Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Exergoeconomic comparison of double effect and combined ejector-double

effect absorption refrigeration systems
L. Garousi Farshi a,⇑, S.M.S. Mahmoudi a, M.A. Rosen b
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L1H 7K4

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

" Combined ejector double effect Exergoeconomic Analysis

absorption systems are analyzed $
exergoeconomically.
" Effects of operating conditions on
thermoeconomic parameters of the
systems are studied.
" Heat transfer coefficients in
components of the systems are
calculated.
" Evaporator, absorber and solution
heat exchangers are the most
expensive components.
" In similar conditions the combined
cycle is more economical than the
series flow one.

Series flow double effect absorption refrigeration cycle Combined ejector-double effect absorption refrigeration cycle

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

Article history: At a particular temperature range, heat sources are not hot enough to drive lithium bromide double effect
Received 3 April 2012 absorption refrigeration systems efficiently and are too hot to be used for the single effect systems
Received in revised form 6 August 2012 because of the risk of crystallization. A combined ejector-double effect absorption cycle is a good choice
Accepted 7 November 2012
to make effective use of heat sources at this temperature range for refrigeration purposes. In this study,
Available online 6 December 2012
detailed exergoeconomic analyses are performed for series flow double effect and combined ejector dou-
ble effect systems in order to investigate and compare the influence of various operating parameters on
Keywords:
investment costs of the overall systems and product cost flow rates. In addition, the proportion of com-
Exergoeconomics
Double effect absorption refrigeration
ponent costs in the overall systems costs and exergoeconomic results are obtained. The results show that
Ejector the combined cycle operates more economically compared to the double effect system.
Product cost Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thermoeconomic variables

1. Introduction
Absorption chillers can utilize renewable energy sources, such
as solar [1], biomass and geothermal, to produce cooling. Waste
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 411 3392487; fax: +98 411 3354153.
E-mail addresses: l.garousi@tabrizu.ac.ir (L. Garousi Farshi), s_mahmoudi@
tabrizu.ac.ir (S.M.S. Mahmoudi), marc.rosen@uoit.ca (M.A. Rosen).
heat from power plants and industrial processes can also be used
by these systems. In addition, as absorption chillers can use ozone
friendly refrigerants with zero global warming potential, they pro-
vide promising alternatives to the other cooling and refrigeration
applications [2]. The most common commercially available absorp-
tion refrigeration systems are single and double effect ones. The
temperature of heat sources used to drive conventional single ef-
fect cycles is much less than that utilized to drive conventional

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.11.022
 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711 701

Nomenclature

A area (m2) g efficiency

c cost per exergy unit ($/GJ) gprimary isentropic efficiency in the nozzle for the primary flow
C_ cost flow rate ($/yr) gsecondary isentropic efficiency of the entrained flow from entrance
COP coefficient of performance to section y–y
cp,l specific heat at constant pressure of liquid (kJ/kg K) gdiffuser isentropic efficiency of the diffuser
CRF capital recovery factor d film thickness (m)
Di, Do inside and outside diameters of tube, respectively (m) up coefficient to account for the loss of the primary flow
e specific exergy of stream (kJ/kg) from section 1–1 to y–y
E_ exergy rate (kW) um coefficient accounting for the frictional loss of the mixed
f exergetic factor flow
Fi, Fo fouling factors at inside and outside surfaces of tube x ejector entrainment ratio
(m2 K/kW) q density (kg/m3)
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2) l absolute viscosity (N s/m2)
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg K), or heat transfer coefficient c ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv)
(kW/m2 K)
hi, ho heat transfer coefficients for inside and outside flow, Subscripts
respectively (kW/m2 K) 0 surroundings
hfg latent heat of condensation (kJ/kg) abs absorber
0
hfg modified latent heat of condensation (kJ/kg) con condenser
i interest rate D destruction
k thermal conductivity (kW/m K) e exit
L length of tube (m) eva evaporator
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference F fuel
m _ mass flow rate (kg/s) i inlet or each component
N total operating lifetime of system (years) L loss
Nu Nusselt number l liquid
P pressure (kPa) m motor
Pr Prandtl number P product
Q_ heat transfer rate (kW) p pump
r relative cost difference PF primary flow
Re Reynolds number q heat transfer
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K) R reference
t annualized number of the operation hours of the unit s surface or constant entropy
T temperature (K) sat saturation
DTo temperature difference between hot and cold fluid at in- SF secondary flow
let (K) tot total system
DTL temperature difference between hot and cold fluid at v vapor
outlet (K) w power
U overall heat transfer coefficient (kW/m2 K)
W _ work rate (kW) Abbreviations
X LiBr concentration CS cooling set
Z cost ($) HPG high pressure generator
Z_ levelized (annual) investment cost of the system com- HTHE high temperature heat exchanger
ponents ($/yr) LPG low pressure generator
LTHE low temperature heat exchanger
Greek symbols
ahx power in power law relation of heat exchanger size
U mass flow rate per wetted perimeter (kg/m s)

double effect cycles [3]. To make efficient use of the heat sources at
temperatures between those required for single and double effect
cycles, the authors proposed and analyzed thermodynamically a
new combined ejector-series flow double effect absorption cycle
[4]. In this article the new combined cycle is compared with single
and double effect cycles from the viewpoint of the first and second
laws of thermodynamics. A broad range of operating conditions is
considered and it is concluded that, the proposed cycle can be
more efficient than the other two at a particular range of heat
source temperature.
Thermoeconomic is an area of engineering in which the princi-
ples of thermodynamics are combined with those of economics to
provide useful information on cost effective energy conversion sys-
tems to the designers. This information is not usually available
through conventional energy and economic methods [5]. Since in
thermoeconomic analysis exergy is used instead of energy as ther-
modynamic criteria, the term exergoeconomics is also used to de-
scribe the combination of thermodynamic and economic analyses
[6,7]. Exergoeconomic analysis identifies and properly evaluates
the real costs of energy sources and assists achieving effective eco-
nomic designs of energy conversion systems.
The difference between the present work with those published
previously by the authors [4,8] can be explained as follows; In Ref.
[4] the performances of a combined ejector-series flow double ef-
fect absorption cycle was compared with that of the series flow
double effect absorption cycle. In Ref. [8] the thermodynamic
702 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711

