Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic investigation of various SCO2 Brayton T

cycles for next generation nuclear reactors
Dan Luo, Diangui Huang
⁎

School of Energy and Power Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Power Energy in Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer, Shanghai 200093, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In the present paper, a thermodynamic simulation platform has been established for investigating the thermo-
Six SCO2 Brayton cycles dynamic and exergoeconomic behavior of six SCO2 Brayton cycle layouts used in nuclear reactors. A detailed
Next generation nuclear reactors parametric study was performed through a sensitivity analysis on the cycle efficiency and the unit cost of the
Thermodynamic analysis total product with the fixed maximum system pressure of 20 MPa and the maximum system temperature of
Exergoeconomic investigation
550 °C. The results reveal that there exists an optimal pressure ratio corresponding to the highest cycle efficiency
(thermal optimal design case) or lowest total product unit cost (cost optimal design case) for each SCO2 cycle.
The intercooling cycle has highest cycle efficiency and comparable cost to the recompression cycle. Considering
the exergoeconomic factors fk, it can be concluded that, for intercooling cycle, it is a more cost-effective way to
reduce the capital investment of compressor at the expense of less component efficiency compared to other
cycles. Whereas for the recompression cycle, it performs most outstanding in terms of total product unit cost
among the studied cycles when the effectiveness of heat exchanger exceeds 0.86.

1. Introduction
The SCO2 Brayton cycle can achieve superior economy along with
the desired efficiency within the range of medium turbine inlet tem-
perature (500 °C–700 °C) and have the advantages of clean and non-
toxic working fluid, high power density, small equipment size, etc.
Compared with other thermal cycles, the study on the SCO2 Brayton
cycle is found to be more attractive [1,2]. In recent years, the SCO2
Brayton cycle, applied to gas turbine waste heat, high temperature fuel
cells, solar energy, generation IV nuclear reactors, and geothermal en-
ergy has been extensively studied. It is of great significance to solve
global problems of fossil energy shortage and ecological and environ-
mental pressures.
The temperature of the waste heat is in the range of 500–600 °C.
SCO2 Brayton cycle is used for gas turbine waste heat recovery to fur-
ther improve thermal efficiency. To recover the waste heat of gas tur-
bine, Nami et al. [3] proposed to utilize the supercritical CO2 re-
compression cycle combined with ORC and analyzed the novel
cogeneration GT-HRSG/SCO2 system in detail from the viewpoints of
exergoeconomic and exergoenvironment, but they did not mention
whether the performance of the novel cogeneration system was su-
perior to that of the Bejan's GT-HRSG system [4]. Whether the utili-
zation of the SCO2 cycle in waste heat recovery is competitive with the
traditional steam Rankine cycle needs to be discussed. Cho et al. [5] and
Kim et al. [6] in Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
mentioned that SCO2 recompression, precompression and partial
cooling cycles with high efficiency in nuclear reactor applications are
not suitable for waste heat recovery system. Compared to the reference
steam Rankine cycle, the SCO2 Brayton cycle used for waste heat re-
covery showed inferior performance due to its the narrow temperature
difference when absorbing heat from heat source.
However, the application of SCO2 cycle in high temperature fuel cell
[7,8], solar energy [9–12] and nuclear reactor [13–17] shows obvious
advantages owing to the characteristics of narrow range of these heat
sources temperature.
Turchi et al. [11] performed thermodynamic studies on different
SCO2 cycle configurations (with reheating) including simple re-
generative cycle, recompression cycle, partial cooling cycle and inter-
cooling cycle which were applied to CSP(concentrating solar power)
systems. The results showed that partial cooling cycle and intercooling
SCO2 cycle could achieve more than 50% thermal efficiency when
combined with dry cooling. Novales et al. [12] analyzed the sensitivity
of SCO2 power cycle thermal performance regarding cycle component
efficiencies for CSP systems and concluded that the thermal efficiency
of the partial cooling cycle is lower than that of the recompression cycle
under the condition of the same total pressure ratio, but is

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dghuang@usst.edu.cn (D. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112649
Received 23 November 2019; Received in revised form 20 February 2020; Accepted 22 February 2020
0196-8904/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

Nomenclature 1,2, et al. State points

c Cold side
a The ecompressed mass flow ratio C Compressor
A Heat transfer area, m2 ch Chemical
C Cost rate, $/h ex Exergy
c Cost per unit exergy, $/GJ h Hot side
cp,tot Total product unit cost, $/GJ in Inlet, input
d Channel diameter, mm is Isentropic
E Exergy rate, kw o Overall
e Specific exergy, kj/kg ph Physical
f Exergoeconomic factor,% T Tuebine
h Enthalpy, kj/kg Heat transfer coefficient, W·m−2·K−1 th Thermal
ir Interest rate tot Total
m Mass flow rate, kg/s
n Number of operation year Abbreviations
P Pressure, mpa
p Pitch of channel, mm CI Capital investment
tp/δ Plate thickness, mm COD Cost optimal design
rc Cycle pressure ratio CRF Capital recovery factor
RPR Intermediate pressure ratio D Destruction
Q Heat addition, MW F Fuel
s Entropy, kj/(kg·K) HTR High temperature recuperator
T Temperature, °C Inter.Cool.C Intercooling cycle
U Heat transfer coefficient, W·m−2·K−1 LTR Low temperature recuperator
W Power, kw L Loss
Z Capital cost of a component,$ MC Main compressor
Z Capital cost rate, $/h OM Operation and maintenance
λ Thermal conductivity, W·m−1·K−1 P Product
Part.Cool.C Partial cooling cycle
Greek Symbols pre Pre-cooler
RC Recompressing compressor
ε Heat exchanger effectiveness R Reactor
η Efficiency Rec.C Recompression cycle
γ Maintenance factor TOD Thermal optimal design
τ Annual plant operation hours, h

