Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Thermo-economic performance comparison of two configurations of T

combined steam and organic Rankine cycle with steam Rankine cycle driven
by Al2O3-therminol VP-1 based PTSC
Hamed Habibia, Mohammad Zoghia, Ata Chitsazb, Koroush Javaherdehc, , Mojtaba Ayazpourd
⁎

a
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
b
Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
c
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
d
Faculty of Engineering, Jahrom University, Jahrom, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The main goal of this study is to compare thermo-economic performance of three configurations of power
Rankine cycle generation system driven by solar heat source in which nanofluid based PTSC is used. Configuration 1 presents
Solar energy simple steam Rankine cycle (SRC) and configuration 2 and 3 show combined SRC with organic Rankine cycle
Nanofluid (ORC) in two different conditions. In second configuration, ORC absorbs heat from SRC condenser and in third
Thermo-economic
one, ORC absorbs heat in ORC evaporator from remain heat of SRC evaporator exiting nanofluid. The effects of
various parameters such as concentration of nanoparticles, SRC evaporation temperature and SRC condensation
temperature are investigated on output parameters and each configuration is optimized by using 4 different
organic fluids (R113, n-hexane, cyclohexane, toluene) in ORC. After parametric analysis and performance
comparison in base case, components performance and comparison of various configurations are examined at
optimal point. Comparison of applying organic fluids in ORC related to configurations 2 and 3 shows that
toluene has the best performance. Nanoparticles concentration for all 3 configurations is equal to zero at the
selected optimal point and configurations 1 and 2 have relatively similar thermo-economic performance.
Configuration 3 has the most net power output (4293 kW); however, it has the weakest thermo-economic per-
formance due to the highest total cost rate (1434 $/h) and less energy and exergy efficiencies.

1. Introduction
High energy demand is going to raise a challenge caused by popu-
lation and industry growth which requires more energy generation.
Therefore, usage of fossil fuels increases while their resources are going
to reduce continuously. These days, renewable energies such as wind,
geothermal and solar energies are considered as proper alternatives of
conventional fossil fuels to solve the mentioned problem. Among these
renewable energies, solar energy is the best option for heat and elec-
tricity generation and many thermal systems which are based on solar
energy are designed for various applications such as cooling, power
generation, house air condition and water heating (Abdelghani-Idrissi
et al., 2018; Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2017a; Kerme et al., 2017).
Solar collectors, which are a kind of heat exchanger, are used to
exploit solar energy. In collectors, solar thermal energy is transferred to
heat transfer fluid which flows inside collector. The obtained high
temperature fluid can be used as the driver of different thermodynamic
cycles (Desai et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2011). Parabolic trough solar col-
lector (PTSC) is employed to obtain and use sun heat for medium or
high temperature fluids. It is an appropriate selection of various ex-
isting solar collectors, due to their higher efficiency with acceptable
cost against other types of collectors (Cabrera et al., 2013). Various
studies focused on the performance of this type of collector and it was
employed as the driver of different power generation cycles like steam
Rankine cycle (SRC) (Al-Sulaiman, 2013), Kalina cycle (Ashouri et al.,
2015), organic Rankine cycle (ORC) (Desai and Bandyopadhyay, 2016),
cooling generation systems (Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2018a) and hybrid
fossil-solar power cycle (Behar et al., 2014). However, solar-driven
systems could not be so popular due to cheaper conventional and non-
clean energy systems (Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2017b). In recent years,
one of the performance improvement ways of solar collector is to use
nanofluids as the heat transfer fluid which increases collector thermal
efficiency (Elsheikh et al., 2017; Leong et al., 2016). Nanofluids are the
base fluids (water or thermal oil) in which dispersed metallic

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Javaherdeh@guilan.ac.ir (K. Javaherdeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.01.011
Received 7 August 2018; Received in revised form 28 December 2018; Accepted 3 January 2019
Available online 14 January 2019
0038-092X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Nomenclature con condenser

cond conduction heat transfer
A area (m2) conv convection heat transfer
Bo boiling number D destruction
c cost per exergy unit ($/GJ) e exit
CRF capital recovery factor eva evaporator
cp specific heat (kJ/kg. K) ex exergy
C cost rate ($/h) f fluid
D diameter (m) fu fuel
E enhancement factor gi glass envelope inside surface
Ex exergy flow rate (kW) go glass envelope outside surface
f exergoeconomic factor HTF heat transfer fluid
fr friction factor i inlet
GWP global warming potential in inside
Gt mass velocity (kg/s. m2) l saturated liquid
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) nf nanofluid
h fg latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) np nanoparticle
i interest rate o outside
Ib solar radiation intensity (W /m2) ORC organic Rankine cycle
k thermal conductivity (W/m. K) p pump
m mass flow rate (kg/s) pi receiver pipe inside surface
M molar mass (kg/kmol) po receiver pipe outside surface
n years of system operation pr product
N annual number of system operating hours (h) rad radiation heat transfer
Nu Nusselt number s sky
ODP ozone depletion potential sh shell
P Pressure (kPa) SRC steam Rankine cycle
Pr Prandtl number sub subcooled
PTSC parabolic trough solar collector sup superheated
Q vapor quality t tube
Q heat transfer rate (kW) tp two-phase
q' heat transfer rate per receiver length (kW/m) tur turbine
Re Reynolds number v saturated vapor
s specific entropy (kJ/kg. K)
T temperature (°C) Greek letters
U overall heat transfer coefficient(W/m2. K)
W power (kW) ratio of the nanolayer thickness to the original particle
Zk component investment cost ($) radius
Zk component investment cost rate ($/h) Tlmtd logarithmic mean temperature difference (°C)
efficiency
Subscripts µ dynamic viscosity (Pa. s)
convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2. K)
a ambient density (kg/m3)
ap aperture nanoparticles concentration
bf base fluid maintenance factor
bp bubble point
col solar collector