behaviors of three double effect absorption systems, including the was lacking. The present work is an attempt to fulfill this short-
series, parallel and reverse parallel ones, were compared. In both coming. It makes use of the exergoeconomic principles to compare
these works the analyses and comparisons were from the view- the performances of the series flow and the ejector-series flow
point of thermodynamics only and the economic aspect of analysis double effect absorption cycles. It is expected that the results will

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of LiBr/water double effect absorption refrigeration systems: (a) series flow and (b) combined ejector-double effect.
 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711
be helpful to the designers in making more efficient use of energy
in refrigeration. To provide a proper comparison of these cycles in
terms of thermoeconomics, a broad range of operating conditions
and of the solution heat exchanger effectivenesses are considered.
In addition, attention is paid to the heat transfer coefficients in var-
ious components, as a major cost criterion. At each operating con-
dition, the heat transfer coefficient in different components is
calculated and used in designing purposes.
2. Descriptions of systems
Fig. 1a and b shows schematic diagrams of the series flow dou-
ble effect and the combined ejector-double effect LiBr/water
absorption refrigeration systems, respectively. Detailed descrip-
tions of these cycles have been reported by the authors previously
[4,8].
In thermoeconomic analysis of an energy converting system,
two types of components are considered; the productive and the
dissipative components. For productive components, a product
can be readily defined when they are considered in isolation. How-
ever, for the dissipative components, an example of which is the
throttling valve, no useful product can be defined when they are
considered in isolation, because their operation appears to be
meaningless from a thermodynamic viewpoint. In other words,
the purpose of a component from the thermodynamic viewpoint
cannot be to remove exergy from a stream without gaining a ther-
modynamic use out of this removal in the same component. Dissi-
pative components serve productive components in a system. So,
their performance becomes meaningful only when they are consid-
ered together with all component they serve. These components
destroy exergy and their thermoeconomic performances have to
be evaluated in conjunction with the productive components
which are served by them. Therefore, in a thermoeconomic analy-
sis, all the costs associated with owning and operating a dissipative
component must be charged directly to the components served by
it. For the systems analyzed in the present work, the dissipative de-
vices, i.e., the condenser, the expansion valve, the absorber and the
throttling valves together with the components they serve (the
evaporator in this case), are considered as a single component
named ‘‘cooling set (CS)’’. The cooling set is bordered by closed
dashed lines in Fig. 1a and b.
3. Simulation and analysis of the systems
3.1. Assumptions
Several assumptions are made in the simulations and analyses
of the absorption refrigeration systems considered in this work:
Table 1
Reference operating parameters and inlet/outlet temperatures of cooling or heating
streams.
Reference condition Inlet and outlet temperatures of cooling and heating
streams (K)
Tcon = Tabs = 310 K Inlet temperature of cooling water = Tcon  8
(37 °C)
Outlet temperature of cooling water = Tcon  3
Teva = 277 K (4 °C) Inlet temperature of chilled water = Teva + 8
Outlet temperature of chilled water = Teva + 3
THPG = 400 K Inlet temperature of pressurized steam = THPG + 18
(127 °C)
Outlet temperature of condensed water = THPG + 18
gLTHE = 75%
gHTHE = 85%
gpump = 95%
gmotor = 90%
PLPG = 3.5 kPa
703
 Simulations and analyses are performed under steady
conditions.
 The refrigerant (water) exiting the condenser and the evapora-
tor are saturated liquid and saturated vapor, respectively.
 The solution is at an equilibrium state at the exits of the absor-
ber, the HPG and the LPG, at the corresponding device
temperature.
 Pressure losses due to friction in the heat exchangers and in the
connecting pipes are negligible.
 Exchange of heat between the system components and the sur-
roundings, other than those prescribed in the generator, the
evaporator, the condenser and the absorber, are assumed
negligible.
 A temperature difference of 5 K is assumed for heat transfer in
the LPG.
 Simulations and analyses are carried out for a constant refriger-
ation capacity Q_ ev a ¼ 1 kW in all the systems.
 The environmental reference state is at 25 °C and 100 kPa.
The systems use high pressure steam as a heat source in the
high pressure generator (HPG), and produce chilled water in
the evaporator. The systems reject heat to the cooling water via
the condenser and the absorber. Table 1 presents the inlet and out-
let temperatures of these streams along with the components’ ref-
erence condition used in the simulations. In the analyses all of
these conditions are fixed unless otherwise stated.
It is clear that the performance of the series flow double effect
absorption refrigeration cycle is strongly influenced if it is com-
bined with an ejector. In the present work the ejector performance
is simulated based on a one dimensional flow model, the basic
principles of which were introduced by Huang et al. [9]. The model
is improved by using the thermodynamic properties of steam as a
real gas. This model [9] assumes that the hypothetical throat oc-
curs inside the constant area section of the ejector and the mixing
of two streams occurs inside this section at constant pressure. The
governing equations for analyzing the flow through the ejector
along with the coefficients used in them are summarized in Table
2 according to Fig. 2.
In the analyses, the thermophysical properties of the working
fluids are expressed as analytical functions. A new set of computa-
tionally efficient formulations for thermodynamic properties of
LiBr/water solutions developed by Patek and Klomfar [10] is used
in this work. The equations for the thermal properties of steam
are obtained from correlations provided by Spencer [11].
3.2. Thermodynamic analysis
In order to simulate the performance of absorption systems, the
principles of mass and energy conservation are used. Neglecting ki-
netic and potential energies, general equations for these principles
for a steady state process are specified below:
 Mass conservation:
X X
_i¼
m _e
m ð3:2:1Þ
X X
_ iXi ¼
m _ eXe
m ð3:2:2Þ
 Energy conservation:
X X X X
Q_  _ ¼
W _ e he 
m _ i hi
m ð3:2:3Þ
Here, Q_ and W
_ denote the heat and work transfer rates respectively.
A detailed exergy analysis is also carried out in order to calculate
the exergy of each stream, as well as the exergy destruction and
losses for each component. An exergy analysis is essential for
704 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711

Table 2
Governing equations for analysis of flow through ejector and the coefficients used in them.

