Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Energy and exergy analysis of a double effect absorption refrigeration

system based on different heat sources
Omer Kaynakli a,, Kenan Saka b, Faruk Kaynakli c
a
University of Uludag, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bursa, Turkey
b
University of Uludag, Vocational School of Yenisehir I. Orhan, Department of Air Conditioning and Ref., Bursa, Turkey
c
University of Uludag, Vocational School of Gemlik A. Kocabiyik, Department of Machinery, Bursa, Turkey

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

Article history: Absorption refrigeration systems are environmental friendly since they can utilize industrial waste heat
Received 6 April 2015 and/or solar energy. In terms of heat source of the systems, researchers prefer one type heat source usu-
Accepted 4 September 2015 ally such as hot water or steam. Some studies can be free from environment. In this study, energy and
Available online 18 September 2015
exergy analysis is performed on a double effect series flow absorption refrigeration system with
water/lithium bromide as working fluid pair. The refrigeration system runs on various heat sources such
Keywords: as hot water, hot air and steam via High Pressure Generator (HPG) because of hot water/steam and hot air
Double effect absorption
are the most common available heat source for absorption applications but the first law of
Refrigeration
Energy
thermodynamics may not be sufficient analyze the absorption refrigeration system and to show the
Exergy difference of utilize for different type heat source. On the other hand operation temperatures of the
High pressure generator overall system and its components have a major effect on their performance and functionality. In this
regard, a parametric study conducted here to investigate this effect on heat capacity and exergy destruc-
tion of the HPG, coefficient of performance (COP) of the system, and mass flow rate of heat sources. Also, a
comparative analysis is carried out on several heat sources (e.g. hot water, hot air and steam) in terms of
exergy destruction and mass flow rate of heat source. From the analyses it is observed that exergy
destruction of the HPG increases at higher temperature of the heat sources, condenser and absorber,
and lower temperature of the HPG, LPG and evaporator. This destruction is maximized when hot air heat
source is used and minimized with utilizing hot water heat source.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Absorption refrigeration is an environmental friendly system
that can utilize industrial waste heat, solar and geothermal energy
sources. Therefore, there is an ongoing effort, and many research
and developments (R&D) in the literature for further improve-
ments. These R&D can be classified in various aspects such as con-
figuration types, energy and exergy analysis, thermoeconomic
analysis, effects of heat exchangers, alternative fluids [15]. In
terms of heat source, one type heat source is preferred by research-
ers usually. Some researchers give properties of the heat sources of
the systems. Some studies are free from environment. Kaynakli and
Kilic [6] have performed a parametric study over the COP of the
LiBrwater system for varying operating parameters. The results
showed that solution heat exchanger increases the COP value up
to 44% compared to refrigerant heat exchanger which increases
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kaynakli@uludag.edu.tr (O. Kaynakli).
the COP by only 2.8%. Aphornratana and Sriveerakul [7] have stud-
ied on a 2 kW cooling capacity system as experimental and electric
heaters were used as heat source for the generator in the study.
Their study described that the solution circulation ratio has a
strong effect on the system performance. The measured solution
ratio was 25 times greater than the theoretical prediction. This
was due to the low performance of the absorber. The use of solu-
tion heat exchanger could increase the COP by up to 60%. Also,
detailed entropy generation based thermodynamic analyses of
absorption refrigeration system which had water vapor heat
source were carried out by Kaynakli and Yamankaradeniz [8].
There are many types of absorption refrigeration systems such
as single effect, double effects, triple effects and half effects. Double
effect type is well studied in the literature. For instance, Gomri and
Hakimi [9] have presented HPG and LPG temperatures effects on
COP and exergy destruction of waterLiBr series flow system
which was driven by pressurized hot water. They observed that
COP increases with rising LPG temperature and lowering HPG
temperature. Exergy analysis of a solar assisted system has been