nanoparticles exist. The most usual nanoparticles are: Cu, CuO, TiO2,
SiO2, Al, Al2O3, Fe, Fe2O3 and ZnO (Sarsam et al., 2015). In fact, using
nanofluids leads to higher thermal conductivity and lower specific heat
of collector heat transfer fluid which causes convective heat transfer
coefficient to increase between collector absorber pipe and heat transfer
fluid. Also, using nanofluids improves absorptivity and optical proper-
ties of working fluid which leads to higher absorption of the incoming
solar radiation (Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2018b).
In recent years, various studies were conducted on the effects of
using nanofluids on performance improvement of solar collectors such
as flat plate collector (Raj and Subudhi, 2018), evacuated tube collector
(Badar et al., 2012), and PTSC (Sokhansefat et al., 2014). For example,
(Sint et al., 2017) investigated the performance of flat plate collector
with CuO-Water theoretically. In their research, collector efficiency was
studied according to volumetric fraction of nanoparticles and their
sizes. It was observed that an increase in volumetric fraction led to
maximum 2% efficiency increase and nanoparticles size had a poor
effect on collector efficiency. Moreover, using nanofluids increased the
efficiency up to 5% compared with the state of using water as working
fluid. (Marefati et al., 2018) performed optical and thermal analyzes of
PTSC for the weather condition of four various cities in Iran. Further-
more, parametric analysis was done to observe the effects of tempera-
ture, inlet fluid mass flow rate, collector area changes and the effect of
using nanofluids on output parameters. The results showed that be-
tween the studied cities, Shiraz had the most efficient performance with
13.91% annual energy efficiency. (Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2017c) stu-
died the performance of PTSC by applying nanofluids. Syltherm 800 oil
as the base fluid and Al2O3 and CuO as nanoparticles were employed in
this study. The study results revealed that using both nanofluids led to
better performance against using base fluid. Furthermore, Syltherm
800/CuO was introduced as a better selection according to the results.
Using Cuo and Al2O3 relatively led to 1.26% and 1.13% increase in the