Subscripts

0 Dead (ambient) state

advantageous at the high-pressure ratio [18].
In recent years, the SCO2 Brayton cycle is considered to be one of
the most promising energy conversion systems for the IV generation of
nuclear reactors (operating at 500 °C–900 °C). Especially, the SCO2
recompression cycle is of more concern.
Harvego et al. [13] compared the thermal efficiencies of the direct
and indirect SCO2 recompression cycles at the reactor coolant outlet
temperature of 550 °C–850 °C. The results showed that the thermal
efficiency of the indirect SCO2 cycle is about 11–13% lower than that of
direct cycle. Moisseytsev et al. [14] investigated the performances of
several alternative SCO2 cycle layouts (a double recompression cycle,
intercooling between main compressor stages, or reheating between a
high pressure and low pressure turbine) coupled to the sodium cooled
fast reactor (SFR). The core outlet temperature of SFR is 510 ℃, and the
turbine inlet temperature is about 470 ℃. It’s revealed that alternative
SCO2 cycles didn’t have higher efficiency, but added more components
compared to the reference recompression cycle. Simultaneously, when
the maximum pressure of the system increased from 20 MPa to 22 MPa,
the system efficiency of the recompression cycle is increased by only
0.3%. The recompression SCO2 Brayton cycle coupled with the lead-
cooled fast reactor can achieve an efficiency of 45.7% at a turbine inlet
temperature of 560 ℃[15]. The combination of a SCO2 recompression
Brayton cycle with a small and medium-size water-cooled nuclear re-
actor (core outlet temperature ~310 ℃) still has comparable efficiency
to the existing steam-Rankine cycle for SMRs (~30%) at optimum
pressure ratio [16].
Dostal [17] described a detailed analysis of different supercritical
CO2 Brayton compound cycles and finally chose the recompression
cycle with a simpler structure and higher efficiency for nuclear reactor
research. It’s concluded that when the maximum pressure of the system
is 20 MPa, the cycle efficiency of SCO2 recompression cycle can achieve
45%–55% in the turbine inlet temperature range of 550–750 ℃.
Sarkar [19] studied the influences of operating parameters on the
optimum pressure ratio, energetic efficiency, exergetic efficiency, and
component irreversibilities, then he investigated the impact of isen-
tropic efficiency, recuperator effectiveness and component pressure
drop on the second law efficiency only for SCO2 recompression cycle for
the nuclear reactor. However, various SCO2 cycles in nuclear reactor
applications have not been compared and analyzed both in two aspects
of thermodynamic and economics at present.
Based on the literature survey, this artical emphasizes on the com-
parative analysis of thermodynamic and exergoeconomic among the six
different SCO2 Brayton cycle layouts applied to the Generation IV nu-
clear reactors. The six different SCO2 Brayton cycle layouts consist of
simple regenerative cycle, dual regenerative cycle, precompression
cycle, recompression cycle, intercooling cycle, and partial cooling
cycle. Considering the limitation of material strength and the slight
cycle efficiency influence by the maximum cycle pressure, the cycle

2
D. Luo and D. Huang
maximum pressure was set as 20 MPa and the total pressure ratio was
altered by changing the minimum pressure in this paper.
2. System thermodynamic model
2.1. System description and assumptions
Six different SCO2 Brayton cycle layouts applied to the next gen-
eration nuclear reactors are shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1(a) shows a simple regenerative cycle containing a com-
pressor, a turbine, a regenerator and a pre-cooler. In the dual re-
generative cycle (Fig. 1(b)), two regenerators (high and low tempera-
ture regenerators) are used to recover more heat from the CO2 stream
discharged from the turbine. The expanded CO2 stream exiting turbine
flows into the HTR to heat the stream 3, and afterward into the LTR to
heat the stream 2. In Fig. 1(c), an auxiliary compressor is added
(a) simple regenerative cycle
(c) precompression cycle
(e) intercooling cycle
Fig. 1. Six SCO2 Brayton cycle layouts.
3
Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649
between the high and low temperature regenerators of the dual re-
generative cycle to make the turbine outlet pressure independent of the
main compressor inlet pressure, which is called the pre-compression
cycle.
In the recompression cycle (Fig. 1(d)), the low-pressure CO2 is di-
vided into two streams at LTR exit (point 8): stream 8a and stream 8b.
The former stream 8a first enters the pre-cooler and is compressed in
the main compressor, then flows through the LTR. At the same time, the
latter CO2 stream 8b is compressed by recompressing compressor. The
two streams merge into a high-pressure stream which flows into HTR.
In the improved intercooling cycle (Fig. 1(e)) based on recompres-
sion cycle, the spilt CO2 stream 10a at the LTR exit (point 10) will
experience twice precooling and twice compression before being
merged with another stream from recompressing compressor. The dif-
ference between the partial cooling cycle (Fig. 1(f)) and the re-
compression cycle is that the low-pressure CO2 outflowing from the LTR
(b) dual regenerative cycle
(d) recompression cycle
(f) partial cooling cycle
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

Table 1 Table 3
System parameters[19–21]. Comparison of SCO2 recompression cycle between the present work and the
reference.
Parameters Value
Parameters Present work Sarkar et al. [23]
Pmax 20 MPa
Tmax 400℃–700℃ Tmin(℃) Tmax(℃) Pmax (bar) rcopt aopt ηth(%) rcopt aopt ηth(%)
Tmin 32℃
ηT 90% 32 550 200 2.64 0.3337 41.186 2.64 0.334 41.18
ηC 89% 32 550 300 3.86 0.3549 43.325 3.86 0.355 43.32
εLTR & HTR 0.86 50 550 200 2.39 0.1837 36.711 2.4 0.184 36.71
TR 800℃ 50 550 300 2.8 0.254 38.941 2.8 0.254 38.93
Fuel cost 7.4 $/MW h
QR 300 MW ηT = 0.9, ηC = 0.85, εHTR = 0.86, εLTR = 0.86.

is first cooled in a newly added precooler and compressed in an addi-

tional compressor (main compressor 1) to an intermediate pressure and
then split into two streams: stream 10a and stream 10b. The latter two
cycles both have three compressors and two pre-coolers, which makes
more complex structure.
The assumptions for the cycle calculations are described below:

(1) Cycles have been analyzed in steady state.

(2) The pressure losses in tubes and heat exchangers are ignored and
heat transfer with the ambient is negligible except pre-cooler be-
cause of their minor influence on the performance of the system. Fig. 2. The structure of the PCHE.
(3) Cooling water enters the pre-cooler at ambient pressure.

2.2. System thermodynamic model

Table 4
Geometry and allowable pressure drop of PCHE [18].
In this paper, the thermodynamic models of six kinds of SCO2
PCHE
Brayton cycle layouts are established on the Matlab platform to analyze
and compare thermodynamic properties of each cycle. The system Channel diameter 2 mm
parameters are listed in Table1. The thermodynamic model of SCO2 Plate thickness 1.5 mm
recompression cycle is selected as a reference shown in Table 2. pitch of channel 2.4 mm
For the pre-compression cycle, intercooling cycle and partial cooling Coefficient of thermal conductivity 19 W·m−1·K−1
SCO2 side allowable pressure drop 5%
cycle, the intermediate pressure ratio RPR is introduced in this paper, as Cooling water side allowable pressure drop 90%
given below [22]:
Phigh
Pint ermediate
1 process is used to calculate the thermodynamic parameters of each state
RPR = Phigh
1 point under the assumption of ΔTLTR, which is defined as the tem-
(1)
perature difference at the cold end of LTR (for recompression cycle,
Plow

ΔTLTR = T8-T2).
The present numerical model for SCO2 recompression cycle in this
2.3. Model validation
paper has been verified with the literature data [23]. Table 3 indicates a
good agreement between values of performance parameters calculated
For recompression cycle, intercooling cycle, and partial cooling
in the present work and the reference data.
cycle, by judging whether the calculated efficiency of recompression
compressor is consistent with the given efficiency, the same iterative

Table 2
The thermodynamic model of SCO2 recompression cycle.
Component Function

Turbine T = (h 5 h 6)/(h 5 h 6s )
WT = m (h 5 h 6)
MC M C = ( h 2s h 1)/(h 2 h 1)
WM C = a·m·(h 2 h 1)
RC RC = (h 3bs h 8b)/(h 3b h 8b)
WR C = (1 a)·m ·(h 3b h 8b)
HTR =
T6 T7
h6 h7=h4 h3
HTR T6 T3
LTR =
T 7 T8
if minimum in hot side
LTR T 7 T2
T3 T2
h7 h 8 = a (h 3a h 2)
LTR = if minimum in cold side
T 7 T2
Precooler mSCO2 (h 8a h 1) = mwater (h 10 h 9)
Mixer h 3 = ah 3a + (1 a) h 3b
Thermal efficiency th = (WT WC1 WC 2)/ QR

4
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

Fig. 3. Calculation segment of heat transfer.