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.010
0196-8904/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
22 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130
Nomenclature
f circulation ratio
ED exergy destruction (kW)
HPG high pressure generator
LPG low pressure generator
HPC high pressure condenser
m mass flow rate (kg/s)
q heat capacity of components (kJ/kg)
P Pressure (Pa)
Q heat transfer rate (kW)
SHE solution heat exchanger
T temperature (C)
W mechanical power (kW)
w work of pump (kJ/kg)
X mass fraction of lithium bromide (%)
carried out by Ravikumar et al. [10]. Kaushik and Arora [11] have
performed the first and second law thermodynamic analysis of
single effect and double effect waterLiBr system that is connected
in series. Their first law analysis results indicate that the COP of
double effect system is about 60% greater than the single effect sys-
tem. Also, the optimum COP is reached at 91 C for single effect and
150 C for double effect system. Similarly their second law analysis
results indicate that the optimum exergetic efficiency is reached at
80 C for single effect and 130 C for double effect system. They
mentioned about only temperature of heat source. Equilibrium of
low pressure generator temperature has been studied by Arun
et al. [12]. Farshi et al. [13] have compared the effects of operating
parameters on crystallization phenomena in series, parallel and
reverse parallel configuration of double effect lithium bromide
water absorption refrigeration systems which have hot water heat
source with a computational model. Their study showed that the
range of operating conditions without crystallization risks in the
parallel and the reverse parallel configurations is wider than those
of the series flow system. Farshi et al. [14] have studied on the first
and second law analysis for ammonia salt systems. The heat stor-
age process by absorption has been investigated by NTsoukpoe
et al. [15] and an absorption refrigeration system operated at
industrial manufacturing of detergent has been carried out by
Lamine and Said [16].
The objectives of this study are to perform energy and exergy
analysis on a double effect series flow absorption refrigeration sys-
tem with water/lithium bromide as working fluid pair. To conduct
a parametric study for investigating the effect of operation temper-
atures of the overall system and its components on heat capacity
and exergy destruction of the HPG, coefficient of performance
(COP) of the system, and mass flow rate of heat sources. Also, to
carry out a comparative analysis on several heat sources (e.g. hot
water, hot air and steam) in terms of exergy destruction and mass
flow rate of heat source.
2. Double effect absorption refrigeration system
The double effect series flow absorption refrigeration system is
represented in Fig. 1. The system consists of a condenser, an evap-
orator, an absorber, a solution pump, a high pressure generator, a
high pressure condenser (HPC), a low pressure generator, two heat
exchangers, two solution expansion valves and two refrigerant
expansion valves. There are three pressure levels, which are low
condensing, high condensing and evaporating pressures. The
absorber pressure is equal to the evaporator pressure and the
Greek symbols
e Effectiveness
g Efficiency
w Specific exergy (kJ/kg)
Subscripts
A Absorber
C Condenser
E Evaporator
EV Expansion Valve
w Weak Solution
S System
s Strong Solution
P Pump
condenser has the same pressure level of the LPG. Also, the HPC
pressure is the same as the HPG pressure.
WaterLiBr solution concentration has three concentrations
levels, which are strong, stronger and weak solutions. The concen-
tration is weak, strong and stronger at absorber outlet, HPG outlet
and LPG outlet, respectively. The LPG receives heat only from HPC.
The HPG gets heat from an energy source either hot water/steam or
air. The absorber and condenser are cooled with water at 25 C.
Chilled water is produced by the evaporator. Heat exchangers are
for heat recovery. They reduce the external heat requirement and
thus, enhance the overall performance.
2.1. Importance of energy source
Absorption refrigeration systems allow use of variable heat
sources such as industrial waste heat, solar energy and geothermal
energy. Also, thermal energy obtained from these sources can be
transferred with hot water/steam, hot air and the other exhaust
gases after thermal processes. Selection of a suitable heat source
depends on many parameters such as temperature, mass flow rate
and the other thermodynamic properties. Contrary to its COP
value, the exergy destruction of the absorption refrigeration sys-
tems does change based on the type of heat sources. Thus exergy
equations should include the above mentioned heat source param-
eters. Hot water/steam and hot air are the most common available
heat source for absorption applications. Table 1 shows an array of
applications of absorption refrigeration systems [17,18].
2.2. Assumptions
In order to simplify the analysis following assumptions [19] are
made;

The system runs under steady-state conditions.

