
ln
Tvi  Tf i

(C.12)




Tvn1  Tf
ln
LMTDHn1 Tf n1  Tf
Tvn1  Tf n1
!



Tv  Tsw
ln n
LMTDcon: Tf  Tsw
Tvn  Tf

For end condenser

For effects 1 to n1

For effects n1

!
(C.13)

For end condenser


(C.14)

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

325

Appendix D

Table D.1
Polynomial equations for responses with respects to parameters.
R2 (%)

Polynomial equations
For heat energy consumption
Q PA 45353:7  809:574$PA 19:888$PA2
2
Q DTMEE 37166  83:7122$DTMEE 219:77$DTMEE
Q T1 5:049673E4  3:741358E2$T1 2:874453$T12
Q T4 288458  6089:14$T4 49:6028$T42  0:134949$T43
For power consumption
PowerPA 730:923 685:767$PA  16:9873$PA2
2
3
PowerDTMEE 4921:65 2:55595$DTMEE  0:975026$DTMEE
0:149924$DTMEE
PowerT1 4:94312E3  0:5272619$T1 3:70358E  3$T12
PowerT4 4966:85  0:673947$T4 0:00267495$T42
For capital cost
CCPA 2:52712E7  5:49809E6$PA 835247$PA2  58241:7$PA3 1530:69$PA4
2
3
CCDTMEE 5:58619E7  3:15783E7$DTMEE 7:51610E6$DTMEE
 6:47956E5$DTMEE
CCT1 1:156886E7  8:134481E3$T1 59:79869T12
CCT4 1:220102E7  1:520654E4$T4 64:13320$T42
For operating cost
OCPA 7:27305E6 319198$PA  8275:65$PA2
2
OCDTMEE 8:93068E6  1:417006E4$DTMEE 3:517890E4$DTMEE
OCT1 1:106149E7  5:982119E4$T1 4:593880E2$T12
OCT4 4:906959E7  9:726187E5$T4 7922:78$T42  21:5542$T43
For total annual cost
TACPA 7:64892E7  3:741E7$PA  1:04432E7$PA2
2
3
TACDTMEE 6:44208E7  3:12021E7$DTMEE 7:41811E6$DTMEE
 633158$DTMEE
TACT1 2:26304E7  67955:7$T1 519:187$T12
TACT4 6:17212E7  9:99347E5$T4 8:085095E3$T42  21:83293$T43

Sensitivity value

For heat energy consumption


dQ
809:574 39:776$PA
dPA
dQ
83:7122 439:54$DTMEE
dDTMEE
dQ
3:741358E2 5:748906$T1
dT1
dQ
6089:14 99:2056$T4  0:404847$T42
dT4

39.776
439.54
5.75
11.69

For power consumption


dPower
dPA
dPower
dDTMEE
dPower
dT1
dPower
dT4

33.9746

685:767  33:9746$PA
2:55595  1:950052$DTMEE

2
0:449772$DTMEE

0:52726191 7:40716E  3$T1

99.99
99.99
99.96
99.98
99.95
99.99
99.97
99.96
99.99
99.96
99.97
99.99
99.96
99.99
99.97
99.99

References

Table D.2
Polynomial equations' derivative functions with sensitivity values
Polynomial equations' derivative functions

99.99
99.96
99.97
99.99

1.952
0.0074

0:673947 0:0053499$T4
For capital cost

0.0053

dACC 5:49809E6 1670494$P  174725:1$P 2 4592:07$P 3


A
A
A
dPA
dACC 3:15783E7 15:0322E6$DT
2
MEE  19:43868E5$DTMEE
dDTMEE
dACC 8:134481E3 119:59738$T
1
dT1
dACC 1:520654E4 128:2664$T
4
dT4

759,876

dAOC 319198  16551:3$P


A
dPA
dAOC 1:417006E4 7:03578E4$DT
MEE
dDTMEE
dAOC 5:982119E4 9:18776E2$T
1
dT1
dAOC 9:726187E5 15845:56$T  64:6626$T 2
4
4
dT4

16551.3

dTAC 3:741E7  2:08864E7$P


A
dPA
dTAC 3:12021E7 14:83622E6$DT
2
MEE  1899474$DTMEE
dDTMEE
dTAC 67955:7 1038:374$T
1
dT1
dTAC 9:99347E5 16:17019E3$T  63:49879$T 2
4
4
dT4