Section of ejector Governing equation Section of ejector Governing equation

c pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Primary flow from entrance to t 2
P t ¼ P PF ðcþ1 Þ ðc1Þ After mixing the primary and secondary flows V t ¼ 2ðhPF  ht Þ
ht ¼ hPF  gprimary ðhPF  hts Þ P m ¼ P SFy ¼ P PFy
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi V2
 V2

V t ¼ 2ðhPF  ht Þ hPFy þ PFy
þ x hSFy þSFy
V2 2 2
hm þ 2m ¼ 1þx
gprimarty is assumed to be 0.9 um is assumed to be 0.8
Primary flow in Section 1 hPF1 ¼ hPF  gprimary ðhPF  hPF1s Þ After shock P3 V 3 ¼ Pm V m
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V PF1 ¼ 2ðhPF  hPF1 Þ P 3 þ q3 V 23 ¼ P m þ qm V 2m
V 23 V 2m
h3 þ 2 ¼ hm þ 2
Primary flow in section y uP Exit of the diffuser V 23
APFy ¼ q V PFys hc ¼ h3 þ
PFys 2
P PFy ¼ P SFy hc ¼ h3 þ hgcs h3
diffuser

V2
hPFy þ 2PFy ¼ hPF1 þ PF1
V2 gdiffuser is assumed to be 0.9.
2
uP is assumed to be 0.8.
Secondary flow in section y  ðc1c
Þ
2
P SFy ¼ P SF cþ1
hSFy ¼ hSF  gsec ondary ðhSF  hSFys Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V SFy ¼ 2ðhSF  hSFy Þ
ASFy ¼ A3  APFy
gsecondary is assumed to be 0.9.

Fig. 2. Configuration and dimensions of ejector.

assessing the exergoeconomic behavior of energy converting sys- The exergy destruction rate in a component is calculated from
tems. Neglecting the kinetic and potential energies, the exergy flow the exergy rate balance for the component:
rate of a stream at a given state is:
E_ D ¼ E_ F  E_ P  E_ L ð3:2:6Þ
E_ ¼ m½ðh
_  h0 Þ  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ ð3:2:4Þ
where E_ F , E_ P and E_ L are the exergy flow rates of the fuel, the product
and the specific exergy of the stream is: and the losses for the component, respectively.

e ¼ ðh  h0 Þ  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ ð3:2:5Þ 3.3. Cost equations

In order to evaluate the performance of a system from the second
law point of view, it is necessary to identify both the product and
the fuel for each component of the system. The product represents
the desired result produced by the component or the system.
Accordingly, the definition of the product must be consistent with
the purpose of purchasing and using the system. The fuel represents
the resource expended to generate the product, and is not necessar-
ily restricted to being an actual fuel such as natural gas, oil or coal.
Both the product and the fuel are expressed in terms of exergy. The
fuel and the product for all the components of the analyzed systems
are defined in Table 3.
All costs for owning and operating a system (non-exergy related
cost rates) depend on the type of financing, the required capital,
the expected life of a component and so on. For the components
of the systems analyzed in the present work the reference cost data
reported by Misra et al. [12] are used. For this approach, the HPG,
the LPG, the condenser, the evaporator, the absorber and both solu-
tion heat exchangers are considered as simple heat exchangers. For
these components, the reference costs, updated to year 2000, are
summarized in Table 4.
To calculate the costs of components at a specific size or capac-
ity, a power law relation is used, such as [12]:
 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711 705

Table 3
Definition of fuel, product and loss exergy flow rates of absorption refrigeration system components.

Component Fuel Product Loss

Series flow double effect system
HPG E_ 18  E_ 19 E_ 11 þ E_ 8  E_ 7
LPG E_ 11  E_ 12 E_ 14 þ E_ 15  E_ 10
CS E_ 12 þ E_ 14  E_ 4 þ E_ 9  E_ 10 þ E_ 16 E_ 23  E_ 22 E_ 21  E_ 20 þ E_ 25  E_ 24
Pump & motor W _m E_ 5  E_ 4
HTHE E_ 8  E_ 9 E_ 7  E_ 6
LTHE E_ 15  E_ 16 E_ 6  E_ 5
Overall system E_ 18  E_ 19 þ W
_ m E_ 23  E_ 22 E_ 21  E_ 20 þ E_ 25  E_ 24
Combined ejector-double effect system
HPG E_ 18  E_ 19 E_ 11 þ E_ 8  E_ 7
LPG E_ 11b  E_ 12 E_ 14 þ E_ 15  E_ 10
CS E_ 12 þ E_ 14a  E_ 4 þ E_ 9  E_ 10 þ E_ 16 E_ 23  E_ 22 E_ 21  E_ 20 þ E_ 25  E_ 24
Pump & motor W _m E_ 5  E_ 4
HTHE E_ 8  E_ 9 E_ 7  E_ 6
LTHE E_ 15  E_ 16 E_ 6  E_ 5
Ejector E_ 11a þ E_ 14 E_ 14a
Overall system E_ 18  E_ 19 þ W
_ m E_ 23  E_ 22 E_ 21  E_ 20 þ E_ 25  E_ 24