The water at the outlet of condenser is saturated liquid.

The water at the outlet of evaporator is saturated vapor.

Pressure losses in the two heat exchangers and in the all pipeli-
nes are negligible.

The reference environmental state for the system is water at an
environment temperature of 25 C and 1 atmospheric pressure.

The moisture of hot air is fixed.

The evaporator capacity is fixed.

The HPG is driven by saturated hot water, hot air and steam
separately.

There is no heat transfer from the system to surroundings
excluding HPG, evaporator, condenser, and absorber.
 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130 23

Fig. 1. Double effect series flow absorption refrigeration system flowchart.

Table 1
Absorption chillers for an array of applications.

Industry Available energy Absorption application

Petroleum and chemical Waste heat Uses heat from desalting and distillation (fractionation) processes
Printing Hot air Uses heat recovered from press drying units
Pulp mill Steam Uses heat from the combustion of bark and lignin
Palm oil production Steam Uses heat recovered from sterilization, purification and feed-stock preheating processes
District energy Steam Uses low and high pressure district steam
Incinerator Hot exhaust Uses recovered heat from hot exhaust
Biogas Gas Uses heat from methane gas burners or methane-fired boilers
Combined heat and power Hot exhaust/hot water Uses heat recovered from exhaust gas and/or engine coolant
Geothermal Hot water/steam Recovers heat from geothermal wells that produce large volumes of hot fluid
Solar Hot water Uses a solar panel array as a sustainable energy source

3. Thermodynamic analysis X s1 X8
f2 4
X s2  X s1 X 15  X 8
Mass and energy balances are the first step in order to analyze The heat capacity is given for each component in terms of circu-
the absorption systems, from the thermodynamic point of view. lation ratios as,
The general equations of these balances are listed below, which
include relation between mass flow rate and concentration of solu- qHPG h11 f 1 h8  f 1 1h7 5
tion [8]. The circulation ratio relates the weak and strong concen-
trations. The circulation ratio helps to define heat capacity of the qLPG f 1 =f 2 1h14  f 1 h10 f 2 f 1 =f 2 1h15 6
components without mass flow rate.
qHPC h11  h12 7
m _ sm
_wm _ H2 O 1
qC f 1 =f 2 1h14 h13  f 1 =f 2 1 1h1 8
m _ s Xs
_ wXw m 2
In this study, double circulation ratios have been defined in the qE f 1 =f 2 1 1h3  h2 9
cycle as [20],
qA f 1 =f 2 1 1h3 f 1 f 2 =f 2 1h17  f 1 1h4 10
Xw X4
f1 3
X s1  X w X 8  X 4 qSHE1 f 1 1h6  h5 f 1 f 2 =f 2 1h15  h16 11
24 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130

Table 2 _ 11 w14 f 1 =f 2 1 w13  w1 f 1 =f 2 1 1

EDC m
Operating parameters used in the simulation.
_ 20 w20  w21
m 18
Components Operating parameters
THPG (C) 135 _ 11 f 1 =f 2 1 1w2  w3 m
EDE m _ 22 w22  w23 19
Outlet temperature of heat source 145
Inlet temperature of heat source 150
TLPG (C) 80
_ 11 w3 f 1 =f 2 1 1 w17 f 1 f 2 =f 2 1
EDA m
TC (C) 35 _ 24 w24  w25
 w14 f 1 1 m 20
Outlet temperature of cooling water 30
Inlet temperature of cooling water 25
TE (C) 5 _ 11 f 1 =f 2 1 1w1  w2
EDEV1 m 21
Outlet temperature of chilled water 10
Inlet temperature of chilled water 15 _ 11 f 2 w16  w17
EDEV2 m 22
TA (C) 35
Outlet temperature of cooling water 30
Inlet temperature of cooling water 25 _ 11 f 1 1w5  w6 f 2 f 1 =f 2 1w15  w16
EDSHE1 m 23
Pump efficiency (%) 95
Solution exchanger I (%) 70 _ 11 f 1 w8  w9 f 1 1w6  w7
EDSHE2 m 24
Solution exchanger II (%) 70
QE (kW) 100
_ 11 f 1 1w4  w5
EDPump m 25

qSHE2 f 1 1h7  h6 f 1 h8  h9 12 EDS EDHPG EDLPG EDC EDE EDA EDEV1 EDEV2
EDSHE1 EDSHE2 EDPump 26
wp v ws PHPG  P E f 1 1=gP 13