117
H. Habibi et al.
energy efficiency against using base fluid. (Mwesigye et al., 2015)
studied thermodynamic performance of PTSC with Syltherm800-Al2O3
to reduce entropy generation numerically by using ANSYS software.
The results showed that using nanofluids causes 7.6% increase in ab-
sorber energy efficiency.
Also, various researches utilized nanofluid collectors as the driver of
thermodynamic cycles of power, heating and cooling generation.
(Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2017b) studied the performance of ORC with
four various organic fluids driven by nanofluid based PTSC from energy
viewpoint. Four nanoparticles (Al2O3, CuO, TiO2 and Cu) were used in
base fluid (Syltherm800) in this research. It showed that using CuO
nanoparticle and organic fluid toluene led to the highest efficiency of
20.11%. Energy and exergy studies on SRC with nanofluid based PTSC
and its optimization were performed by (Toghyani et al., 2016). Four
different nanoparticles Al2O3, TiO2, SiO2 and CuO in base fluid (Ther-
minol 55) were used and the effects of radiation intensity, dead state
temperature and nanoparticles concentration on system performance
were investigated. Using CuO led to most efficient performance from
exergy viewpoint. (Alashkar and Gadalla, 2017) evaluated thermo-
economic performance of regenerative Rankine cycle with nanofluid
based collector by using thermal energy storage tank. Two base fluids
with two nanoparticles (CuO and Al2O3) were employed in solar col-
lector and the effect of nanoparticles volumetric fraction on system
performance were assessed in three various operation mode. The re-
search showed that using Cu nanoparticles in Syltherm 800 led to the
maximum increase in the studied system annual energy output which is
approximately 3.1% and the maximum increase in the net savings is
nearly 2.4%.
Combined cycle in which waste heat of topping cycle is used as the
heat source of bottoming cycle, is one of the existent methods to en-
hance efficiency of current power generation cycles such as Brayton and
Rankine cycles. One of the most usual power generation cycles is
combined Brayton-Rankine cycle which many researches have been
performed about it (Ahmadi et al., 2011; Hosseini et al., 2017). Waste
heat of Brayton cycle is used as the heat source of bottoming Rankine
cycle in this type of combined cycle. This operation causes higher
thermal efficiency of total cycle and less environmental impact com-
pared with individual steam or gas turbine power plants (Kaviri et al.,
2012; Mansouri et al., 2012). Another types of power generation
combined cycles which are considered recently are combined SRC -
ORC and high temperature ORC - low temperature ORC. In these types,
the waste heat in condenser of topping Rankine cycle (Al-Sulaiman,
2014), reduced source fluid temperature flowing out of topping cycle
evaporator (Sciubba et al., 2016) or a combination of them (Boyaghchi
and Chavoshi, 2018; Choi and Kim, 2013; Shu et al., 2013) is used as
the heat source of bottoming cycle. A new dual loop ORC was suggested
by (Shu et al., 2014) that was a combination of one high temperature
loop (HT) and a low temperature loop (LT) to recover waste heat of an
internal combustion engine in different condition of engine load. The
heat source of HT loop was exhaust gas with high temperature which
was then used as the driver of LT loop after reduction of temperature in
HT loop. Jacket cooling water and transferred heat to LT fluid in top-
ping cycle condenser were used as heat source beside exhaust gas in LT
loop. Working fluid of HT loop was water and 6 different organic fluids
were employed for working fluid of LT loop. It was observed from the
results that 36.77 kW output power was accessible when organic fluid
R1234yf was used and temperature of LT evaporator and HT evaporator
were respectively equal to 343 K and 570 K. (Liu et al., 2012) presented
a combined Rankine cycle which was combination of a SRC and a
bottoming ORC with air-cooled condenser. Waste heat in SRC con-
denser was used as low temperature heat source for ORC in this study.
Furthermore, 9 various working fluids were selected for ORC and the
effects of ambient temperature variation and steam cycle condenser
pressure changes on simulated combined cycle performance were as-
sessed from energy efficiency viewpoint. (Al-Sulaiman, 2013) in-
vestigated SRC and combined steam-organic Rankine cycle (in which
118
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132
wasted heat in steam Rankine condenser operated as organic Rankine
cycle driver) driven by PTSC from energy and exergy viewpoints. In this
study, two different pressures were considered for steam cycle con-
denser in base case including vacuum condensing pressure (almost
5 kPa) and atmospheric condensing pressure (101.3 kPa). In the second
state, it can be used as the low temperature heat source of ORC due to
higher condensation temperature of steam. Finally, parametric analysis
was executed to investigate parameters variation effects such as direct
normal irradiation and steam turbine inlet pressure on energy efficiency
and exergy destruction of various components. The performance of dual
loop ORC with compressed natural gas (CNG) engine waste heat source
was studied and optimized from thermo-economic viewpoint by (Yang
et al., 2017). High temperature waste gas operated as heat source of
topping cycle. Moreover, engine cooling air and water were used as the
heat source of bottoming ORC beside topping cycle fluid heat in con-
denser. The observations showed 23.62 kW maximum power for com-
bined cycle and its energy efficiency was between 8.97% and 10.19%.
The performance of dual loop SRC-ORC was investigated from energy
and exergy viewpoints by (Zhou et al., 2016). In this system, diesel
engine waste gas worked as the heat source of topping cycle and engine
cooling water beside heat of topping cycle condenser operated as the
driver of bottoming with zeotropic mixture working fluid. In the re-
search, the effect of topping steam cycle condenser temperature on
system performance was assessed and it was observed that applying
RC318/R1234yf in bottoming cycle could enhance output power of
engine up to 14.4%. (Nazari et al., 2016) investigated and optimized
the performance of dual loop steam and organic Rankine cycle driven
by gas turbine waste heat from exergoeconomic viewpoint. Three dif-
ferent working fluids were used in lower transcritical Rankine cycle in
which driven by residual waste heat of gas and steam cycle condenser.
The base case results showed that using R124 led to the highest exergy
efficiency with value of 57.62% and applying R152a led to the least
total cost rate equal to 396 $/h. Also, the optimization results showed
that the best performance of system occurred when R152a was used. (Li
et al., 2016) assessed the performance of cascade steam-organic Ran-
kine cycle with parabolic trough solar collector as the heat source from
energy and exergy viewpoint. Screw expander was used in upper steam
cycle (which Steam is generated directly in the parabolic trough col-
lectors) in order to produce power from saturated steam. Also, waste
heat from condenser was applied as the driver of lower organic Rankine
cycle. The results showed that using various fluids in organic cycle led
to accessible energy efficiency between 13.68% and 15.62%. (Zhang
et al., 2013) studied dual loop high temperature and low temperature
organic Rankine cycle performance driven by diesel engine from energy
and exergy viewpoints. R245fa and R134a were respectively used in
upper organic Rankine cycle and lower cycle as working fluid in this
configuration in which high temperature loop recovers the exhaust
heat, whereas a low temperature loop recovers the residual heat from
the high temperature loop and the waste heat from both the intake air
and the coolant. The results of optimization showed the least increase of
14% to 16% in output power by using dual cycle in peak effective
thermal efficiency region.
According to the review, recent studies were on individual SRC,
individual ORC or combined cycle of SRC-ORC and no comprehensive
study was carried out about comparison between various combined
SRC-ORC configurations beside the comparison with simple SRC. The
only researches similar to this study are (Al-Sulaiman, 2013, 2014) and
this study literally has the following items as the novelty of the article
compared with the mentioned references:
• In this research, the effects of using nanofluid in solar collector is
investigated; while, the cited references studied solar collector with
common oil as heat transfer fluid.
• Configurations 1 and 2 of this work were investigated in cited re-
ferences; while, in addition to configuration 1 and 2, configuration 3
which is a different layout of a combined steam and organic Rankine
H. Habibi et al.
cycle and it was investigated in several studies is compared with
configurations 1 and 2.
• The cited references are limited to energy and exergy analyzes while
this study presented exergoeconomic analysis beside energy and
exergy analyzes to compare between various configurations.
• Parametric analysis was done in mentioned references to investigate
the effects of design parameters while in the present research, two-
objective optimization was applied to maximize output power and
minimize total cost rate by considering appropriate design para-
meters beside parametric analysis.
On the other hand, in (Liu et al., 2012) two different configurations
for combined system of steam and organic Rankine cycle are similar to
configuration 2 of this study. The only difference is that once simple
organic Rankine cycle and then organic Rankine cycle with regenerator
were used as the lower cycle in configuration 2. Also, (Sciubba et al.,
2016) studied two configurations which are similar to configuration 3
from this study and the only difference is that simple organic Rankine
cycle and organic Rankine cycle with regenerator were used once as the
lower cycle.
In this study, different configurations of combined SRC-ORC using
nanofluid based PTSC and without thermal energy storage system are
simulated by using EES (Engineering Equation Solver) and then, they
are assessed, compared and optimized from energy, exergy and ex-
ergoeconomic viewpoints. The first configuration is a simple four
component SRC. The second is combined SRC-ORC with intermediate
heat exchanger. In this case, by increasing steam cycle condenser
pressure in comparison with the first configuration, steam cycle con-
denser operates as ORC evaporator. Also, reduced temperature solar
fluid in steam cycle evaporator returns to solar collector again for
temperature enhancement. The third configuration is a combined SRC-
ORC without intermediate heat exchanger in which the exiting high
temperature nanofluid from solar collector enters steam cycle eva-
porator and its temperature reduces. Then, it works as low temperature
Fig. 1. Configuration 1 (a) illustration of system, (b) temperature distribution within heat exchangers.
119
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132
heat source of ORC and after another temperature reduction in ORC
evaporator, it returns to collector.
2. Systems description
Fig. 1(a) shows a simple SRC with nanofluid based PTSC that it is
considered as configuration 1. In simple SRC, working fluid after ab-
sorbing heat from nanofluid, changes to superheated steam in eva-
porator and then, it enters turbine for power generation. Two phase
fluid exiting turbine enters condenser and it changes to saturated liquid
by releasing the heat to cooling water. In this condition, saturated
temperature of steam condenser is supposed to be 40 °C. Saturated li-
quid is pressurized by a pump and after being subcooled, it enters
evaporator. For a better understanding of cycle performance, tem-
perature distribution of working fluid in heat exchangers is presented in
Fig. 1(b).
Fig. 2(a) shows configuration 2 which is a combined SRC-ORC with
nanofluid based PTSC. High temperature nanofluid just operates as the
heat source of steam cycle and by increasing steam condensation
pressure against configuration 1, heat exchanged in steam condenser
can be used as the driver of ORC. In this condition, saturated tem-
perature of steam condenser in base case is supposed to be 100 °C. In
Fig. 2(a), organic fluid is saturated vapor in entrance of ORC turbine
(state 8) and organic fluid releases its heat to cooling water in con-
denser. Fig. 2(b) shows temperature distribution of working fluid in
heat exchangers.
Fig. 3(a) illustrates a combined SRC-ORC with nanofluid based
PTSC (Configuration 3) that in this state, high temperature nanofluid
firstly works as heat source of steam cycle and after temperature re-
duction operates as heat source of ORC. Here, steam cycle condenser
pressure in base case has the same pressure as steam cycle condenser of
configuration 1. In Fig. 3(a), Organic fluid entering ORC turbine (state
11) is saturated vapor and organic fluid releases its heat to cooling
water in ORC condenser. Fig. 3(b) illustrates temperature distribution
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Fig. 2. Configuration 2 (a) illustration of system, (b) temperature distribution within heat exchangers.

of working fluid in heat exchangers. Table 1

To investigate configurations 2 and 3 more comprehensively, four Properties of various working fluids in ORC.
organic fluids with different critical temperature are used according to
Working fluid Tbp, norm °C Tcrit °C ODP GWP
design condition. The assessed organic fluids and their thermodynamic M ( )
kg
kmol
Pcrit (kPa)

properties can be seen in Table 1.