Table 4 Here, i is the interest rate and the N is the lifetime of the system in
Reference costs of absorption refrigeration system components. years. In the present work these parameters are considered fixed at
Component Reference cost ($) 0.15 and 20 years, respectively [14].
_ R;P ¼ 10 kW;W
Reference costs of components ðAR ¼ 100 m2 ; W _ R;m ¼ 10 kWÞ
HPG & LPG 17,500 3.4. Heat exchanger sizing
Condenser 8000
Evaporator 16,000 As mentioned above, the costs of heat exchanger components in
Absorber 16,500 the absorption cycles are taken to be functions of their sizes. In or-
Solution heat exchanger 12,000
Pump 2100
der to estimate the sizes of components in the analyzed systems,
Motor 500 the logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) method is
Expansion or throttling valve 300 used. That is,

Q_ ¼ A U LMTD ð3:4:1Þ
 ahx
A where Q_ is the total heat transfer rate, A is the total heat transfer
Z ¼ ZR ð3:3:1Þ area and U is the average overall heat transfer coefficient based
AR
on the heat transfer area. The LMTD and the heat transfer coefficient
!mp  nP are expressed as:
W_P 1  gP
Z P ¼ Z R;P ð3:3:2Þ
_ R;P
W gP DT 0  DT L
LMTD ¼ ð3:4:2Þ
ln DDTT0L
!mm  n
W_m 1  gm m
Z m ¼ Z R;m ð3:3:3Þ 1
_ R;m
W gm U¼D D0
ð3:4:3Þ
1
0
Di hi
þ Di
F i þ F 0 þ h1o
Here, the subscript R represents the reference components and the
powers in the equations take on the following values [12]: Note that U is a function of flow rate, temperature, pressure and
other properties. Physical information on the heat exchanger con-
ahx ¼ 0:6 mP ¼ 0:26 nP ¼ 0:5 mm ¼ 0:87 nm ¼ 1 figuration and the characteristics of the inner and outer flows of
The cost data involved in an economic analysis at different years the heat exchanger must be known for calculating the heat exchan-
must be brought to the reference year according to the following ger surface area and the overall heat transfer coefficient. In order to
relation: perform sizing of each heat exchanger (the HPG, the LPG, the con-
Cost index for the reference year
denser, the absorber, the evaporator and the two solution heat
Cost at reference year ¼ Original cost exchangers), some assumptions must be made. The type of heat
Cost index for the year when the original cost was obtained
ð3:3:4Þ exchangers must be specified. The heat transfer coefficients, hi
and ho for the inside and outside flows respectively, need to be cal-
In the present work, the Marshall and Swift equipment cost index
culated. For all the heat exchangers, the value of the fouling factors
[13] is used for updating all costs to the year 2011. The capital
(Fi and Fo) at the inside and outside surfaces of the tube are consid-
investment of a component is converted to the cost rate by multi-
ered constant at 0.09 m2/°C kW [15].
plying it by 1/t and the capital recovery factor (CRF). Here, t is the
The condenser, the HPG and the LPG are assumed to be single-
number of hours per year that the unit operates and the CRF is an
pass horizontal tube heat exchangers. In the condenser the cooling
economic parameter that depends on the interest rate and the esti-
water flows inside the horizontal tubes and the water vapor con-
mated component lifetime. The CRF is determined as follows:
denses on the outside surface of the tubes.
ið1 þ iÞN In the HPG and the LPG, the pressurized hot steam flows inside
CRF ¼ ð3:3:5Þ
ð1 þ iÞN  1 the horizontal tubes and the LiBr/water solution flows on the out-
side surface of the tubes.
706
Both of the solution heat exchangers are assumed to be single
pass annuluses in which the cold and the hot solutions flow inside
and outside the inner pipe, respectively.
The absorber heat exchanger consists of single pass vertical
tubes so that the solution film flows downward on the outside sur-
face of the tubes and the water vapor, from the evaporator, is ab-
sorbed totally in the solution flow. The cooling water flows
inside the tubes.
The evaporator is designed in a similar way as the absorber. The
liquid water coming from the condenser vaporizes on the outside
surface of the vertical tubes providing the cooling for the water
stream inside the tubes.
The correlations used to calculate the heat transfer coefficients
are given in Appendix A.
3.5. Exergy costing and exergoeconomic evaluation
When a system operates at steady state, there may be a number
of entering and exiting material streams as well as both heat and
work interactions with the surroundings. There are exergy trans-
fers into and out of the system due to the transfers of matter and
energy, and exergy destructions caused by irreversibilities within
the system. Since exergy measures the true thermodynamic value
of such effects, and costs should only be assigned to commodities
of value, exergy is used as a basis for assigning costs in thermal sys-
tems. This approach is referred to as exergy costing.
In exergy costing it is convenient to use a cost rate associated
with each exergy transfer. Thus for entering and exiting streams
of matter with associated exergy transfer E_ i and E_ e , power W,
and the exergy transfer associated with heat transfer, E_ q , we can
write:
C_ i ¼ ci E_ i C_ e ¼ ce E_ e C_ w ¼ cw W
_ C_ q ¼ cq E_ q
Here, ci, ce, cw and cq denote average costs per unit of exergy.
In exergy costing it is usual to write a cost balance for each com-
ponent separately. A cost balance applied to a component shows
that the sum of cost rates of all exiting exergy transfers is equal
to the sum of cost rates of all entering exergy transfers plus the
appropriate charges due to capital investment and operating and
maintenance expenses. The sum of the last two terms is denoted
_ Accordingly, for a component receiving a heat transfer and gen-
Z.
erating power, the cost rate balance is:
X X
C_ e þ C_ w ¼ C_ q þ C_ i þ Z_
In order to calculate the cost rate of each stream in a system this
equation is applied to each system component. In addition, in ther-
moeconomic analysis, the average unit cost of fuel cF, the average
unit cost of product cP, the cost rate of exergy destruction rate
C_ D , the relative cost difference r and the exergoeconomic factor f
play a central role in evaluating the thermoeconomic performance
of thermal systems. These parameters can be expressed as:
C_ F
cF ¼
E_ F
C_ P
cP ¼
E_ P
C_ D ¼ cF  E_ D
cP  cF
r¼
cF
Z_
f ¼
Z_ þ C_ D þ C_ L
L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711
The cost of steam used in the HPG and the electrical energy used for
the motors of pumps are considered as $9.5 per 1000 kg and $10 per
GJ, respectively [14]. As the primary investment of the ejector is
much lower than those of the other components, it is ignored in
the analysis [16,17]. In order to solve the exergy cost rate balance
for each component proper auxiliary equations are used. Detailed
information on applying Eq. (3.5.2) to each component, along with
the corresponding auxiliary equations, is provided in [18,14].
4. Results and discussion
The performances of series flow double effect and combined
ejector-double effect LiBr/water absorption refrigeration systems
considered are assessed thermoeconomically using the method de-
scribed by Bejan et al. [5]. The analyses are carried out through
computer programs developed in the Engineering Equations Solver
(EES) software [19]. For both of the systems, the effects of HPG,
condenser, absorber and evaporator temperatures and also the ef-
fect of effectivenesses on the total investment costs of the systems
and the cost of product flow rate are studied. In the case of a com-
bined cycle the effect of the LPG pressure on the mentioned param-
eters is investigated too as this pressure is not the same as that of
the condenser.
For the combined cycle, the effect of a variation in LPG pressure
on the investment cost of the overall system and the product cost
flow rate is shown in Fig. 3. An increase of LPG pressure is observed
to increase the two parameters. Also, as reported previously by the
_ authors [4], at each THPG, there is an optimum value for the LPG
pressure that maximizes the COP and the exergy efficiency of the
cycle. Therefore, considering these points a suitable LPG pressure
(3.5 kPa) is selected for the analysis.
ð3:5:1Þ Fig. 4a and b shows the effects of HPG, evaporator and con-
denser temperatures (Tcon = Tabs at every condition) on the total
investment costs of the systems (Ztot). It can be seen that, for both
the systems, lower Ztot values are obtained at higher HPG and evap-
orator temperatures and a lower condenser temperature. The fig-
ures also indicate that, at lower HPG temperatures, the rate of
reduction in Ztot with increasing HPG temperature is higher. Fur-
thermore, the variations of Ztot with the mentioned variables are
similar for both of the systems. However, at any given value of THPG,
with which both the cycles work, the value of Ztot for the combined
system is lower than that of the series flow system.
ð3:5:2Þ The variations of product cost flow rate with HPG, evaporator
and condenser temperatures (Tcon = Tabs at every condition) are
shown in Fig. 5a and b for the double effect and combined cycles
respectively. The trends are similar to those for Ztot (Fig. 4a and
b), except that the difference among the product cost flow rate of
the combined cycle with different condenser (and absorber) tem-
peratures is very low. The results obtained from previous work
[4] indicate that, at each operating condition and at a particular
range of THPG, the COP and exergy efficiency of the combined cycle
are higher than those of the double effect cycle. At higher values
ð3:5:3Þ
of THPG this trend changes and the COP and exergy efficiency of
the double effect cycle increase so that their diagrams intersect.
The values of THPG at the intersecting point are provided in Table
ð3:5:4Þ 5. Considering the table and Figs. 4a,b, 5a and b, it is concluded that
although at some conditions the COP and exergy efficiency of the
double effect cycle are higher than those of the combined cycle,
ð3:5:5Þ the investment cost and the product cost flow rate of the combined
cycle are lower so that the combined cycle is more economical. For
ð3:5:6Þ example, at the reference condition, at a THPG of 405 K (higher than
403 K), the values of COP, exergy efficiency, investment cost of the
overall system and product cost flow rate of the series flow double
ð3:5:7Þ effect cycle are 1.102, 20.66%, 3093 $/yr and 252 $ respectively.
However, these values for the combined cycle are 1.081, 20.27%,
 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711 707