Q_ E 3.2. Input parameters for the simulation

COP 14
Q_ HPG W
_P
The simulation model of the system is constituted from the
mass, energy and exergy balance equations. To solve the above
3.1. Exergy analysis listed equations a simulation program written in Delphi was devel-
oped. In the analyses, operating parameters in Table 2 were used
The first law of thermodynamics may not be sufficient to ana- unless otherwise stated. The properties of water and the solutions
lyze the absorption refrigeration system. The second law analysis were obtained from the literature [2325].
calculates the system performance based on exergy, which always
decreases due to thermodynamic irreversibilities [21]. 4. Results and discussion
Exergy is defined as the maximum work potential of a matter or
a form of energy with respect to its environment [22]. The exergy The simulation model in this study has been validated by using
destruction analyses are determined as, input parameters of previous works given in literature and then,
w h  h0  T 0 s  s0 15 the results of the model have been compared to results in the lit-
erature. Table 3 shows the comparison with energy and exergy
_ 11 w7 f 1 1  w8 f 1  w11 m
EDHPG m _ 18 w18  w19 16 analysis presented by Arora and Kaushik [26]. In the comparison
the heat capacity difference was 0.66% for the absorber, 1.53% for
_ 11 w10 f 1  w14 f 1 =f 2 1  w15 f 2 f 1 =f 2 1
EDLPG m the condenser and 0.3% for the HPG. Both studies had equal COP.
Exergy destructions of absorber, evaporator, expansion valves
_ 11 w11  w12
m 17 and total exergy destruction had close values in the both studies.

Table 3
Results comparison of energy and exergy analysis of present study with literature.

THPG = 138.15 TLPG = 87.8 TE = 7.2 TC = 37.8 TA = 37.8 eI,II = 0.7 gP = 0.95
Components Symbol Arora and Kaushik [26] Present study
Absorber QA 2942.18 kW 2922.58 kW
Condenser QC 1282.05 kW 1262.45 kW
Evaporator QE 2355.45 kW 2355.45 kW
HP generator QHPG 1868.71 kW 1863.20 kW
Solution heat exchanger I QSHE I 518.59 kW 524.11 kW
Solution heat exchanger II QSHE II 816.21 kW 842.60 kW
Pump WP 0.3598 kW 0.4382 kW
LP generator QLPG 1272.48 kW 1276.88 kW
COP 1.26 1.26
Exergy destruction of absorber EDA 67.549 kW 69.104 kW
Exergy destruction of condenser EDC 3.086 kW 0.242 kW
Exergy destruction of evaporator EDE 86.275 kW 88.764 kW
Exergy destruction of HP generator EDHPG 21.721 kW 32.288 kW
Exergy destruction of LP generator EDLPG 12.475 kW 14.191 kW
Exergy destruction of solution HE I EDSHE I 28.056 kW 21.971 kW
Exergy destruction of solution HE II EDSHE II 43.1 Kw 37.429 kW
Exergy destruction of refrigerant EV I EDREV I 7.813 kW 7.938 kW
Exergy destruction of refrigerant EV II EDREV II 6.936 kW 6.895 kW
Total exergy destruction of the system R ED 277.284 kW 278.822 kW
 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130 25

Table 5
Heat capacity of the system components and coefficient of performance.

Components Capacity (kW)

eI,II = 0.7 eI,II = 0
HP generator (QHPG) 81.37 132.46
LP generator (QLPG) 51.45 27.30
Condenser (QC) 56.12 79.48
Evaporator (QE) 100 100
Absorber (QA) 125.44 153.18
Pump (WP) 0.0205 0.0226
Solution heat exchanger I (QSHE 1) 27.75 0
Solution heat exchanger II (QSHE 2) 49.05 0
COP 1.229 0.755

Table 6
Fig. 2. Comparison of COP values with Gomri and Hakimi [9]. Exergy destruction of the system components.