The items below are also assumed to simulate the studied config- R113 187.4 47.51 214.1 3439 1 6.13
n-Hexane 86.17 69.18 234.7 3058 0 <6
urations (Al-Sulaiman, 2013, 2014):
cyclohexane 84.16 80.64 280.5 4075 0 <6
toluene 92.14 110.3 318.6 4126 0 <6
• System works in a steady state.
• Kinetic and potential energies changes in different components are
ignored. 3. System simulation
• Pressure drop and heat loss in connecting pipes of components and
heat exchangers is negligible. 3.1. Thermodynamic simulation
• Turbines and pumps have constant isentropic efficiency.
• Exiting fluid from condenser is saturated liquid. Balance equations of mass, energy and exergy for different compo-
• Working fluid entering ORC turbine is saturated vapor in config- nents are presented as follows:
urations 2 and 3.
• For exergy analysis, ambient temperature and pressure are con- mi = me (1)
sidered as reference temperature and pressure.
Q+ mi hi = W + me h e (2)

Fig. 3. Configuration 3 (a) illustration of system, (b) temperature distribution within heat exchangers.

120
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Table 2 Wnet
=
Fuel-product definitions for components of the configurations 1–3. en
Aap · Ib (9)
Component – configuration Fuel Product
Wnet
ex =
Nanofluid pump − 1, 2 Wnf,p Ex3 Ex2 Ex fu,col (10)
SRC evaporator − 1, 2 Ex1 Ex2 Ex 4 Ex7
SRC turbine − 1, 2 Ex 4 Ex5 WSRC,tur
SRC pump − 1, 2 WSRC,p Ex7 Ex 6 3.2. Nanofluid based PTSC
SRC condenser − 1 Ex5 Ex 6 Ex 9 Ex8
SRC condenser − 2 Ex5 Ex 6 Ex 8 Ex11 Firstly, it is notable to mention that thermodynamic properties of
ORC turbine − 2 Ex 8 Ex 9 WORC,tur Therminol VP-1 as base fluid are calculated by EES and to define
ORC condenser − 2 Ex 9 Ex10 Ex13 Ex12 thermophysical properties of Al2O3 nanoparticle, the following corre-
ORC pump − 2 WORC,p Ex11 Ex10 lations are used (Sokhansefat et al., 2014).
Nanofluid pump − 3 Wnf,p Ex 4 Ex3
np = 3850 kg/m3 (11)
SRC evaporator − 3 Ex1 Ex2 Ex5 Ex8
SRC turbine − 3 Ex5 Ex 6 WSRC,tur
(12)
cp,np = 1.046 + 1.74 × 10 4T 2.79 × 10 4T 2 kJ/kg K
SRC pump − 3 WSRC,p Ex 8 Ex7
SRC condenser − 3 Ex 6 Ex7 Ex10 Ex 9 k nP = 5.5 + 34.5 × exp( 0.0033 × (T 273)) W/m K (13)
ORC evaporator − 3 Ex2 Ex3 Ex11 Ex14
ORC turbine − 3 Thermophysical properties of the nanofluid such as density, specific
Ex11 Ex12 WORC,tur
ORC condenser − 3 heat, viscosity and thermal conductivity can be calculated by the fol-
Ex12 Ex13 Ex16 Ex15
ORC pump − 3 WORC,p Ex14 Ex13
lowing equations (Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2017b):

nf = bf ·(1 )+ np · (14)

Ex Q + m i ex i = Ex w + m e ex e + ExD (3) µ nf = µbf ·(1 + 2.5· + 6.5· 2)

(15)

Subscripts “i” and “e” refer to inlet and outlet of control volume, bf · c p,bf ·(1 ) np · c p,np·
exergy destruction in each component is ExD, exergies corresponding to cp,nf = +
nf nf (16)
heat transfer and power are shown with Ex Q and Ex w respectively and
‘ex’ is used to show each stream exergy that they can be calculated by k np + 2kbf + 2(k np kbf )·(1 + )3·
following equations (Bejan et al., 1996): k nf = kbf ·
k np + 2kbf (k np kbf )·(1 + )3· (17)
T0
Ex Q = (1 ) QK where subscripts nf , np and bf respectively denote the nanofluid, na-
TK (4)
noparticle and base fluid. represents concentration of nanoparticles.
ExW = W (5) To show the ratio of the nanolayer thickness to the original particle
radius, parameter is used and usually, this parameter is taken equal to
ex = (h h0) T0 (s s0 ) (6) 0.1 to compute the thermal conductivity of the nanofluids (Bellos and
Tzivanidis, 2017b).
where subscript “0” represents dead state condition.
PTSC is a common solar collector used for fluid heating up to nearly
For better understanding of each cycle components performance,
400 °C. Illustration of a common PTSC is shown in Fig. 4. Collector
exergy efficiency is described as follows (Bejan et al., 1996):
receiver usually has two coaxial pipes. Fluid flows inside the inner pipe
ExPr ExD which is usually coated with a high radiation absorption coefficient
= =1
ex,k
Ex fu Ex fu (7) substance for maximum solar irradiance absorption. The space between
two pipes is almost vacuumed up so as to reduce heat waste from col-
where Ex pr and Ex fu represent product and fuel exergy rates in the lector to ambient especially in high temperature. Outer pipe made of
kth component respectively. The product is the favorable result by the glass with high transmission coefficient of sunlight waves can reduce
component or the system and the fuel is the resource expended to collector heat waste to ambient (Kalogirou, 2012). Tracking errors,
produce the product. Product and fuel exergy rates can be obtained by imperfections in the collector mirrors, cleanliness and shading of the
using Table 2 for different components of the configurations 1–3. mirror and receiver glazing are the reasons of optical losses. To assess
The following equation expresses the net power output of the con- collector receiver, energy balance equations in its various parts are
sidered systems: written to calculate four items inclusive of inlet straight radiation to
Wnet = Wtur Wp receiver, collector and receiver optical losses, receiver heat waste and
(8)
total absorbed heat by heat transfer fluid. A one-dimensional figure of
Energy and exergy efficiencies of each configuration are calculated collector receiver employed to write energy balance per length unit
as: equations in different parts are shown in Fig. 5-a and heat transfer

Fig. 4. Schematic of a PTSC (Kalogirou, 2012).

121
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Fig. 5. Collector receiver model (a) nomenclature, (b) Thermal resistance network for the cross-section of the receiver (Kalogirou, 2012).