Fig. 3. Effect of pressure of low pressure generator on investment cost of overall system and product cost flow rate.

4900 310
Investment cost of overall system [$]

series (T_eva=277K) series (T_eva=277K)

series (T_eva=280K)
290
4400 series (T_eva=280K)
Product cost flow rate [$/yr]
series (T_eva=283K) series (T_eva=283K)
270 combined cycle (T_eva=277K)
combined cycle (T_eva=277K)
3900 combined cycle (T_eva=280K) combined cycle (T_eva=280K)
250 combined cycle (T_eva=283K)
combined cycle (T_eva=283K)

3400 230

210
2900
190
2400
170

1900 150
370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470
Temperature of high pressure generator [K] Temperature of high pressure generator [K]
(a) (a)
4900 370
series (T_con=T_abs=305K)
Investment cost of overall system [$]

series (T_con=T_abs=310K) 350 series (T_con=T_abs=305K)

4400 series (T_con=T_abs=315K) series (T_con=T_abs=310K)
Product cost flow rate [$/yr]

330 series (T_con=T_abs=315K)

combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=305K)
combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=310K) combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=305K)
310
3900 combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=315K) combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=310K)
290 combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=315K)

3400 270
250
2900
230

2400 210
190
1900 170
375 385 395 405 415 425 435 445 455 465 375 385 395 405 415 425 435 445 455 465
Temperature of high pressure generator [K] Temperature of high pressure generator [K]
(b) (b)
Fig. 4. Effect of generator temperature on investment cost of overall systems (a) for Fig. 5. Effect of generator temperature on product cost flow rate (a) for several
several evaporator temperatures and (b) for several condenser temperatures. evaporator temperatures and (b) for several condenser temperatures.