20,886,400

2,517,000
119.597
128.266

For operating cost

70357.8
918.776
1881

For total annual cost

2,232,000
1038.37
28,623

[1] Wang Y, Lior N. Proposal and analysis of a high-efciency combined desalination


and refrigeration system based on the LiBr-H2O absorption cycledpart 1: system
conguration and mathematical model. Energy Conv Manage 2011;52:220e7.
[2] Macedonio F, Drioli E, Gusev AA, Bardow A, Semiat R, Kurihara M. Efcient
technologies for worldwide clean water supply. Chem Eng Process 2012;51:
2e17.
[3] Venkatesan R. Comparison between LTTD and RO process of sea-water
desalination: an integrated economic, environmental and ecological framework. Curr Sci 2014;106:378e86.
[4] Janghorban Esfahani I, Ataei A, Shetty KV, Oh T, Park JH, Yoo CK. Modeling and
genetic algorithm based on multi-objective optimization for the MED-TVC
desalination system. Desalination 2012;292:87e104.
[5] Wang Y, Lior N. Thermoeconomic analysis of a low-temperature multi-effect
thermal desalination system coupled with an absorption heat pump. Energy
2011;36:3878e87.
[6] Li H, Russel N, Shari V, Swithenbank J. Techno-economic feasibility of absorption heat pumps using wastewater as the heating source for desalination.
Desalination 2011;281:118e27.
[7] Gomri R. Thermal seawater desalination: possibilities of using single effect
and double effect absorption heat transformer system. Desalination 2010;253:
112e8.
[8] Siqueiros J, Holland FA. Water desalination using heat pumps. Energy
2000;25:717e29.
[9] Sharaf MA, Nafey AS, Garcia-Rodriguez L. Thermo-economic analysis of solar
thermal power cycles assisted MED-VC (multi effect distillation-vapor
compression) desalination processes. Energy 2011;36:2753e64.
[10] Li C, Yogi Goswami D, Shapiro A, Stefanabs EK, Demirkaya G. A new combined
power and desalination systems driven by low grade heat for concentrated.
Energy 2012;46:582e95.
[11] Wang RZ, Xia ZZ, Wang LW, Lu ZS, Li SL, Li TX, et al. Heat transfer design in
adsorption refrigeration systems for efcient use of low-grade thermal energy. Energy 2011;36:5425e39.
[12] Kim YJ, Kim S, Joshi YK, Fedorov AG, Kohl PA. Thermodynamic analysis of an
absorption refrigeration system with ionic-liquid/refrigerant mixture as a
working uid. Energy 2012;44:1005e16.
[13] Alberg Ostergaard P. Wind power integration in Aalborg municipality using
compression heat pumps and geothermal adsorption heat pumps. Energy
2013;49:502e8.