Components Symbol Exergy destruction (kW)

HP generator EDHPG 3.842
It can be concluded from the table that the results of the present LP generator EDLPG 1.079
study are in a good agreement with the literature data. Condenser EDC 1.740
The results of the present simulation were also compared with Evaporator EDE 3.565
Absorber EDA 6.501
that of Gomri and Hakimi [9]. It can also be seen in Fig. 2 that the
Pump EDP 0.003
results agree with the study for different temperatures of LPG and Solution heat exchanger I QSHE 1 1.034
HPG. COP of the system increases with increasing LPG tempera- Solution heat exchanger II QSHE 2 2.207
ture, but decreases with increasing HPG temperature in Total exergy destruction of the system R ED 20.265
comparison.
Table 4 shows thermodynamic properties of water and LiBr
solution for each point in the cycle and properties of the heat Table 6 shows the simulation results of the second law analysis
sources. The properties are according to the operating parameters of the hot air source system. The absorber has the highest
in Table 2. exergy destruction, following by the HPG and evaporator. Exergy
As seen from Table 5, absorber has the highest heat capacity, destruction in the pump is very small.
while the solution pump has the lowest. If the solution heat The variation of COP of the system and the heat capacity of the
exchangers are deactivated, the system consumes more heat HPG, at various operating parameters, are shown in Fig. 3a. The
energy. The capacity of HPG increases from 81.37 kW to heat capacity of the HPG increases linearly due to higher HPG tem-
132.46 kW and COP of the system decreases approximately 40%. perature. When the heat capacity of HPG increases from 80.02 kW

Table 4
Thermodynamic properties of each point in the system.

Point Chemical composition T (C) X (%) m (kg/s) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K)