2506 $/yr and 210.1 $ respectively. A comparison of these values and product cost flow rate are respectively18.98% and 16.63% low-
indicates that although the COP and exergy efficiency of the er, so the combined cycle performs more economically.
combined cycle are respectively 1.9% and 1.89% lower than those The influences of the low temperature heat exchanger effective-
of the double effect cycle, its investment cost for the overall system ness on the total investment costs of both the cycles are illustrated
708 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711

Table 5 of the condition, an increase in LTHE effectiveness causes an in-

Value of THPG at intersection point of COP and exergetic efficiency diagrams of the
double effect and combined ejector- double effect absorption cycles.
Considered condition (unstated parameters are the
same as the reference condition)
Teva = 277 K
Teva = 280 K
Teva = 283 K
Tcon = Tabs = 305 K
Tcon = Tabs = 310 K
Tcon = Tabs = 315 K
in Fig. 6a and b at various values of Tcon (= Tabs) and Teva. It is shown
that, as expected, an increase in heat exchanger effectiveness in-
creases the investment costs of the systems. The investment cost
of the combined cycle is lower than that of the double effect cycle.
According to these figures and also Fig. 4a and b, it can be
concluded that, the difference between the investment costs of
the two cycles is higher at lower temperatures of the HPG and
the evaporator and higher temperatures of the condenser and the
absorber.
Fig. 7a and b shows the effect of low temperature heat exchan-
ger effectiveness on the product cost flow rate for the two cycles at
various values of Tcon (= Tabs) and Teva. It is observed that, regardless
crease in C_ P . Similar to the investment cost of the overall system,
the product cost flow rate of the combined cycle is lower than that
THPG of intersection of the double effect cycle at any specified condition. The difference
point (K) is higher at lower temperatures of the HPG and of the evaporator
403 and at higher temperatures of the condenser (or the absorber).
398 For the two cycles, the effects of high temperature heat exchan-
388
388
ger effectiveness on the investment costs and on the product cost
403 flow rate are illustrated in Figs. 8a, b, 9a and b, respectively. The re-
423 sults are similar to those showing the influence of the low temper-
ature heat exchanger effectiveness (Figs. 6a, b, 7a and b).
The variations in the component cost percent with the high
pressure generator temperature are shown in Fig. 10a and b for
the series flow double effect cycles and the combined cycles,
respectively. These figures indicate that in both of the systems, at
higher HPG temperatures, the evaporator and the absorber are
the first and second most expensive components, respectively.
The solution heat exchangers are the next most expensive compo-
nent. However, at low HPG temperatures, the cost percent of solu-
tion heat exchangers, in particular that of the HTHE, is much higher
so that it becomes the most expensive component.
According to the thermoeconomic evaluation guidelines pre-
sented by Bejan et al. [5], in designing a new system, the first de-
sign changes initially must be applied to the components for
which the sum of C_ D þ C_ L þ Z_ is the highest. Table 6 presents the

4500
305
Investment cost of overall system [$]

series (T_con=T_abs=305K) 295

4000
series (T_con=T_abs=307K)
Product cost flow rate [$/yr]

285 series (T_con=T_abs=305K)

series (T_con=T_abs=310K) series (T_con=T_abs=307K)
combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=305K) 275 series (T_con=T_abs=310K)
3500 combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=307K) combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=305K)
265
combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=310K) combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=307K)
255 combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=310K)
3000
245
235
2500 225
215
2000 205
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Effectiveness of LTHE Effectiveness of LTHE
(a) (a)
305
series (T_eva=277K) 295
series (T_eva=277K)
Investment cost of overall system [$]

4000 series (T_eva=280K) 285

series (T_eva=280K)
Product cost flow rate [$/yr]

series (T_eva=283K) 275

series (T_eva=283K)
combined cycle (T_eva=277K) 265
combined cycle (T_eva=277K)
3500 combined cycle (T_eva=280K) 255
combined cycle (T_eva=280K)
combined cycle (T_eva=283K) 245 combined cycle (T_eva=283K)
235
3000 225
215
205
2500 195
185
175
2000 165
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Effectiveness of LTHE Effectiveness of LTHE
(b) (b)
Fig. 6. Effect of LTHE effectiveness on investment cost of overall systems (a) for Fig. 7. Effect of LTHE effectiveness on product cost flow rate (a) for several
several condenser temperatures and (b) for several evaporator temperatures. condenser temperatures and (b) for several evaporator temperatures.
 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711 709

series (T_con=T_abs=305K) series (T_con=T_abs=305K)

series (T_con=T_abs=307K) 370
Investment cost of overall system [$]

5700 series (T_con=T_abs=307K)

series (T_con=T_abs=310K)
350 series (T_con=T_abs=310K)

Product cost flow rate [$/yr]

combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=305K)
5200 combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=307K) combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=305K)
combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=310K) 330 combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=307K)
4700 combined cycle (T_con=T_abs=310K)
310
4200 290

3700 270

3200 250

2700 230

210
2200 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Effectiveness of HTHE
Effectiveness of HTHE
(a) (a)
370 series (T_eva=277K)
6000 series (T_eva=277K) series (T_eva=280K)
series (T_eva=280K) 350
Investment cost of overall system [$]

series (T_eva=283K)
5500 series (T_eva=283K)