Table 5 Nu =
(fc / 8)(Re 1000)·Pr
2
Definitions of fuel, product, destruction and loss for SCO2 recompression system Turbulent flow
1 + 12.7·(Pr 3 1)· fc / 8
5000 Re 5 × 106, Pr = 0.5~2000
components [26]
( )
2
1
fc = 1.8 log Re 1.5
Component Fuel Product Destruction Loss

Reactor 0
A single pair of channels (one cold and one hot channel) is modeled
E4 + QR 1 ( T0
TR ) E5 E4 + QR 1 ( T0
TR ) E5 as a heat exchange unit because of the assumption of uniform flow
turbine E5 E6 WT E5 E6 WT 0 through the PCHE. The heat conduction modeling is simplified as the
MC WMC E2 E1 WMC (E2 E1) 0 heat conduction through the planar wall. The physical properties of
RC WRC E3b E8b WRC (E3b E8b) 0 supercritical carbon dioxide change dramatically when near critical and
HTR E6 E7 E4 E3 E6 E7 (E4 E3) 0 quasi-critical points. It is necessary to divide the heat transfer unit into
LTR E7 E8 E3a E2 E7 E8 (E3a E2 ) 0 N sections along the flow direction to achieve the precise output from
Precooler E8a E1 E8a E1 (E10 E9 ) E10 E9 the calculation performed. As shown in Fig. 3, the overall heat transfer
coefficients of each j segment are separately calculated based on the
mean properties of fluid according to the formula:

1
3. System thermal economic model Uo, j =
1 1 plate
+ +
hc , j hh, j plate (2)
3.1. Heat exchanger model
The heat transfer area of each sub-heat exchanger is calculated by
The CO2 Brayton cycle contains two kinds of heat exchangers (re- the heat transfer rate using the log mean temperature difference
gardless of the heat transfer between CO2 and heat source). One is a method:
regenerator, in which the cold and hot fluids are both carbon dioxide,
and the other is a pre-cooler, in which the hot fluid is carbon dioxide
Qj = U0, j A0, j Tj (3)
and cold fluid is cooling water. In this paper, the printed circuit plate
heat exchanger (PCHE) is selected, which is widely regarded as the (Th2, j + 1 Tc1, j + 1) (Th2, j Tc1, j )
Tj =
most suitable type of heat exchanger for SCO2 power cycle. ln[(Th2, j + 1 Tc1, j + 1)/(Th2, j Tc1, j )] (4)
The heat exchanger is composed of cold and hot flow plates, on
which the flow channels are etched by chemical etching; further, the The channel number is estimated first, and the iterative process is
cold and hot flow plates are alternately superposed and bonded to form carried out until the pressure drop of the heat exchanger meets the
integrated blocks. The flow arrangement is considered as reverse con- requirements by changing the number of channels.
vection, and a semi-circular straight channel of the heat exchanger To obtain the pressure drop of each sub-heat exchanger,
channel is shown in Fig. 2. The PCHE has advantages of compact v 2j
lj
structure, high efficiency and low-pressure reduction along the flow Pj = f j · d ·
eq j 2
direction [24]. The plate is made of stainless steel 304, the dimensions 4 d2
of the plate heat exchanger and the requirements for pressure drop in deq =
the flow channel were listed in Table 4.
8 ( d
2
+d ) (5)
The Heat Exchanger Model is established according to empirical
Darcy friction factor f j , calculated as in Dostal et al. [17] which is
formulas, which can be divided into heat transfer model, pressure drop described in Appendix B.
model and heat exchanger simplified model [17,25]. The Gnielinski
correlation is recommended as a correlation formula of heat transfer Table 6
model for the straight semi-circular channels by Hesselegraves [24] and Economic data for economic modeling [4,29]
is verified by Serrano et al. [32], which is summarized as follows:
Factor Economic data
Laminar flow Nu = 4.089 , Re < 2300)
Number of useful operation years/ n 20
Annual plant operation hours/τ 8000
Interest rate/ir 12%
Transitional flow Nu Maintenance factor/ k 0.06
Nu5000 4.089 Capital recovery factor /CRF ir (1 + ir )n
= 4.089 + (Re 2300) (2300 Re < 5000)
5000 2300 (1 + ir )n 1

5
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

Table 7
the capital investment cost function of system components.
Component Capital investment cost function Original application Year (CEPCI)

Reactor [21] c1 QR , c1 = 283$/kWth Reactor 2003

Turbine [4] ZT1 =
479.34m5 P
ln( 5 )(1 + exp(0.036T5 54.4)) Gas turbine 1996
0.92 T1 P6
MC [4] ZC1 =
71.1m1 P 2
( ) ln(
P2
) Air Compressor 1996
0.9 C 1 P1 P1
RC ZC 2 =
71.1m8b P3
( ) ln(
P3
)
0.9 C 2 P8 P8
HTR [33] 0.59
ZHTR = 2681AHTR PCHE 1986
LTR 0.59
ZLTR = 2681ALTR
Pre 0.59
Zpre = 2681Apre

Table 8 0.374
Exergy cost balance and related auxiliary equations for the components of re- rc
compression cycle. 0.372 2.4
2.5

thermal efficiency
Component Exergy cost balance Auxiliary equations
0.370 2.6
Reactor Nil 2.7
C5 = Cfuel + C4 + ZR
Turbine
0.368 2.8
C6 + CW , T1 = C5 + ZT 1 C5
=
C6
E5 E6 2.9
MC C2 = C1 + CW , C1 + ZC1 CW , C1 CW , T 1 0.366 3
=
WC1 WT 1
3.1
RC C3b = C8b + CW ,C 2 + ZC 2 CW , C 2 CW , T 1
WC 2
=
WT 1
0.364 3.2
C8b = (1 x ) C8 3.3
HTR C4 + C7 = C6 + C3 + ZHTR
0.362 3.4
C3 = C3a + C3b
C6 C7 3.5
=
E6 E7 0.360
LTR C8 + C3a = C2 + C7 + ZLTR C8 C7 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.99
=
E8 E7 RPR
Pre C10 + C1 = C9 + C8a + Zpre C9 = C10 = 0 (a)
C8a = xC8 0.424
rc
0.422
3.8
3.2. Exergoeconomic analysis 0.420 3.9
thermal efficiency