1 Water 35 0 0.042 146.64 0.5032
2 Water 5 0 0.042 146.64 0.5265
3 Water vapor 5 0 0.042 2508.50 9.0248
4 Weak solution 35 55.21 0.501 84.13 0.2229
5 Weak solution 35.2 55.21 0.501 84.17 0.2231
6 Weak solution 61.86 55.21 0.501 139.55 0.3921
7 Weak solution 109.16 55.21 0.501 237.47 0.6644
8 Strong solution I 135 57.73 0.479 294.36 0.7679
9 Strong solution I 83.83 57.73 0.479 192.00 0.4986
10 Strong solution I 83.83 57.73 0.479 192.00 0.4986
11 Water vapor 135 0 0.022 2719.81 7.7441
12 Water 87.57 0 0.022 366.96 1.1661
13 Water 35 0 0.022 366.96 1.2207
14 Water vapor 80 0 0.021 2644.76 8.6082
15 Strong solution II 80 60.31 0.459 194.33 0.4560
16 Strong solution II 48.53 60.31 0.459 133.82 0.2789
17 Strong solution II 48.53 60.31 0.459 133.82 0.2789
18 Air 150 0 16.01 169.95 6.0689
19 Air 145 0 16.01 164.86 6.0570
180 Water 150 0 3.78 631.92 1.8406
190 Water 145 0 3.78 610.39 1.7896
1800 Steam 150 0 8.36 2780.99 8.9531
1900 Steam 145 0 8.36 2771.26 8.9302
20 Water 25 0 2.68 104.73 0.3640
21 Water 30 0 2.68 125.69 0.4342
22 Water 15 0 4.77 62.82 0.2207
23 Water 10 0 4.77 41.87 0.1478
24 Water 25 0 5.99 104.73 0.3640
25 Water 30 0 5.99 125.69 0.4342
26 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130
Fig. 3a. Variation of COP of the system and heat capacity of HPG.
Fig. 3b. Variation of exergy destruction of HPG and mass flow rate of hot water
with HPG temperature.
Fig. 3c. Variation of exergy destruction of HPG and mass flow rate of hot air with
HPG temperature.
to 83.13 kW, COP value decreases from 1.25 to 1.2 at fixed evapo-
rator load. From the figure, it can be stated that, the operating tem-
perature of HPG affects about 3.7% on the heat capacity of HPG. The
minimum HPG temperature needs to be 127 C to have a sufficient
thermal capacity of HPC for operation. The simulation can give
results even above 144 C till crystallization temperature, but the
COP of the system is very low at that temperature range.
Fig. 3d. Variation of exergy destruction of HPG and mass flow rate of steam with
HPG temperature.
Fig. 4a. Variation of COP and heat capacity of HPG based on LPG temperature.
Fig. 4b. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot water with
LPG temperature.
Variation of exergy destruction of HPG and mass flow rates of
hot water are shown in Fig. 3b. From the figure, when the HPG
temperature increases, the exergy destruction decreases about
45.6% but the mass flow rate (m18) slightly increases (3.9%) at
150 C of hot water. The exergy destruction is also effected by
the heat source temperature. When the hot water temperature
increases, the exergy destruction increases and mass flow rate
 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130
Fig. 4c. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot air with LPG
temperature.
Fig. 4d. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of steam with LPG
temperature.
Fig. 5a. Variation of COP and heat capacity of HPG based on condenser
temperature.
decreases nonlinearly. Concerns about mass flow rate problem of
heat source can be solved with higher heat source temperature
despite increasing in exergy destruction.
Variation of exergy destruction of HPG and mass flow rate of hot
air with HPG temperature are shown in Fig. 3c. The trend of the fig-
ure is similar to Fig. 3b. When the HPG temperature increases, the
exergy destruction decreases (40%) and the mass flow rate
increases. If the hot air temperature increases, the exergy destruc-
tion increases and mass flow rate decreases. Mass flow rates of the
27
Fig. 5b. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot water with
condenser temperature.
Fig. 5c. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot air with
condenser temperature.
Fig. 5d. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of steam with
condenser temperature.
hot water are approximately quarter of the hot air mass flow rates,
due to variation in their specific heats. The results of using steam
as heat source are given in Fig. 3d. The exergy destruction values
are between that of Figs. 3b and 3c. In other words, the exergy
destruction values of steam are bigger than hot water values and
smaller than the values of hot air. The decreasing is 42.8% approx-
imately. The same statement is also valid for mass flow rate values
of steam.
28 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130
Fig. 6a. Variation of COP and heat capacity of HPG based on evaporator
temperature.
Fig. 6b. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot water with
evaporator temperature.
Fig. 6c. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot air with
evaporator temperature.
Variations of COP and heat capacity of the HPG with the LPG
temperature are given in Fig. 4a. When the LPG temperature
increases, the capacity of the HPG decreases. Reducing of the
capacity of HPG results in lower energy consumption and
higher COP. The minimum temperature of the LPG can be 72 C
for the operating conditions given in the figure. The concentration
of strong solution approaches to concentration of weak
solution below this minimum temperature value. The maximum