Product cost flow rate [$/yr]

combined cycle (T_eva=277K)
combined cycle (T_eva=277K) 330
combined cycle (T_eva=280K)
combined cycle (T_eva=280K)
5000 310 combined cycle (T_eva=283K)
combined cycle (T_eva=283K)

4500 290
270
4000
250
3500 230
3000 210
190
2500
170
2000 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Effectiveness of HTHE
Effectiveness of HTHE
(b)
(b)
Fig. 9. Effect of HTHE effectiveness on product cost flow rate (a) for several
Fig. 8. Effect of HTHE effectiveness on investment cost of overall systems (a) for condenser temperatures and (b) for several evaporator temperatures.
several condenser temperatures and (b) for several evaporator temperatures.
rator temperatures are high, and also when the condenser temper-
thermoeconomic parameters obtained from the analyses for differ- atures as well as the effectivenesses of the solution heat
ent components of the two cycles at the reference case operating exchangers are low. The variations in the product cost flow rate
condition. As this table indicates, the cooling set has the maximum of the systems are similar to those of the total investment costs.
value of C_ D þ C_ L þ Z_ with high r and low f values. Therefore, it is It is concluded that, in similar operating conditions, the overall sys-
essential to study whether it is cost effective to improve the com- tem investment cost and the product cost flow rate are lower for
ponent efficiency by increasing the capital investment. The other the combined cycle than the series flow double effect cycle, so that
two components with high values of C_ D þ C_ L þ Z_ are the HTHE the combined cycle is more economical.
and the LTHE. Attention needs to be paid to these components In the systems considered here, the evaporator and the absorber
too, in particular the LTHE which has a higher r. The solution are the most expensive components except when a low value of
pumps exhibit very high values of r and cP, due to having a low HPG temperature is used. The solution heat exchangers are the
mass flow rate resulting in a low E_ P . However, the values of Z_ third most expensive component. However, at low HPG tempera-
and C_ D for the pumps are very low and therefore are not tures, the cost percent of solution heat exchangers, especially that
significant. of the HTHE, is high so that, it can be the most expensive compo-
nent. The exergoeconomic analysis of these components can pro-
vide suggestions for cost effective improvements.
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
The exergoeconomic method is used to analyze series flow dou-
ble effect and combined ejector-double effect LiBr/water absorp-
The financial support of the Iranian Fuel Conservation Organiza-
tion refrigeration systems at a broad range of operating
tion (IFCO) is gratefully acknowledged.
conditions to investigate and compare the effects of different ther-
modynamic variables on the thermoeconomic performance of the
systems. In addition, the overall heat transfer coefficients for the Appendix A
components are determined at each operating condition to provide
more accurate component costing. For fully developed turbulent flow in smooth tubes [20], the fol-
It is found for both systems that lower total investment costs lowing relation is recommended by Dittus and Boelter for the Nus-
are obtained when the high pressure generator and/or the evapo- selt number:
710 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711

1.37 1.59
Series The properties in this expression are evaluated at the fluid bulk
100 1.65 1.71 1.78 1.84 1.90
flow
9.62 7.70 6.39 5.53 5.18 temperature, and the value of n is 0.4 for heating and 0.3 for cooling.
12.96 5.73 5.57 REF
90 22.43 6.10 5.92
6.19 This expression has been confirmed experimentally for the follow-
Component cost percent [%]

6.00 10.12 8.94 8.00

80 PM
14.33
11.78
7.61 ing range of conditions:
4.2 7.80 LTHE
70 18.92 7.90
7.88
7.70 8
< 0:6 6 Pr 6 160
7.82 7.40 7.61 >
7.10 LPG
60 7.49 6.67
32.2 HTHE Re P 10; 000
50 5.91 32.59
>
:
31.32 32.22 HPG L=D P 10
30.06
40 28.22 Vs
6.45 24.99
30 3.65
5.20 eva For a vertical tier of N horizontal tubes, the average convection coef-
4.73 4.94 5.11
15.43 4.43 con ficient (over the N tubes) may be expressed as:
20 3.91
2.40
21.07 22.92 24.23 25.24 26.25 abs " 3 0
#1
10
11.92
18.23 g ql ðql  qv Þkl hfg 4
h ¼ 0:729 ðA:2Þ
0 N ll ðT sat  T s ÞD
400 410 420 430 440 450 460
Temperature of high pressure generator [K] 0
Here, hfg is the modified latent heat and is defined as:
(a) 0
hfg ¼ hfg þ 0:68cp;l ðT sat  T s Þ ðA:3Þ

Combined For a falling film flow outside the vertical tubes Patnaik et al. [21]
100 1.31 1.40 1.45 1.50 cycle suggests the Wilke’s correlation as appropriate:
11.69 9.05 7.30 REF
90 17.60 5.20 8
5.28 5.34 >
> h ¼ kd ð0:029Re0:53 Pr0:344 Þ
Component cost percent [%]

10.79 PM >
80 4.42 13.08 >
>  1
16.74 LTHE >
< d ¼ 3lC 3
8.57
70 8.55 q2 g
25.19 7.05 LPG ðA:4Þ
8.33 6.65 >
>
60 HTHE >
> Re ¼ 4lC
6.07 >
>
50 7.46 HPG :
4.75 28.18
29.83 C ¼ pm_D
40 25.68 Vs

30 20.10 eva For vapor condensation inside a horizontal tube with low velocities
5.07 5.35  
4.67
20 3.72
con Re ¼ qvluv D < 35; 000 Chato recommends an expression of the
v
20.16 22.63 24.39 abs
10 15.46 form:
0 " 3 0
#1
390 400 410 420 g ql ðql  qv Þkl hfg 4
Temperature of high pressure generator [K] h ¼ 0:555 ðA:5Þ
ll ðT sat  T s ÞD
(b) The modified latent heat in this relation is defined as:
Fig. 10. Variation of component cost proportions for several systems: (a) series flow 0 3
double effect and (b) combined ejector-double effect. hfg ¼ hfg þ cp;l ðT sat  T s Þ ðA:6Þ
8
For laminar flow inside the tube, the Nusselt number is
Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Prn ðA:1Þ Nu ¼ hD
k
¼ 3:66. For the annulus, the hydraulic diameter is used in-
stead of the diameter, where it is the difference between the inside

Table 6
Exergoeconomic analysis results for double effect and combined ejector-double effect absorption refrigeration systems at the reference condition.