resistances of various receiver parts are described in Fig. 5-b (Kalogirou, with optical loss of glass envelope and absorbent pipe are extracted
2012). In accordance with Fig. 5-a, solar irradiance is received by glass from the references equations. For more details, refer to Refs (Forristall,
envelope (q'go,SolAbs) and absorbent pipe (q'po,SolAbs) . A portion of ab- 2003; Kalogirou, 2012). Eqs. (18)–(22) are solved simultaneously while
sorbed energy is transferred from external surface to inner surface of collector inlet and outlet HTF temperature are definite in order to
absorbent pipe (q'pi po,cond) by conduction heat transfer mechanism. The calculate temperature of different parts of collector. In this case, tem-
energy is then conveyed to fluid inside of pipe by convection me- perature of internal and external surfaces of absorbent pipe and glass
chanism (q' f pi,conv ) and the left absorbed energy is transferred to inner envelope are calculated. Gnielinski’s correlation (Eq. (23)) is used for
surface of glass envelope by means of convection (q'po gi,conv ) and ra- calculation of Nusselt number in pure oil case. Also, the Pak and Cho
diation (q po gi,rad ) . The energy transferred to inner surface of glass en-
' correlation (Eq. (24)) is used for nanofluid heat transfer enhancement
velope by convection and radiation is conveyed to external surface of (Mwesigye et al., 2015).
cover by conduction(q'gi go,cond) and it is then transferred to ambient by (fr /8)(Re 1000) Pr
Nu =
(23)
'
radiation(q'go s,rad) and convection(q go a,conv ) . In accordance with the 1 + 12.7(fr /8)0.5 (Pr 2/3 1)
stated cases, the below equations are obtained by considering energy
Nu = 0.021Re0.8 Pr 0.5 (24)
conservation in different surfaces of collector receiver cross section per
length unit (Kalogirou, 2012). Finally, Eq. (25) (Forristall, 2003) is considered to calculate the
solar collector energy efficiency. The obtained efficiency is employed to
q' f pi,conv = q' pi po,cond (18) compute the essential area of solar collector according to Eq. (26)
(Forristall, 2003).
q' po,SolAbs = q'pi po,cond + q' po gi,conv + q' po gi,rad (19)
q' f pi,conv
en,col =
'
q po gi,rad + q po '
gi,conv = q gi'
go,cond (20) q'Sol (25)

m nf hcol
q' gi + q'go,SolAbs = q' go + q' go (21) en,col =
(26)
go,cond a,conv s,rad
Aap . Ib
'
q HeatLoss = q go '
a,conv
'
+ q go s,rad (22) where mnf , Aap and hcol are respectively nanofluid mass flow rate,
aperture area of solar collector and nanofluid enthalpy difference in
To simulate the collector, it is assumed that absorbent pipe, coating collector inlet and outlet. In this study, mass flow rate of nanofluid in
of absorbent pipe and the external cover are respectively from copper, one row of collector is mrow = 1.5 kg/s (Rovira et al., 2013). Value of
black chrome (which is selected for maximum solar radiation absorp- mass flow rate is constant and it is 30 kg/s when parallel rows of solar
tion) and Pyrex. For heat waste reduction, the space between glass collector are equal to 20. Furthermore, Eq. (27) can be used to calculate
envelope and absorbent pipe is vacuum. In this study, convection and the exergy destruction in collector based on difference of fuel and
conduction heat transfer coefficients and rate of heat transfer in various product (Rovira et al., 2013).
parts are calculated by considering equations from Refs. (Forristall,
2003; Kalogirou, 2012). Moreover, coefficient and equations associated ExD, col = Ex fu,col Ex pr,col (27)

122
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Table 3 i (1 + i)n
CRF =
Geometric parameters of collector (Kalogirou, 2012). (1 + i) n 1 (32)
Parameter Description Value where the interest rate and the years of system operation are re-
Waperture (m) Collector aperture width 4.823
spectively equal to i = 10% and n = 20. Moreover, = 1.06 and
dpi (m) Receiver internal diameter 0.066
N = 2000 h. Appendix A presents the correlations which define com-
dpo (m) Receiver external diameter 0.07 ponents investment cost. By using proper auxiliary equations which can
dgi (m) Glass envelope internal diameter 0.109 be obtained from the principles of the SPECO method (Lazzaretto and
dgo (m) Glass envelope external diameter 0.115 Tsatsaronis, 2006), cost balances and auxiliary equations are solved
simultaneously for all components of combined cycle. The cost balances
and the related auxiliary equations for configurations 1–3 components
are introduced in Table 4. By solving linear system of equations in
4 Table 4, the unknown costs of the streams can be obtained.
T0 T0
Ex fu,col = Aap Ib (1 + 0.333 1.333 ) Some important parameters including the average cost per unit
Tsun Tsun (28) exergy of fuel (cF , k ), the average cost per unit exergy of product (cP, k ),
the cost flow rate associated with the exergy destruction (CD, k ) and the
Ex pr,col = Ex col,e Ex col,i (29) exergoeconomic factor ( fk ) exist in thermal systems exergoeconomic
analysis. The parameters are expressed as follows (Bejan et al., 1996):
Sun surface temperature equal to 5800 K is shown with Tsun in Eq.
(28) (Kalogirou, 2013). At last, Table 3 shows the geometric dimensions Cfu,k
cfu,k =
of used collector (LS-2) (Forristall, 2003). Ex fu,k (33)

3.3. Exergoeconomic analysis CPr,k

cPr,k =
ExPr,k (34)
Cost balance equations for exergy costing process can be written
separately for all components of system (Bejan et al., 1996): CD,k = cfu,k ExD,k (35)

(ce Ex e) k + c w,k Wk = cQ,k Ex Q,k + (ci Ex i) k + Zk Zk

(30)
From above equation, it can be understood that exiting exergy
streams cost rates are equal to the cost rates of entering exergy streams
plus the investment cost rate to complete the process for each compo-
nent. In Eq. (30) “c” expresses unit cost of each exergy stream and the
capital investment cost rate is Zk calculated by Eq. (31) (Bejan et al.,
1996).
fk =
Zk + CD,k (36)
Since the exergoeconomic analysis clarifies the cost of exergy de-
struction, the exergoeconomic performance parameters can be specified
so as to minimize the total cost rate, Ctot , which is the summation of
total owning and operating cost rates as well as the total exergy de-
struction cost rate (Baghernejad and Yaghoubi, 2011):

Zk CRF Ctot = Zk + CD,k (37)

Zk =
N (31)

where kth component purchase cost is Zk and maintenance factor is . N 3.4. Optimization of considered configurations
is the annual number of system operating hours and CRF refers to the
Capital Recovery Factor calculated by Eq. (32) (Bejan et al., 1996). An initial random population and probabilistic transition principles

Table 4
Cost balance and auxiliary equation for the configurations 1–3.
Component - configuration Cost balance equation Auxiliary equation