Fig. 6d. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of steam with
evaporator temperature.
Fig. 7a. Variation of COP and heat capacity of HPG based on absorber temperature.
temperature is 85 C for the LPG. Above this temperature the LPG
doesnt provide enough energy from the HPC.
As it can be seen from Figs. 4b4d, when the LPG temperature
increases the exergy destruction of HPG and required mass flow
rate of heat sources decrease nonlinearly. These values initially
decrease sharply when the LPG temperature increase and then
the slop curves of the exergy and mass flow rate become almost
flat. Variations of exergy destruction and required mass flow rates
are given in the figures for different heat source temperatures.
Exergy destruction of the HPG increases and the mass flow rates
of heat sources decrease when the heat source temperature
increases. The exergy destruction value is 3.325 kW at 80 C LPG
temperature and 150 C hot water temperature. At 155 C hot
water temperature, the destruction shows a 10% increase as a value
of 3.67 kW and at 160 C it is further rise to 20% as 4.01 kW. It is
not suggested to select a high source temperature in the exergy
destruction point of view.
The highest exergy destruction is 7.338 kW and for the hot air
source, 6.788 kW for steam and 6.599 kW for the hot water source,
under same temperatures. At these values mass flow rate of hot
water is 1.87 kg/s, mass flow rate of steam is 4.156 kg/s and mass
flow rate of hot air is 7.958 kg/s.
The total decreasing is 41.5% for hot air, 41.8% for steam and
42.2% for hot water approximately at the lowest source tempera-
ture in Fig. 4.
The condenser is a system component that rejects heat. The out-
let temperature of cooling water of condenser is 30 C and there-
fore, the operating temperature of condenser must be higher
than this value. Heat capacity of the HPG increases with increasing
 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130
Fig. 7b. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot water with
absorber temperature.
Fig. 7c. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of hot air with
absorber temperature.
condenser temperature (Fig. 5a). Rise of heat capacity of the HPG
causes decrease in COP of the system for fixed evaporator load.
The maximum temperature of condenser is 43 C. Strong and weak
solution balances changes after this temperature.
Figs. 5b5d present the variation of the exergy destruction of
HPG and mass flow rate of heat sources versus condenser temper-
ature, at different heat source temperatures. The exergy destruc-
tions and the mass flow rate increase sharply at high condenser
temperatures especially above 40 C. It is clear that the highest
exergy destruction occurs at the highest temperatures of the heat
sources and condenser.
The total increasing of exergy destruction is the most 2.98 kW
for air source, 2.8 kW for steam and 2.7 for hot water at 160 C
in Figs. 5b5d. This collocation is consistent with the other results.
The freezing point of water and outlet temperature of chilled
water are two limiting factors for evaporator temperature.
Figs. 6a6d illustrate these limits. Evaporation starts at 4 C and
ends at 10 C. In the analyses, the evaporator has fixed cooling load.
Capacity of the HPG decreases with increasing evaporator temper-
atures. COP of the system increases with decreasing capacity of
HPG as seen in Fig. 6a. This situation is due to the HPG capacity
in the denominator of Eq. (14). Effect of the evaporator operating
temperature on the exergy destruction in the HPG can be ignored
(Figs. 6b6d).
The absorber is a system component which rejects heat like the
condenser. Heat capacity of the HPG increases with increasing
absorber temperature as shown in Fig. 7a. COP value of the system
decreases with increasing capacity of the HPG. The figures start
29
Fig. 7d. Variation of HPG exergy destruction and mass flow rate of steam with
absorber temperature.
from 32 C due to outlet temperature of cooling water and ends
at 44 C because of concentration balance of the solution.
Figs. 7b7d show variation of exergy destruction of the HPG and
mass flow rates of hot water, hot air and steam. When the absorber
temperature increases, exergy destruction values and mass flow
rates increase. Higher absorber temperature causes a sharp
increase in exergy destruction, especially above 42 C.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a thermodynamic simulation is carried out on a
double effect series flow absorption refrigeration system with
water/lithium bromide as working fluid pair. A parametric study
is performed to investigate the effect of operation temperatures
of the overall system and its components on heat capacity and
exergy destruction of the HPG, coefficient of performance (COP)
of the system, and mass flow rate of three different heat sources.
As expected when the temperatures of heat sources increase the
exergy destruction is also increase but required flow rates of the
sources decrease. Necessary flow rates of the hot water are lower
than that of the hot air. Rise in the operating temperatures of the
HPG decrease the exergy destruction of the HPG. The decreasing