0.418 4
4.1
The objective of exergoeconomic analysis is to calculate the cost per
0.416 4.2
unit exergy of product streams by revealing the cost formation process
0.414 4.3
and then evaluate the system more reasonably. It’s widely used in the 4.4
analysis of thermal systems such as refrigeration and power generation. 0.412 4.5
The specific exergy costing (SPECO) method is adopted to analyze 0.410 4.6
exergoeconomic [26]. This method is based on linear model and can 4.7
0.408
solve the equations quickly by a matrix, which includes three steps 4.8
[27]: 0.406 4.9

0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65

(1) Thermodynamic properties and exergy values are calculated for
RPR
each state point in the system.
(b)
(2) Fuel, product and loss of exergies are defined for each system rc
component. 0.432 2.7
(3) Cost and auxiliary equations are identified for each system com- 2.8
ponent. 0.428 2.9
thermal efficiency

3
0.424 3.1
Neglecting the kinetic and the potential exergies, the total exergy of
3.2
a stream is considered to be the sum of physical and chemical exergies.
0.420 3.3
In this present work, the chemical exergy of the working fluid is ob- 3.4
served to be the same at each state point in the system, therefore it has 3.5
0.416
not been taken into account. The total exergy and the physical exergy 3.6
are calculated as follows: 3.7
0.412 3.8
E = Eph + Ech (6) 3.9
0.408
Eph = m [(h h0) T0 (s s0)] (7) 0.48 0.56 0.64 0.72 0.80 0.88 0.96 1.04
RPR
In exergoeconomic analysis, it is essential to define the fuel, product (c)
and loss to reveal the actual production of each system component. The
Fig. 4. Influences of cycle pressure ratio and RPR on cycle efficiency for (a) pre-
fuel represents the consumed exergy to generate the product, and the compression cycle; (b) partial cooling cycle; (c) intercooling cycle.
product means the desired exergy output from a component [28].

6
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

0.44 9.0 Where Cw, k andCq, k denote the cost rate associated with the output
1.0 work of the component and the cost rate related to the input heat en-
0.43 8.8 ergy of the component, respectively. Besides, the cost rate can be ex-
0.9
8.6 pressed by the average cost per unit exergy:
0.42
0.8 RPR
thermal efficiency
8.4 C = cE (13)
Pintermadiate 0.41
0.7 8.2 Then the cost balance equation is expressed below:
0.6 0.40 8.0
(cout Eout )k+c w, k Wk = (cin Ein)k+cq, k Eq, k + Zk (14)
0.5 0.39 7.8
The term Zk is defined as the sum of cost rates related to capital
7.6 investment, operating and maintenance, which is further expressed as
0.4 0.38
7.4 Zk = Zk + Zk
CI OM
(15)
2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8
rc CI
where ) Zk represents the annual levelized capital investment
CRF
Zk =(
(a) OM
0.44 9.0 for the kth component and Zk = k Zk indicates the annual levelized
1.0 operating and maintenance cost for the kth component. Furthermore,
0.42 8.8 the detailed factors used for calculating Zk are listed in Table 6.
0.9 From Tables 7 and 8, the capital investment cost function, exergetic
0.40 8.6
cost rate balance and auxiliary equations for each system component
0.8 RPR 0.38 8.4
thermal efficiency (SCO2 recompression cycle) can be obtained. The cost rates for all ex-
0.7 Pintermadiate 0.36 8.2 ergy streams can be obtained by solving the linear equations. Cooling
water is regarded as a free resource in the environment, and therefore,
0.6 0.34 8.0
the cost rate of the cooling water entering and outflowing the pre-cooler
0.32 7.8 is ignored, i.e, C9 = C10 = 0 [20,30,31].
0.5
The exergoeconomic factor fk = Zk /(Zk + CD, k + CL, k ) is used to
0.30 7.6
0.4 identify the significant cost resource (capital investment, operation and
0.28 7.4 maintenance cost or exergy destruction cost), where CD, k = cF , k· ED, k ,
2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 CL, k = cF , k ·EL, k , and cF , k represents average costs per unit exergy of fuel
rc
calculated by cF , k = CF , k /EF , k .
(b) The total product unit cost of the system products is the objective
Fig. 5. Variation of optimum efficiency and corresponding RPR and Pintermaniate function of thermoeconomic analysis in this paper, which is written as
values with pressure ratio for (a) intercooling cycle; (b) partial cooling cycle [4]
when the turbine inlet temperature is 550 °C. NK
k=1
Zk + Cfuel
cP, tot = NP
For each component, exergy fuel EF , k is expressed as i=1
EP, i (16)

EF , k = EP, k + ED, k + EL, k (8) where NK and NP are respectively the number of the system compo-
nent and exergy product, and Cfuel denotes the fuel cost rate.
WithEP, k , ED, k , EL, k respectively being exergy product, exergy de-
struction, and exergy loss for the kth component. 4. Results and discussion
Assuming the heat source temperature constant, the exergy input to
the cycle is obtained by 4.1. Thermodynamic analysis

Ein = QR 1 ( T0
TR ) (9) The influences of the cycle pressure ratio and maximum cycle
temperature (turbine inlet temperature) on the thermal efficiency of six
The fraction of exergy irreversibility of the cycle component is ex- SCO2 Brayton cycles are investigated in the present work. Besides, the
pressed as intermediate pressure ratio RPR also affects the cycle efficiency for the
pre-compression cycle, partial cooling cycle and intercooling cycle.
Icomponent = EI Ein (10) There exists an optimal cycle pressure ratio rc as well as an appropriate
PRP to make the cycle efficiency maximum.
With the EI being the sum of exergy destruction and exergy loss, i.e.
EI = ED + EL and Ein being the exergy provided by the reactor. The results in Fig. 4(a) indicate that when the RPR value is closer to
The second law efficiency of the cycle can be defined by 1, the cycle reaches the higher efficiency. At this time, the pre-com-
pression cycle is closer to the simple regenerative cycle with two re-
ex = (WT WC1 WC 2)/ Ein = 1 Icomponent (11) generators (dual regenerative cycle). Thus, considering the simple
structure, this paper chooses dual regenerative cycle for further re-
Taking the SCO2 recompression cycle as an example, the exergy search.
fuel, exergy product, exergy destruction and exergy loss for each cycle Fig. 4(b) and (c) show that the RPR corresponding to the optimal
component are calculated as shown in Table 5. efficiency decreases with the increase of pressure ratio for partial
Cost balance equations are generally used to calculate the exergy cooling cycle and intercooling cycle, which can be illustrated in Fig. 5.
costing for the individual component. The cost balance equation for For Fig. 5, the ordinates axis respectively represent the intermediate
each system component is defined as [4] pressure ratio RPR (black curve), cycle thermal efficiency (red curve)
Cout , k+Cw, k = Cin, k+Cq, k + Zk and Pintermaniate value, i.e. the inlet pressure of the main compressor
(12)
(blude curve) and abscissa axis is cycle total pressure ratios rc. Fig. 5