Collector − 1,2 C1 = C3 + cfu,col. Ex fu,col + Zcol c fu,col = 0

Nanofluid pump − 1,2 C3 = C2 + cel,nf Wnf,p + Znf,p cel,nf = 10($/GJ) (Sadeghi et al., 2015)
SRC evaporator − 1,2 C2 + C4 = C1 + C7 + ZSRC,eva c1 = c2
SRC turbine − 1,2 C5 + cel, SRC . WSRC,t = C4 + ZSRC,tur c4 = c5
SRC pump − 1,2 C6 + cel,SRC. WSRC,p + ZSRC,p = C7 ———————
SRC condenser − 1 C6 + C9 = C5 + C8 + ZSRC,con c5 = c6
SRC condenser − 2 C6 + C8 = C5 + C11 + ZSRC,con c5 = c6
ORC turbine − 2 C9 + cel, ORC. WORC,tur = C8 + ZORC,tur c8 = c9
ORC condenser − 2 C10 + C13 = C9 + C12 + ZORC,con c9 = c10, c12 = 0
ORC pump − 2 C10 + cel,ORC. WORC,p + ZORC,p = C11 ———————
Collector − 3 C1 = C4 + c fu,col. Ex fu,col + Zcol c fu,col = 0
Nanofluid pump − 3 C4 = C3 + cel,nf Wnf,p + Znf,p cel,nf = 10($/GJ) (Sadeghi et al., 2015)
SRC evaporator − 3 C2 + C5 = C1 + C8 + ZSRC,eva c1 = c2
SRC turbine − 3 C6 + cel, SRC. WSRC,tur = C5 + ZSRC,tur c5 = c6
SRC pump − 3 C7 + cel,SRC. WSRC,p + ZSRC,p = C8 ———————
SRC condenser − 3 C7 + C10 = C6 + C9 + ZSRC,con c 6 = c 7, c 9 = 0
ORC evaporator − 3 C3 + C11 = C2 + C14 + ZSRC,eva c 2 = c3
ORC turbine − 3 C12 + cel, ORC . WORC,tur = C11 + ZORC,tur c11 = c12
ORC condenser − 3 C13 + C16 = C12 + C15 + ZORC,con c12 = c13, c15 = 0
ORC pump − 3 C13 + cel,ORC. WORC,p + ZORC,p = C14 ———————

123
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Table 5 Net power output (objective function I).

Values and variation ranges of optimization parameters.
objfun I = W net (38)
Parameters Value
Total cost rate (objective function II).
Population size 100
Crossover probability 0.8 objfun II = Ctot (39)
Mutation function Constraint dependent
Selection process Tournament Table 5 shows important parameters values of genetic algorithm
nanoparticles concentration range 0 – 0.06 and optimization parameters ranges for each three configurations. To
SRC evaporation temperature range (°C) 270 – 310 report the optimized performance of each system and comparing be-
SRC condensation temperature range (conf 1&3) (°C) 35 – 60
tween three configurations, system performance optimum point is cal-
SRC condensation temperature range (conf 2) (°C) 80 – 120
↓ stopping criteria ↓ culated according to the least distance of objective functions normal-
Generations inf ized values to origin. The normalized values of each objective functions
Stall generations 100 are obtained as below according to maximum and minimum values in
their variation range.
objfun objfun min
objfunnorm =
Table 6 objfun max objfun min (40)
Input data in the simulation (Al-Sulaiman, 2013; Song and Gu, 2015).
Description value
4. Results and discussion
Ambient temperature °C 25
Ambient pressure (kPa) 101 4.1. Base case results
NF temperature at inlet of SRC evaporator°C 390
NF mass flow rate (kg/s) 30
Values of input parameters for simulation of configuration 1–3 are
Number of collector rows 20
Wind speed (m/s) 2 corresponding to Table 6 (Al-Sulaiman, 2013; Song and Gu, 2015). All
Solar radiation intensity (W/m2) 800 mass conservation, energy and exergy equations and exergoeconomic
SRC evaporation temperature°C 290 analysis correlations in different components of each configuration are
Degree of superheating in SRC evaporator°C 60 simulated by EES. Using the input values in Table 6 and described
SRC condensation temperature (conf 1&3)°C 40
SRC condensation temperature (conf 2)°C 100
equations in Subsections 3.1 to 3.3, thermo-economic output para-
ORC condensation temperature°C 40 meters of investigated configurations by using various organic fluids in
Nanoparticles concentration 0.06 ORC are corresponding to Table 7. As it is obvious from Table 7, un-
Pinch temperature difference in HXs°C 6 expectedly, output power of configuration 1 is more than configuration
Isentropic efficiency of turbines 0.85
2 for various organic fluids. It happens since high pressure in steam
Isentropic efficiency of pumps 0.8
cycle condenser of configuration 2 against configuration 1 causes
output power of steam turbine reduces such value that even output
are the features employed by Genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms power of organic cycle cannot compensate this reduction. Conse-
recover from any probable early errors by using these two features and quently, output power of configuration 2 becomes less than config-
they enable genetic algorithms to solve a wide class of problems. In this uration 1. However, energy and exergy efficiencies of configuration 2
research, Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm - II (NSGA-II) is are higher than these parameters in configuration 1. Due to high
utilized to optimize the system. The diversity between non-dominated pressure in steam cycle condenser of configuration 2, temperature of
solutions is defined by using the crowding comparison procedure which heat transfer fluid exiting from configuration 2 is increased relative to
is employed with the tournament selection and during the population configuration 1 and enthalpy difference of heat transfer fluid in inlet
decreasing phase. Since solutions compete with their crowding dis- and outlet of collector reduces. Consequently, this configuration needs
tances (a measure of the density of solutions in the neighborhood), no less collector area and it effects dominantly in energy and exergy effi-
more niching parameter (employed in other types of genetic algorithm ciency equations that it leads to enhancement of energy and exergy
methods) is required. For more detailed information of NSGA-II, Ref. efficiencies related to configuration 2 against configuration 1. Due to
(Deb, 2001) can be used. the same condensation pressure in configuration 1 and 3, output power
Two objective functions of multi-objective optimization for these of configuration 3 is considerably higher than configuration 1. On the
three systems are net power output (to be maximized) and total cost other hand, because of increasing in enthalpy difference of heat transfer
rate (to be minimized) which are defined based on the parametric fluid compared to configuration 1 (heat transfer fluid temperature re-
analysis. The considered objective functions are as follows: duces in both steam and organic evaporators), the required area of
collector increases significantly that it causes energy and exergy

Table 7
Base case results for configurations 1–3.
Configuration ORC fluid Wnet (kW) en ex A ap (m2) Ctot ($/h )

1 ———— 3143 0.2 0.215 19,587 1004

2 R113 2930 0.203 0.218 18,006 952.5

n-Hexane 2924 0.203 0.218 18,006 946.5
Cyclohexane 2956 0.205 0.22 18,006 945.3
Toluene 2974 0.206 0.222 18,006 944.3

3 R113 4235 0.174 0.187 30,340 1623

n-Hexane 4112 0.176 0.188 29,275 1549
Cyclohexane 4002 0.182 0.195 27,483 1441
Toluene 3920 0.186 0.2 26,362 1376