is 40% for hot air, 42.8% for steam and 45.6% approximately for
hot water at the lowest source temperature. Likewise, rise in the
operating temperatures of the LPG decrease the exergy destruction
of the HPG. The decreasing is 41.5% for hot air, 41.8% for steam and
42.2% approximately for hot water at the lowest source tempera-
ture. The exergy destruction of the HPG increases when the con-
denser and the absorber temperature increase. The exergy
destruction of the HPG increases slightly when the evaporator tem-
perature increases. Values of absolute exergy destruction are given
on the figures for each source to show the difference of utilize for
different type heat source. Maximum exergy destruction values are
observed in hot air applications and followed by, in order, steam
and hot water. The results of the exergy analysis presented in this
paper can be used in design of double effect absorption refrigera-
tion plant.
References
[1] Gebreslassie BH, Medrano M, Boer D. Exergy analysis of multi-effect water
LiBr absorption systems: From half to triple effect. Renew Energy
2010;35:177382.
encan A, Yakut KA, Kalogirou SA. Exergy analysis of lithium bromide/water
[2] S
absorption systems. Renew Energy 2005;30:64557.
[3] Misra RD, Sahoo PK, Sahoo S, Gupta A. Thermo economic optimization of a
single effect water/LiBr vapour absorption refrigeration system. Int J Refrig
2003;26:15869.
30 O. Kaynakli et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 2130
[4] Szen A. Effect of heat exchangers on performance of absorption refrigeration
systems. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:1699716.
[5] Sun DW. Comparison of the performance of NH3H2O, NH3 LiNO3 and NH3
NaSCN absorption refrigeration systems. Energy Convers Manage 1998;39(5/
6):35768.
[6] Kaynakli O, Kilic M. Theoretical study on the effect of operating conditions on
performance of absorption refrigeration system. Energy Convers Manage
2007;48:599607.
[7] Aphornratana S, Sriveerakul T. Experimental studies of a single-effect
absorption refrigerator using aqueous lithium-bromide: effect of operating
condition to system performance. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2007;32:65869.
[8] Kaynakli O, Yamankaradeniz R. Thermodynamic analysis of absorption
refrigeration system based on entropy generation. Curr Sci 2007;92:4729.
[9] Gomri R, Hakimi R. Second law analysis of double effect vapour absorption
cooler system. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:33438.
[10] Ravikumar TS, Suganthi L, Anand AS. Exergy analysis of solar assisted double
effect absorption refrigeration system. Renew Energy 1998;14(14):559.
[11] Kaushik SC, Arora A. Energy and exergy analysis of single effect and series flow
double effect waterlithium bromide absorption refrigeration systems. Int J
Refrig 2009;32:124758.
[12] Arun MB, Maiya MP, Murthy SS. Equilibrium low pressure generator
temperatures for double effect series flow absorption refrigeration systems.
Appl Therm Eng 2000;20:22742.
[13] Farshi LG, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA. Analysis of crystallization risk in double
effect absorption refrigeration systems. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:17127.
[14] Farshi LG, Ferreira CAI, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA. First and second law
analysis of ammonia/salt absorption refrigeration systems. Int J Refrig
2014;40:11121.
[15] NTsoukpoe KE, Perier MM, Le Pierres N, Luo L, Mangin D. Thermodynamic
study of a LiBrH2O absorption process for solar heat storage with
crystallisation of the solution. Sol Energy 2014;104:215.
[16] Lamine CM, Said Z. Energy analysis of single effect absorption chiller
(LiBr/H2O) in an industrial manufacturing of detergent. Energy Proc
2014;50:10512.
[17] www.johnsoncontrols.com. Application opportunities for absorption chillers.
The last accessed date: 26.03.2015.
[18] http://www.trane.com/commercial/uploads/pdf/1037/abs-prc005-en_
08012005.pdf [accessed 26.03.15].
[19] Gomri R. Second law comparison of single effect and double effect vapour
absorption refrigeration systems. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:127987.
[20] Vasilescu C, Hera D, Ferreira CI. Model for double-effect absorption
refrigeration cycle. Termotehnica 2011;2:438.
[21] Talbi MM, Agnew B. Exergy analysis an absorption refrigerator using lithium
bromide and water as the working fluids. Appl Therm Eng 2000;20:61930.
[22] Kilic M, Kaynakli O. Second law-based thermodynamic analysis of water
lithium bromide absorption refrigeration system. Energy 2007;32:150512.
[23] Kaita Y. Thermodynamic properties of lithium bromidewater solutions at
high temperatures. Int J Refrig 2001;24:37490.
[24] Mostafavi M, Agnew B. The impact of ambient temperature on lithium
bromidewater absorption machine performance. Appl Therm Eng
1996;16:51522.
[25] Chua HT, Toh HK, Malek A, Ng KC, Srinivasan K. Improved thermodynamic
property field of LiBrH2O solution. Int J Refrig 2000;23:41229.
[26] Arora A, Kaushik SC. Theoretical analysis of LiBr/H2O absorption refrigeration
systems. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:132140.