7
D. Luo and D. Huang
Fig. 6. Relationship between cycle efficiency and pressure ratio at different turbine inlet temperatures for (a) simple regenerative cycle; (b) dual regenerative cycle
(c) recompression cycle; (d) intercooling cycle; (e) partial cooling cycle.
shows the optimum thermal efficiency and corresponding RPR for the
intercooling cycle and partial cooling cycle at different pressure ratios
rc when the turbine inlet temperature is 550 ℃. It can be concluded
that, for the intercooling cycle, when rc is less than 2.7, the closer the
intermediate pressure ratio RPR value is to 1, the higher the efficiency
will be. At that time the intercooling cycle is close to the recompression
cycle. Then the corresponding optimal RPR decreases gradually with
the increase of rc. However, the converted Pintermaniate value is basically
8
Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649
maintained near 7.6 MPa, which indicates that the best cycle efficiency
can be achieved when the inlet parameters of the main compressor
approach the quasi-critical point. This rule is also applicable to the
partial cooling cycle. The pressure of fluid entering the main com-
pressor 2 and recompressing compressor is maintained at
7.62–7.72 MPa.
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between cycle efficiency and pressure
ratio of five SCO2 cycle configurations. The values in the red box
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

0.44
0.42
0.40
thermal efficiency

0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32 simple regenerative cycle
dual regenerative cycle
0.30 recompression cycle
0.28 intercooling cycle
partial cooling cycle
0.26
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Fig. 10. The relationship between total product unit cost and pressure ratio for
rc 5 SCO2 Brayton cycles at the turbine inlet temperature of 550 ℃.
Fig. 7. The effect of pressure ratio on the thermal efficiency of five SCO2
Brayton cycles. correspond to the best efficiency. For different cycles, there is an op-
timal pressure ratio at different turbine inlet temperatures to maximize
cycle efficiency. At different turbine inlet temperatures, the re-
compression cycle can achieve the highest efficiency or approach the
optimum efficiency within the pressure ratio range of 2.6–2.8. How-
ever, the pressure ratios corresponding to optimal efficiency of simple
regenerative cycle, dual regenerative cycle, partial cooling cycle and
intercooling cycle increases with the increase of turbine inlet tem-
perature. The high pressure ratio has less effect on the cycle efficiency
at high turbine inlet temperature.
Fig. 7 compares the changes of efficiency of five SCO2 Brayton cy-
cles with the pressure ratio when the turbine inlet temperature is fixed
at 550℃, from which it can be observed that in the range of pressure
ratio studied, the intercooling cycle always maintains the highest effi-
ciency compared with other cycles, and when the pressure ratio is
higher than 2.7, the efficiency changes with the pressure ratio by less
than 1%. The efficiency of the recompression cycle reaches the max-
imum when the pressure ratio is 2.64. If the pressure ratio is higher or
Fig. 8. The effect of maximum cycle temperature on the thermal efficiency of lower than 2.64, the cycle efficiency changes sharply with the pressure
five SCO2 Brayton cycles. ratio. The efficiency of partial cooling cycles at high pressure ratio is
superior. When the pressure ratio is greater than 3, the efficiency of
partial cooling cycles is higher than that of the recompression cycle, but
at a low-pressure ratio, the efficiency of the partial cooling cycle is even
lower than that of the dual regenerative cycle.
Fig. 8 exhibits the effect of maximum cycle temperature on the
thermal efficiency of several cycles at optimal design pressure ratio. It is
shown that the cycle efficiency increases with the increase of the
maximum cycle temperature. When the temperature is less than 500℃,
the cycle efficiencies of several cycles are ranked as follows: inter-
cooling cycle > recompression cycle > partial cooling cycle > dual
regenerative cycle > simple regenerative cycle; nevertheless, when
the temperature is higher than 500℃, the efficiency of the recompres-
sion cycle becomes lower than that of the partial cooling cycle, and
with the increase of temperature, the difference between the two effi-
ciencies becomes more and more significant. The efficiency of inter-
cooling cycle always keeps the highest in the range of maximum cycle
temperature studied in this paper. The efficiency of the partial cooling
cycle is slightly lower than that of the intercooling cycle by 0.7%–1%.
When the heat source transfers heat to CO2, the temperature rise of
CO2 varies with the maximum cycle temperature, as shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. Relationship between temperature rise of SCO2 after heat absorption The results show that the partial cooling cycle has a more substantial
from heat source at different inlet temperature of turbine.
temperature change, followed by simple regenerative cycle. The re-
compression cycle has the narrowest temperature change, 35℃-83℃

9
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

Table 9
The exergoeconomic variables of cycle components at the turbine inlet temperature of 550℃.
Rec.C
Components COD TOD

ED, k + EL, k (MW) CD, k + CL, k ($/h) Zk ($/h) fk % ED, k + EL, k (MW) CD, k + CL, k ($/h) Zk ($/h) fk %

reactor 38.95 1168.827 2057.538 63.77 38.74 1169.828 2057.538 63.75

turbine 8.12 279.77 765.78 73.24 8.37 289.247 787.96 73.15
MC 1.86 72.2 393.1 83.94 2.02 81.957 411.887 83.4
RC 2.12 85.76 197.55 69.73 2.22 90.16 205.227 69.47
HTR 17.52 603.28 7.266 1.19 15.67 541.7 7.435 1.35
LTR 12.94 445.64 8.179 1.8 12.76 441.218 8.166 1.817
pre 10.51 361.78 15.12 4.01 11.50 397.365 14.092 3.42
total 92.02 3018.258 3444.533 53.3 91.28 3011.475 3492.305 53.7

Inter.Cool.C
reactor 39.06 1170 2057.538 63.75 40.06 1217.69 2057.538 62.82
turbine 8.74 300.65 819.37 73.16 9.92 349.24 918.02 72.44
MC1 0.175 7.08 96.914 57.77 0.86 35.74 44.56 73.62
MC2 1.91 77.31 392.03 83.53 1.65 68.49 343.21 83.36
RC 2.45 99.44 238.93 70.61 3.155 130.9 365.29 55.49
HTR 13.68 470.70 7.48 1.56 8.35 294.05 7.66 2.54
LTR 12.8 440.44 8.62 1.92 13.0 457.71 9.1 1.95
Pre 7.98 274.78 7.20 2.32 5.92 208.48 4.66 2.01
Pre1 1.28 46.31 8.26 10.84 3.06 114.03 8.47 5.47
total 88.075 2886.71 3636.387 55.75 85.975 2876.33 3758.508 56.65