124
H. Habibi et al.
efficiencies to decrease. It is also obvious from the results that en-
hancement of required area for collector is dominant over output power
rise that it causes energy and exergy efficiencies of configuration 3 to
diminish against configuration 1. Changes in required area of collector
also has the most effect on total cost rate; so that configuration 3, 1 and
2 with the most required collector area respectively have the highest
total cost rate.
4.2. Parametric analysis
In this section, the effects of changes in concentration of nano-
particles, SRC evaporation temperature and SRC condensation tem-
perature on systems performance are assessed from thermo-economic
viewpoint. For parametric analysis, the considered parameter changes
while other input parameters of considered configurations in base case
are constant according to Table 6. Owing to similar variation pattern of
different organic fluids in ORC, n-Hexane (that represents other fluids)
is applied in parametric analysis.
Fig. 6. Effects of nanoparticles concentration on output parameters.
125
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132
The effects of nanoparticles concentration variation in 0–0.06 range
on output parameters for three studied configurations are described in
Fig. 6. By increasing concentration of nanoparticles, nanofluid specific
heat reduces and it causes collector required area to reduce corre-
sponding to Fig. 6(a). On the other hand, reducing nanofluid specific
heat leads to reduction in mass flow rate of working fluid in SRC and
ORC for each configuration according to energy balance in SRC eva-
porator and condenser. By decreasing mass flow rate of working fluids,
exergy destruction and its cost for various components reduces and by
decreasing required area of collector, initial cost rate of systems reduces
that it leads to lower total cost rate. Furthermore, by reduction of
working fluids mass flow rate corresponding to Fig. 6(b), it can be seen
that net power output reduces. However, due to decreasing in required
area of collector corresponding to Eqs. (9) and (10), energy and exergy
efficiencies do not considerably change according to Fig. 6(c). Fig. 6(d)
shows relative enhancement of cel versus increasing in nanoparticles
concentration in each configuration.
The effects of SRC evaporation temperature variation from 270 °C to
H. Habibi et al.
310 °C on output parameters is shown in Fig. 7 for each three config-
urations. According to Fig. 7(a) and (b), increasing SRC evaporation
temperature of configurations 1 and 2, leads working fluid mass flow
rate and consequently net power output to decrease. On the other hand,
collector aperture area reduces significantly by increasing nanofluid
temperature entering collector, that it causes energy and exergy effi-
ciencies of configurations 1 and 2 to increase. Contrary to configura-
tions 1 and 2, Increasing SRC evaporation temperature in configuration
3 is followed by intensive growth of organic fluid mass flow rate in ORC
and negligible reduction of working fluid mass flow rate in SRC. Due to
these reason, net power output in the configuration 3 has increasing
pattern. Also, temperature reduction of nanofluid entering collector,
increases collector aperture area to some extent that it is the reason of
energy and exergy efficiencies some reduction. Corresponding to
Fig. 7(c) and (d), by decreasing working fluids mass flow rate, exergy
destruction rate and collector aperture area in configurations 1 and 2,
total cost rate has a decreasing pattern while unit cost of electricity
Fig. 7. Effects of SRC evaporation temperature on output parameters.
126
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132
production negligibly rises. In configuration 3, by intensive increase in
organic fluid mass flow rate of ORC which causes exergy destruction
rate and its cost rate to enhance and by increasing collector aperture
area, total cost rate has a rising pattern. Also, unit cost of electricity
production in ORC reduces while it has a poor increase in SRC.
The effects of SRC condensation temperature on output parameters
are presented in Fig. 8. In this state, steam condensation temperature of
configurations 1 and 3 varies between 35 °C and 60 °C and it changes
between 80 °C and 120 °C in configuration 2. By increasing SRC con-
densation temperature, enthalpy difference between SRC turbine inlet
and outlet decreases and consequently SRC turbine output power in
three configurations reduces. Despite enhancement of ORC turbine
output power in configurations 2 and 3, net power output of each three
configurations reduces due to more reduction of SRC turbine output
power according to Fig. 8(a). According to Fig. 8(b), as SRC con-
densation temperature increases, energy and exergy efficiencies also
decrease. Just in configuration 2, due to reduction of collector required
H. Habibi et al.
area, efficiency variation is negligible. Fig. 8(c) shows limited reduction
of total cost rate in configurations 1 and 2, and limited enhancement of
total cost rate in configurations 3 that it dominantly happens due to
exergy destruction rate variation and its related cost. Also, according to
Fig. 8(d), changes of cel is negligible except cel, ORC in configuration 2
which reduces. Totally, it can be resulted for configuration 3 from Fig. 8
that the less SRC condensation temperature is, the better thermo-eco-
nomic performance system has. Moreover, by decreasing SRC con-
densation temperature in configuration 3, net power output has a sig-
nificant rise against configuration 1 and 2 and it imposes much cost rate
on system.
4.3. Optimization results
The purposes of energy conversion systems optimization are to in-
crease net power output, energy and exergy efficiencies and reduce
total cost rate, but it must be investigated that how output parameters
Fig. 8. Effects of SRC condensation temperature on output parameters.
127
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132
vary with changes in input parameters. If two output parameters are
improved by variation of one input parameter, it means that they have
matching changes. Otherwise they have opposing variations. According
to performed parametric analysis and the pattern of output parameters
variations versus input parameters variations, changes of Wnet and Ctot
are significantly more than changes of en , ex and cel . Furthermore,
changes of Wnet and Ctot have strict opposing to each other except in
configuration 3 and SRC condensation temperature variations.
After optimization process according to Section 3.4, Pareto front for
each configuration by using various organic fluids in ORC was obtained
as Fig. 9. To report the performance of each configuration and to
compare them, three optimum points (including a selected point from
Pareto front according to Section 3.4 explanations, performance point
with the most net power output and performance point with the least
total cost rate) were considered. The mentioned optimum points were
shown in Table 8. It is noteworthy to mention that the value of nano-
particles concentration is equal to zero in selected optimum point for
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Fig. 9. Pareto front for configurations using NSGA-II.

Table 8
Optimum points for each configuration.
Configuration ORC fluid point TRC, eva TRC, con Wnet Ctot

1 —————————— selected 306.9 0 36.2 3326 1048

Max Wnet 270 0 35 4079 1323
Min Ctot 310 0.06 60 2479 838.2

2 R113 selected 289 0 80 3499 1133

Max Wnet 270 0 80 3792 1257
Min Ctot 310 0.06 120 2477 810.4
n-Hexane selected 303.9 0 81.4 3194 1019
Max Wnet 270 0 80 3788 1249
Min Ctot 310 0.06 120 2469 805
Cyclohexane selected 301.7 0 90.56 3230 1023
Max Wnet 270 0 80 3809 1248
Min Ctot 310 0.06 120 2511 803.3
Toluene selected 300.2 0 96.54 3254 1026
Max Wnet 270 0 80 3820 1248
Min Ctot 310 0.06 120 2535 802.1