326

I. Janghorban Esfahani et al. / Energy 75 (2014) 312e326

[14] Lu Y, He W, Wu Y, Ji W, Ma Ch, Guo H. Performance study on compressed air


refrigeration system based on single screw expander. Energy 2013;55:762e8.
[15] Zhao L, Cai W, Ding X, Chang W. Model-based optimization for vapor
compression refrigeration cycle. Energy 2013;55:392e402.
[16] Thermodynamic optimization of subcooled and superheated vapor
compression refrigeration cycle. Energy 2006;31:2108e28.
[17] Liu M, Zhang N. Proposal and analysis of a novel ammonia-water cycle for
power and refrigeration cogeneration. Energy 2007;32:961e70.
[18] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Advanced exergetic evaluation of refrigeration
machines using different working uids. Energy 2009;34:2248e58.
[19] Xu YC, Chen Q. A theoretical global optimization method for vaporcompression refrigeration systems based on entransy theory. Energy
2013;60:464e73.
[20] Torrela E, Larumbe JA, Cabello R, Liopis R, Sanches D. A general methodology
for energy comparison of intermediate congurations in two-stage vapor
compression systems. Energy 2011;36:4119e24.
[21] Sun ZG. Experimental investigation of integrated refrigeration system (IRS)
with gas engine, compression chiller and absorption chiller. Energy 2008;33:
431e6.
[22] Jannelli E, Minutillo M, Cozzolino R, Flacucci G. Thermodynamic performance
assessment of a small size CHP (combined cooling heating and power) system
with numerical models. Energy 2014;65:240e9.
[23] Wonchala J, Hazledine M, Goni Boulama K. Solution procedure and performance evaluation for a water-Libr absorption refrigeration machine. Energy
2014;65:272e84.
[24] Janghorban Esfahani I, Yoo CK. Exergy analysis and parametric optimization of
three power and fresh water cogeneration systems using refrigeration
chillers. Energy 2013;59:340e55.
[25] Gude V, Nirmalakhandan N. Combined desalination and solar-assisted airconditioning system. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:3326e30.
[26] Hou Sh, Li H, Zhang H. An open air-vapor compression refrigeration system for
air-conditioning and desalination on ship. Desalination 2008;222:646e55.
[27] Wang Y, Lior N. Proposal and analysis of a high-efciency combined desalination and refrigeration system based on the LiBr-H2O absorption cycledpart
2: system conguration and mathematical model. Energy Convers Manage
2011;52:228e35.
[28] Janghorban Esfahani I, Ataei A, Kim M, Kang OY, Yoo CK. Parametric analysis
and optimization of combined gas turbine and reverse osmosis system using
refrigeration cycle. Desalin Water Treat 2012;43:149e58.
[29] Klein SA, Alvarado FL. Engineering equation solver (EES) user manual. 4406
FOX Bluff Rd, Middleton, WI 53562: F-Chart Software; 1999.
[30] Li H, Russell N, Shari V, Swithenbank J. Techno-economic feasibility of absorption heat pumps using wastewater as the heating source for desalination.
Desalination 2011;281:118e27.
[31] Huicochea A, Rivera W, Gutierrez-Urueta G, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Thermodynamic analysis of a trigeneration system considering of a micro gas turbine
and a double effect absorption chiller. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:3347e53.
[32] Bin Amer AO. Development and optimization of ME-TVC desalination system.
Desalination 2009;249:1315e31.
[33] Janghorban Esfahani I, Kim JK, Yoo CK. A cost approach of a optimization of a
combined power and thermal desalination system through exergy and
environmental analysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013;52:11099e110.
[34] Hong D, Tang L, He Y, Chen G. A novel absorption refrigeration cycle. Appl
Therm Eng 2010;30:2045e50.
[35] Sharqawy MH, Lienhard VJH, Zubair SM. Thermophysical properties of
seawater: a review of existing correlation and data. Desalin Water Treat
2010;16:354e80.
[36] Kaita Y. Thermodynamic properties of lithium bromide-water solutions at
high temperatures. Int J Refrig 2001;24:374e90.
[37] The International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam. Release
on the IAPWS Industrial Formulation for the thermodynamic properties of
water and steam. Erlangen, Germany; 1997.
[38] Said SAM, El-Shaarawi MAL, Siddiqui MU. Intermittent absorption refrigeration system equipped an economizer. Energy 2013;61:332e44.
[39] Janghorban esfahani I, Yoo CK. Feasibility study and performance assessment
for the integration of a steam-injected gas turbine and thermal desalination
system. Desalination 2014;332:18e32.
[40] Alasfour FN, Bin Amer AO. The feasibility of integrating ME-TVCMEE with
Azzour South Power Plant: economic evaluation. Desalination 2006;197:
33e49.
[41] Garousi Farshi L, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA. Exergoeconomic comparison of
double effect and combined ejector-double effect absorption refrigeration
systems. Appl Energy 2013;103:700e11.

[42] Nafey AS, Fath HES, Mabrouk AA. Thermoeconomic design of a multi-effect
evaporation mechanical vapor compression. Desalination 2008;230:1e15.
[43] Sayyaadi H, Nejatolahi M. Multi-objective optimization of cooling tower
assisted vapor compression refrigeration system. Int J Refrig 2011;34:243e56.
[44] Gebreslassie BH, Groll EA, Garimella SV. Multi-objective optimization of sustainable single-effect water/lithium bromide absorption cycle. Renew Energy
2012;46:100e10.
[45] Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. 5th ed.
McGraw-Hill; 2008.

Nomenclature
A: absorber
ABHP: absorption heat pump
ACC: annual capital cost, $/yr
AOC: annual operating cost, $/yr
BPE: boiling point evaluation,  C
Con.: condenser
Com.: compressor
Cp: specic heat capacity, kJ/kg  C
CRF: amortization factor
ex: specic exergy, kJ/kg
Ex: exergy, kJ
G: generator
h: specic enthalpy, kJ/kg
HP: high pressure
L: latent heat
LC: life cycle
LP: low pressure
MEE: multi effect evaporation
MSF: multi stage ashing
m: mass ow rate, kg/s
NEA: non-equilibrium allowance
n: number of effects in the MED-TVC system
P: pressure, bar
pf: plant load factor
Q: heat ow rate
Qfresh water: fresh water ow rate
RR: refrigerant ow-rate ratio
s: specic entropy, kJ/kg K
SJE: steam jet ejector
SHX: solution heat exchanger
T: temperature,  C
TAC: total annual cost, $/yr
0
T : temperature of brine in each effect
T: temperature of brine after cooling
U: heat transfer coefcient, kW/m2k
v: specic volume, m3/kg
W: power, MW
X: salinity, ppm
x: solution concentration based on mass fraction of LiBr
y: ashing fraction
Subscripts
amb: ambient
A: absorber
B: brine
D: distillate
f: feed water
F: seawater stream
sw: seawater
n: saturated vapor
Greek

DT: temperature difference,  C


h: efciency