Part.Cool.C
reactor 43.56 1234.8 2057.538 72.99 44.12 1272.015 2057.538 61.8
turbine 8.75 298.45 806.54 62.49 10.027 348.8 910.44 72.3
MC1 1.551 62.6 82.59 56.88 2.63 108.55 156.6 59.06
MC2 1.39 56.1 293.33 83.94 1.288 53.127 267.8 83.45
RC 1.666 67.26 175.11 72.25 2.03 83.768 196.52 70.11
HTR 17.23 587.44 6.269 1.06 10.7 372.2 6.734 1.78
LTR 6.91 235.56 7.32 3.01 7.066 345.79 8.244 3.25
Pre 3.42 153.43 11.05 6.72 5.774 216.75 10.867 4.77
Pre1 5.68 214.34 4.886 2.23 6.375 221.76 4.474 1.98
total 90.157 2909.98 3444.633 54.21 90.01 3022.76 3619.217 54.49

Fig. 11. Exergy irreversbilities of three SCO2 cycles in TOD case.
less than partial cooling cycle, limiting its application in gas turbine
waste heat recovery, which also indirectly proves that the recompres-
sion cycle is highly regenerative.
4.2. Thermal economic analysis
In this paper, the total product unit cost is used as the evaluation
index of the thermal economic performance of the SCO2 cycle. Fig. 10
shows the relationship between the total product unit cost of five SCO2
Brayton cycles with the pressure ratio at the turbine inlet temperature
of 550℃, where the RPR corresponds to the value maximizing the cycle
efficiency at a fixed rc. In the figure, the arrow represents the lowest
total product unit cost and the corresponding cycle efficiency, and the
red box represents the best efficiency and the corresponding total
product unit cost.
The Fig. 10 presents that the pressure ratio corresponding to the
minimum total product unit cost is inconsistent with the pressure ratio
under the optimal cycle thermal efficiency. However, the pressure ra-
tios corresponding to the minimum total product unit cost and the
optimal cycle efficiency are basically the same for the recompression
cycle. The total product unit cost of the simple regenerative cycle is
significantly higher than those of the other four cycles, and the total
product unit cost at its optimum efficiency differs most from the
minimum unit cost (0.73$/GJ), followed by double regenerative cycle
(0.338$/GJ), intercooling cycle (0.174$/GJ) and partial cooling cycle
(0.125$/GJ). There is little difference in total product unit cost among
recompression cycle, intercooling cycle and partial cooling cycle under
the premise of optimal cycle efficiency. By comparison, the re-
compression cycle performs best from the view of thermal economic at
thermal optimization design condition.
In two cases of TOD and COD, the exergoeconomic variables of
cycle components for different SCO2 cycle layouts are listed in Table 9.
The exergoeconomic factor fk is high for main compressor, recom-
pressing compressor, reactor and turbine, which means the major costs
of them originate from capital investment, operation and maintenance
cost. It is anticipated to understand, whether it is economically feasible
to reduce the capital investment for these components at the expense of
the component efficiency. The fk is small for HTR and LTR, and the
minimum value is obtained for recompression cycle. Thus, whether it is
beneficial to improve the effectiveness of heat exchanger.

10
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

0.90

0.88 0.4207
0.4125
0.86

compressor efficiency
0.4044
0.84
0.3962
0.82 0.3881
0.3800
0.80
0.3718
0.78 0.3637
0.76 0.3555
0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92
turbine efficiency
(a)

0.90

0.88 0.4250
0.4151

compressor efficiency
0.86
0.4052
0.84
0.3952
0.82 0.3852
0.3753
0.80
0.3654
0.78 0.3554
0.76 0.3455
0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92
turbine efficiency
(b)

0.90
0.4339
0.88 0.4238
0.86
compressor efficiency

0.4137
0.84 0.4036
0.3935
0.82
0.3834
0.80
0.3733
0.78 0.3632
0.76 0.3531
0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92
turbine efficiency
(c)

Fig. 12. Effect of isentropic efficiency on cycle performance for (a) re- Fig. 13. Contour map of cycle efficiency changing with efficiencies of turbine
compression cycle; (b) intercooling cycle; (c) partial cooling cycle. and compressor for (a) recompression cycle; (b) partial cooling cycle; (c) in-
tercooling cycle.

In Fig. 11, the largest exergy irreversbilities of three SCO2 cycles all
take place on the nuclear reactor and the maximum occurs in partial
cooling cycle because of the largest temperature difference in Fig. 9.
The exergy irreversibilities occur in HTR for recompression cycle and
partial cooling cycle are higher than those in LTR. However, for the
intercooling cycle, the opposite results are obtained. Besides, by com-
paring the exergy irreversibilities of cycle components, it will be found
that the degree of influence of individual component on cycle thermal
performance, which will be discussed in Section 4.3.

11
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

0.88 10.13 9.930 10.13

9.730
9.530
0.86
9.330
compressor efficiency

0.84 9.130

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90

turbine efficiency
(a)

0.88 10.12 9.910 9.702 10.12

9.494
9.286
0.86
compressor efficiency

0.84 9.078

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90

turbine efficiency
(b)

0.88 10.14 9.684 9.910 10.14

9.458
9.232
0.86
compressor efficiency

9.006
0.84

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90

turbine efficiency
(c)
Fig. 14. Effect of isentropic efficiency on total product unit cost for (a) re-
compression cycle; (b)partial cooling cycle; (c) intercooling cycle.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
Considering the apparent advantages of the intercooling cycle, re-
compression cycle and partial cooling cycle, the influence of com-
pressor and turbine efficiencies and effectiveness of heat exchanger on
Fig. 15. Effect of heat exchanger effectiveness on cycle efficiency and total
product unit cost.
the cycle efficiency and total product unit cost at an optimal pressure
ratio in TOD case are investigated when the turbine inlet temperature is
550℃, which is briefly illustrated in the Figs. 12–16.
From Figs. 12 and 13, it can be concluded that the effect of turbine
isentropic efficiency is more predominant than the compressor isen-
tropic efficiency on the cycle thermal efficiency. The efficiencies of