Component A (m2) cF ($/GJ) cP ($/GJ) C_ D ($/yr) C_ L ($/yr) Z_ ($/yr) C_ D þ C_ L þ Z_ ($/yr) f (%) r (%)

Series flow double effect system

HPG 0.064 15.6 38.8 4.8 0.0 45.4 50.2 90.4 149.5
LPG 0.031 121.0 185.4 5.9 0.0 29.3 35.2 83.2 53.2
8 8
< abs < 0:197 413.4 844.9 228.3 130.4 235.0 593.6 39.6 104.4
CS con 0:045
: :
ev a 0:318
Pump & motor 10.0 36,007 0.08 0.0 9.7 9.7 99.2 359,971
HTHE 1.75 532.1 642.3 267.2 0.0 226.5 425.1 45.9 20.7
LTHE 0.959 516.7 847.2 196.7 0.0 157.8 423.2 44.5 64.0
Overall system 15.5 844.9 703.0 130.4 703.6 1537.0 45.8 5338.0
Combined ejector-double effect system
HPG 0.0420 15.6 41.3 3.7 0.0 35.2 39.0 90.4 165.3
LPG 0.020 78.4 153.6 3.3 0.0 22.3 25.6 87.2 96.0
8 8
< abs < 0:202 182.7 609.2 96.4 49.1 239.2 384.7 62.2 233.5
CS con 0:059
: :
ev a 0:318
Pump & motor 10.0 145,595 0.01 0.0 5.9 5.9 99.8 1,456,000
HTHE 0.252 215.2 340.2 25.5 0.0 70.8 75.0 73.5 58.1
LTHE 0.1385 206.5 649.4 11.4 0.0 49.5 82.2 81.3 214.4
Ejector 92.2 165.3 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 79.4
Overall system 15.6 609.2 140.3 49.1 422.9 612.3 69.1 3817.0
 L. Garousi Farshi et al. / Applied Energy 103 (2013) 700–711
diameter of the external tube and the outside diameter of the inter-
nal tube.
References
[1] Desideri U, Proietti S, Sdringola P. Solar-powered cooling systems: technical
and economic analysis on industrial refrigeration and air-conditioning
applications. Appl Energy 2009;86:1376–86.
[2] Starace G, De Pascalis L. An advanced analytical model of the diffusion
absorption refrigerator cycles. Int J Refrig 2012;35:605–12.
[3] Arora A, Kaushik SC. Theoretical analysis of LiBr/H2O absorption refrigeration
systems. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:1321–40.
[4] Garousi Farshi L, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA, Yari M. Use of low grade heat
sources in combined ejector-double effect absorption refrigeration systems.
Proc Inst Mech Eng A, J Power Energy 2012;226:607–22.
[5] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New
York: John Wiley and Sons; 1996.
[6] Tsatsaronis G. Combination of exergetic and economic analysis in energy-
conversion process. In: Energy economics and management in industry:
proceedings of the European congress, Algarve, Portugal, vol. 1. Oxford,
England: Permagon Press; April 2–5, 1984. p. 151–7.
[7] Tsatsaronis G. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:227–57.
[8] Garousi Farshi L, Mahmoudi SMS, Rosen MA, Yari M. A comparative study of
the performance characteristics of double-effect absorption refrigeration
systems. Int J Energy Res 2012;36:182–92.
[9] Huang BJ, Chang JM, Wang CP, Petrenko VA. A 1-D analysis of ejector
performance. Int J Refrig 1999;22:354–64.
711
[10] Patek J, Klomfar J. Computationally effective formulation of the
thermodynamic properties of LiBr–H2O solution from 273 to 500 K over full
composition range. Int J Refrig 2006;29:566–78.
[11] Spencer RC. NBS/NRC steam tables. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 1985;6:88–9.
[12] Misra RD, Sahoo PK, Gupta A. Thermoeconomic optimization of a single effect
H2O/LiBr absorption chiller system. Int J Refrig 2003;26:158–69.
[13] Economic Indicators. Marshall&Swift Equipment Cost Index. Chemical
engineering; September 2011. p. 72.
[14] Misra RD, Sahoo PK, Gupta A. Thermoeconomic evaluation and optimization of
a double-effect H2O/LiBr vapour-absorption refrigeration system. Int J Refrig
2005;28:331–43.
[15] Howell RH, Sauer HJ, Coad WJ. Principles of HVAC, ASHRAE Refrigeration
Equipment; 1998 [chapter 18.21].
[16] Jiang L, Gu Z, Feng X, Li Y. Thermo-economical analysis between new
absorption-ejector hybrid refrigeration system and small double-effect
absorption system. Appl Therm Eng 2002;22:1027–36.
[17] Wang Y, Lior N. Thermoeconomic analysis of a low-temperature multi-effect
thermal desalination system coupled with an absorption heat pump. Energy
2011;36:3878–87.
[18] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy
2006;31:1257–89.
[19] Klein SA, Alvarado F. Engineering equation solver. Version 7.441, F-Chart
software, Middleton; 2005.
[20] Lavine AS, Incropera FP, DeWitt DP. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer.
7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2011.
[21] Patnaik V, Perez-Blanco H, Ryan WA. A simple analytical model for the design
of vertical tube absorbers. ASHRAE Trans 1993;99:69–80.