12
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

is no more than 88%. For fixed compressor efficiency of 89%, the

Fig. 16. Effect of effectivenesses of LTR and HTR on cycle efficiency and total
product unit cost.
turbine and compressor have a more significant impact on the perfor-
mance of intercooling cycle and partial cooling cycle than that of re-
compression cycle. The intercooling cycle efficiency is superior to the
partial cooling cycle for the given ranges of study but slightly lower
than that of recompression cycle at low efficiencies of turbine and
compressor. However, the efficiency of partial cooling cycle is prefer-
able to that of recompression cycle only in the range of high efficiencies
of turbine and compressor range. The performances of individual
compressor have different effects on the cycle efficiency. Results clearly
show that main compressor and recompressing compressor have similar
effects on recompression cycle, and the impact of the recompressing
compressor is most significant on the intercooling cycle efficiency,
whereas main compressor1 plays a more critical role to effect the per-
formance of the partial cooling cycle.
From the thermodynamic point of view, the performance of inter-
cooling cycle is more prominent.
The effect of isentropic efficiency of the turbine and compressors on
total product unit cost for the fixed other parameters at mean values is
shown in Fig. 14. The total product unit cost decreases first and then
increases with the increase of turbine efficiency, and it increases
monotonously with the increase of compressor efficiency. When the
turbine efficiency is around 86%, the cycle has the lowest total product
unit cost, and when the compressor efficiency exceeds 86%, the total
product unit cost of the cycle increases significantly with the increasing
rate of compressor efficiency. Comparing the three cycles, the total
product unit cost of the intercooling cycle is the lowest in the range of
turbine efficiency studied (80%–89%) when the compressor efficiency
partial cooling cycle is cost-effective. It follows that the intercooling
cycle is more economically attractive in a broad spectrum of isentropic
efficiency cycle components.
High fk values of turbine and compressor indicate that a decrement
of investment costs will be achieved with lower component efficiency.
It’s summarized that when the turbine efficiency is reduced from 90%
to 86%, the total product unit cost is reduced by 0.696$/GJ with an
efficiency loss of 1.655% for recompression cycle, and if the compressor
efficiency is reduced from 89% to 86%, the total product unit cost is
reduced by 0.985$/GJ at the expense of a cycle efficiency reduction of
0.447%. So it is a more effective way to reduce the efficiency of com-
pressor to improve the cycle economic performance. The conclusion
also applies to partial cooling cycle and intercooling cycle. The results
are summarized in Table 10.
The effect of effectiveness of individual heat exchanger on cycle
efficiency and total product unit cost for the fixed other parameters
under optimal efficiency condition is shown in Fig. 15. As the effec-
tiveness of the heat exchanger increases, the cycle efficiency increases
and the total product unit cost decreases. For the recompression cycle
and partial cooling cycle, the cycle efficiency and total product unit cost
are more affected by the HTR, but they are more sensitive to LTR for the
intercooling cycle. Fig. 16 considers the influence of effectiveness of
both HTR and LTR on cycle efficiency and total product unit cost, which
indicates that the two regenerators have the most significant impact on
the recompression cycle, followed by the intercooling cycle. In the
range studied, the efficiency of the intercooling cycle is always the
highest, and the cycle efficiency of the recompression cycle is higher
than that of the partial cooling cycle when effectiveness of HTR and
LTR is higher than 0.9. From the perspective of total product unit cost,
the recompression cycle is economically more desired when effective-
ness of the heat exchanger exceeds 0.86.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the effects of various operating and design parameters
on the performance of the six SCO2 Brayton cycles have been analyzed
in terms of thermodynamics and exergoeconomic. The pressure ratio is
optimized to obtain a more suitable cycle with highest efficiency or
lowest cost when the maximum system pressure is fixed at 20 MPa.
Some main results are shown as follows at the turbine inlet temperature
of 550℃:
(1) In the case of TOD and COD, the simple regenerative cycle has the
lowest efficiency and the highest cost, followed by the double re-
generative cycle. The thermal efficiency of the intercooling cycle is
more advantageous, while its total product unit cost is comparable
to that of the recompression cycle and partial cooling cycle.
(2) The sensitivities of the turbine and compressor efficiencies to cycle

Table 10
The cycle efficiency and total product unit cost corresponding to different component efficiencies
Rec.C Inter.Cool.C Part.Cool.C

component ηis ηth /% cp,tot/$/GJ ηth /% cp,tot/$/GJ ηth /% cp,tot/$/GJ

turbine 90% 41.791 10.921 43.082 11.042 42.211 10.941

86% 40.136 10.225 41.236 10.25 40.394 10.126
difference 1.655 0.696 1.846 0.792 1.817 0.815
compressor 89% 41.791 10.921 43.082 11.042 42.211 10.941
86% 41.344 9.936 42.435 9.8998 41.564 9.977
difference 0.447 0.985 0.647 1.1422 0.647 0.964

13
D. Luo and D. Huang
thermal efficiency and total product unit cost are analyzed under
the optimum pressure ratio of TOD case. The influence of turbine
isentropic efficiency is more predominant than the compressor
isentropic efficiency on the cycle thermal efficiency for three cycles.
(3) The total product unit cost decreases first and then increases with
the increase of turbine efficiency, and when the turbine efficiency is
around 86%, it is observed to startr to decline until the the
minimum values attained The total product unit cost of the cycle
increases significantly with the increasing rate of compressor effi-
ciency if the compressor efficiency exceeds 86%. The results prove
that it is cost-effective to reduce the capital investment for the
compressor at the expense of less component efficiency, especially
for intercooling cycle.
(4) It is identified that the cycle efficiency and total product unit cost
are more affected by the HTR for the recompression cycle and
partial cooling cycle, but more sensitive to LTR for the intercooling
cycle. Furthermore, the two regenerators have the greatest impact
on the recompression cycle, followed by the intercooling cycle.
When effectiveness of the heat exchanger exceeds 0.86, the re-
compression cycle has the lowest cost.
(5) In the range of pressure ratio and maximum cycle temperature
studied, the intercooling cycle always maintains the highest effi-
ciency compared with other cycles. In the case of TOD and COD, the
Appendix A
The T-s diagrams of SCO2 Brayton cycles
14
Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649
intercooling cycle still has comparable total product unit cost to
recompression cycle, and it is more economically attractive with
slightly lower compressor efficiency.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dan Luo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data cura-
tion, Writing - original draft preparation, Writing - review & editing.
Diangui Huang: Visualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing -
review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No.51536006) and supported by Shanghai
Science and Technology Committee with Grant No. 17060502300.
D. Luo and D. Huang Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649

Appendix B

The friction factor fi is determined from the following correlation

The relative roughness rel = / d
rel < 0.007 Re0 = 2000; Re1 = 2000 ;
rel 0.007 Re0=754e0.0065/ rel
Re1=1160(1/ rel )0.11
All rel Re2=2090(1/ rel )0.0635
Re3=441.19 rel 1.1772
Re < Re0 (Laminar flow) f=
64
Re
Re > Re0 &Re < Re1transition regime Ⅰ rel < 0.007 f = 0.032 + 3.895 × 10 7·(Re 2000)
0.007 f = 4.4·Re 0.595 e 0.00275/ rel
rel
Re > Re1&Re < Re2 transition regime Ⅱ f = 0.11·( rel + 68/Re2)0.25
2

1
Do fn =
2.51
2·log10 ( + rel
Re2· f 3.7

fn f
if abs < 0.01
fn
f = fn
end
if rel < 0.007
f1 = 0.032
f2 = f
0.0109
else f1 = 0.0758 0.286
rel
f2 = f
end
f = (f2 f1 )· e (0.0017·(Re2 Re))2 + f1
Re > Re2 &Re < Re3 transition regime III f = 0.11·( rel + 68/Re)0.25
2

1
Do fn = 2.51
2·log10 ( + rel
Re· f 3.7

fn f
if abs < 0.01
fn
f = fn
end
Re > Re3 Stabilized turbulent flow f = 0.11·( rel + 68/Re3)0.25
2

1
Do fn = 2.51
2·log10 ( + rel
Re3· f 3.7

fn f
if abs < 0.01
fn
f = fn
end

References Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing; 2017.

[1] Ahn Y, Bae SJ, Kim M, et al. Review of supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and
current status of research and development. Nucl Eng Technol 2015;47(6):647–61.
[2] Dostal V, Hejzlar P, Driscoll MJ. The supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle: compar-
ison to other advanced power cycles. Nucl Technol 2006;154(3):283–301.
[3] Nami H, Mahmoudi SMS, Nemati A. Exergy, economic and environmental impact as-
sessment and optimization of a novel cogeneration system including a gas turbine, a
supercritical CO2 and an organic Rankine cycle (GT-HRSG/SCO2). Appl Therm Eng
2017;110:1315–30.
[4] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran MJ. Thermal Design and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons;
1995.
[5] Cho SK, Kim M, Baik S, et al. Investigation of the bottoming cycle for high efficiency
combined cycle gas turbine system with supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle[C]//
ASME turbo expo 2015: turbine technical conference and exposition. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection; 2015.
[6] Kim MS, Ahn Y, Kim B, et al. Study on the supercritical CO2 power cycles for landfill gas
firing gas turbine bottoming cycle. Energy 2016;111:893–909.
[7] Sanchez D, de Escalona JMM, Chacartegui R, et al. A comparison between molten car-
bonate fuel cells based hybrid systems using air and supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton
cycles with state of the art technology. J Power Sources 2011;196(9):4347–54.
[8] Bae SJ, Ahn Y, Lee J, et al. Various supercritical carbon dioxide cycle layouts study for
molten carbonate fuel cell application. J Power Sources 2014;270:608–18.
[9] Reyes-Belmonte MA, Sebastián A, Romero M, et al. Optimization of a recompression
supercritical carbon dioxide cycle for an innovative central receiver solar power plant.
Energy 2016;112:17–27.
[10] Reyes-Belmonte MA, Sebastián A, González-Aguilar J, et al. Performance comparison of
different thermodynamic cycles for an innovative central receiver solar power plant. AIP
[11] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Neises TW, et al. Thermodynamic study of advanced supercritical carbon
dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power systems. J Sol Energy Eng
2013;135(4):041007.
[12] Novales D, Erkoreka A, De la Peña V, et al. Sensitivity analysis of supercritical CO2 power
cycle energy and exergy efficiencies regarding cycle component efficiencies for con-
centrating solar power. Energy Convers Manage 2019;182:430–50.
[13] Harvego E A, McKellar M G. Optimization and comparison of direct and indirect super-
critical carbon dioxide power plant cycles for nuclear applications[C]//ASME 2011 in-
ternational mechanical engineering congress and exposition. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, 2011: 75-81.
[14] Moisseytsev A, Sienicki JJ. Investigation of alternative layouts for the supercritical carbon
dioxide Brayton cycle for a sodium-cooled fast reactor. Nucl Eng Des
2009;239(7):1362–71.
[15] Moisseytsev A, Sienicki JJ. Transient accident analysis of a supercritical carbon dioxide
Brayton cycle energy converter coupled to an autonomous lead-cooled fast reactor. Nucl
Eng Des 2008;238(8):2094–105.
[16] Yoon HJ, Ahn Y, Lee JI, et al. Potential advantages of coupling supercritical CO2 Brayton
cycle to water cooled small and medium size reactor. Nucl Eng Des
2012;245(none):223–32.
[17] Dostal V, Driscoll MJ, Hejzlar P. A Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycle for Next Generation
Nuclear Reactors. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Nuclear
Engineering; 2004.
[18] Jixiang Liao, Xingye Liu, Zhengqun, et al. Characteristic analysis of supercritical CO2
power generation cycle. J. Eng. Thermal Energy Power 2016;05:40–6.
[19] Sarkar J. Second law analysis of supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle. Energy
2009;34(9):1172–8.
[20] Wang X, Dai Y. Exergoeconomic analysis of utilizing the transcritical CO2 cycle and the
ORC for a recompression supercritical CO2 cycle waste heat recovery: a comparative

15
D. Luo and D. Huang
study. Appl Energy 2016;170:193–207.
[21] Schultz, K.R., et al. Large-scale production of hydrogen by nuclear energy for the hy-
drogen economy[J]. Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports, 2003.
[22] Neises T, Turchi C. A comparison of supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle config-
urations with an emphasis on CSP applications. Energy Procedia 2014;49:1187–96.
[23] Sarkar J, Bhattacharyya S. Optimization of recompression S-CO2 power cycle with re-
heating. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50(8):1939–45.
[24] J. Hesselgreaves. Compact Heat Exchangers, Selection, Design, and Operation[M].
Pergamon 1st Edition, 2001.
[25] Carstens N. Control Strategies for Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Conversion
Systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2007.
[26] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: A systematic and general methodology for calcu-
lating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31(8–9):1257–89.
[27] Tsatsaronis G. Definitions and nomenclature in exergy analysis and exergoeconomics.
Energy 2007;32(4SI):249–53.
[28] Baghernejad A, Yaghoubi M. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of an Integrated
16
Energy Conversion and Management 209 (2020) 112649
Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) using genetic algorithm. Energy Convers Manage
2011;52(5):2193–203.
[29] Vieira LS, Donatelli JL, Cruz ME. Mathematical exergoeconomic optimization of a com-
plex cogeneration plant aided by a professional process simulator. Appl Therm Eng
2006;26(5–6):654–62.
[30] Zare V, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M. An exergoeconomic investigation of waste heat recovery
from the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) employing an ammonia–water
power/cooling cycle. Energy 2013;61:397–409.
[31] Wang X, Yang Y, Zheng Y, et al. Exergy and exergoeconomic analyses of a supercritical
CO2 cycle for a cogeneration application. Energy 2017;119:971–82.
[32] Serrano IP, Cantizano A, Linares JI, et al. Modeling and sizing of the heat exchangers of a
new supercritical CO2 Brayton power cycle for energy conversion for fusion reactors.
Fusion Eng Des 2014;89(9–10):1905–8.
[33] Zhou G, Wu E, Tu S. Techno-economic study on compact heat exchangers. Int J Energy
Res 2008;32(12SI):1119–27.