3 R113 selected 279.1 0 35 4575 1623

Max Wnet 310 0 35 5337 2238
Min Ctot 270 0.06 35 3832 1322
n-Hexane selected 279.64 0 35 4514 1592
Max Wnet 310 0 35 5105 2074
Min Ctot 270 0.06 35 3798 1301
Cyclohexane selected 277 0 35 4404 1507
Max Wnet 310 0 35 4897 1864
Min Ctot 270 0.06 35 3770 1274
Toluene selected 271.92 0 35 4293 1434
Max Wnet 310 0 35 4741 1725
Min Ctot 270 0.06 35 3747 1255

each configuration. The reason is that reduction of net power output is
more intensive than reduction of total cost rate by increasing ac-
cording to Fig. 6(a) and (b). The most values of net power output and
total cost rate occur in configuration 3 while using R113 and they are
respectively equal to 5337 kW and 2238 $/h. Moreover, the least net
power output and total cost rate correspond to configuration 2 and their
values are respectively equal to 2469 kW while using n-Hexane and
802.1 $/h while using toluene.
In order to compare configurations performances with various
organic fluids, selected optimum point from Pareto front is considered.
So, it is possible to select the best organic fluid for each configuration
and then compare the optimum performance of configurations.
Assessment of net power output variation versus total cost rate varia-
tion is considered as the base of comparison.
Net power output and total cost rate are respectively equal to
3254 kW and 1026 $/h in the best performance of system for the con-
figuration 2. It occurs when toluene is used in ORC. Although by using
toluene in selected optimum point for configuration 3, the least net

128
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

Table 9
Energy and exergoeconomic results for each component at the optimal point with toluene in ORC.
Component W or Q (kW) ExD (kW) ex (%) cf ($/GJ) cp ($/GJ) Z ($/h) CD ($/h) Z + CD ($/h) f (%)

Configuration 1
Collector 9971 10,376 30.88 0 12.78 213.2 477.2 690.4 30.88
SRC evaporator 9971 786.3 89.44 12.78 17.94 54.64 36.17 90.81 60.17
Nanofluid pump 0.23 0.0006 51.06 10 117.67 0.042 0.00002 0.042 99.95
SRC turbine 3367 572.7 85.46 18.2 29.5 99.42 37.54 136.96 72.59
SRC condenser 6646 183.3 23.81 18.2 210.58 27.66 12.02 39.68 69.71
SRC pump 41.74 8.097 80.6 29.5 50.42 1.674 0.86 2.534 66.06

Configuration 2
Collector 9607 10,026 30.92 0 12.76 206.1 460.5 666.6 30.92
SRC evaporator 9607 543.1 94.33 12.76 17.14 55.08 24.95 80.03 68.83
Nanofluid pump 0.228 0.0005 51.78 10 116.8 0.0414 0.00002 0.0414 99.95
SRC turbine 2531 360.2 87.54 17.39 28.8 81.42 22.55 103.97 78.31
SRC condenser 7117 179.3 86.98 17.39 22.08 9.002 11.22 20.222 44.51
SRC pump 41.15 6.671 83.79 28.8 47.72 1.657 0.6916 2.35 70.56
ORC turbine 764.9 125.7 85.88 22.16 39.72 38.34 10.03 48.37 79.26
ORC condenser 6353 211.2 31.45 22.16 76.03 1.946 16.85 18.796 10.35
ORC pump 1.07 0.204 80.96 39.72 134.8 0.2678 0.0292 0.297 90.17

Configuration 3
Collector 13,962 14,178 30.15 0 13.08 288.3 668 956.3 30.15
SRC evaporator 12,755 1001 88.39 13.09 18.1 59.69 47.16 106.85 55.87
Nanofluid pump 0.303 0.0008 42.02 10 134.44 0.05 0.00003 0.05 99.94
SRC turbine 4082 697 85.42 18.27 29.14 113.8 45.84 159.64 71.28
SRC condenser 8705 224.6 20.49 18.27 302.5 44.46 14.77 59.23 75.06
SRC pump 31.92 6.2 80.57 29.14 51.11 1.384 0.65 2.034 68.03
ORC evaporator 1207 86.76 83.75 13.09 18.07 3.1 4.088 7.188 43.13
ORC turbine 244.9 50.52 82.9 18.49 41.89 17.27 3.362 20.632 83.71
ORC condenser 964.1 42.11 28.67 18.49 68.67 0.2557 2.8 3.0557 8.36
ORC pump 1.711 0.2446 85.71 41.89 119.58 0.3734 0.0369 0.41 91.01

power output (4293 kW) is obtained, its total cost rate (1434 $/h) is
significantly lower than the condition that other organic fluids are used.
Therefore, the best system performance is obtained by using toluene in
ORC for configuration 3. In accordance with the stated contents and by
considering optimum performance of each configuration in selected
point (that it obtains by using toluene in configurations 2 and 3), the
results of energy, exergy and exergoeconomic for various components
of each configuration with toluene as working fluid of organic cycle are
presented in Table 9 for a better understanding of the studied systems.
In each configuration, collector, SRC evaporator and SRC turbine re-
spectively have the most exergy destruction rate. Except collector, SRC
condenser and nanofluid pump in configuration 1 and collector, ORC
condenser and nanofluid pump in configuration 2, ORC condenser,
collector, nanofluid pump and SRC condenser in configuration 3 which
have relatively low exergy efficiency, the other components with exergy
efficiency of higher than 80% have proper performance from exergy
viewpoint. In three configurations, collector has the most value of
Z + CD and it includes nearly 65% of total cost rate. Also, ORC con-
densers in configurations 2 and 3 have the least values of ex-
ergoeconomic factor while nanofluid and ORC pumps have the most
values of exergoeconomic factor. However, due to negligible effect of
Z + CD in total cost rate related to cited components, the value of ex-
ergoeconomic factor is not so important and its improvement has not a
significant role in improvement of total system performance.
Table 10 is presented to compare the performances of three studied
configurations (by using toluene). The values of exergoeconomic factors
in Table 10 show that a proper balance exists between initial cost rate
and exergy destruction cost rate in optimum point. By comparing the
performance of three studied models in optimum point, it is obvious
that configurations 1 and 2 have relatively similar thermo-economic
performance. Net power output related to configuration 3 is equal to
4293 kW and its increase against configurations 1 and 2 is respectively
equal to 29.07% and 31.93%. Total cost rate of configuration 3 is equal
to 1434 $/h which is respectively 36.8% and 39.76% more than con-
figurations 1 and 2. Also, due to lower energy and exergy efficiencies
and much exergy destruction of configuration 3 versus configurations 1
and 2, it can be concluded that totally, configuration 3 has a weaker
thermo-economic performance.
5. Conclusions
Three solar driven configurations using nanofluid based PTSC are
simulated and investigated from energy, exergy and exergoeconomic
viewpoints. Four organic fluids (R113, n-Hexane, cyclohexane and to-
luene) were applied in configuration 2 and 3. To compare these con-
figurations, each configuration performance was optimized using
NSGA-II.
The effects of different parameters (concentration of nanoparticles,
SRC evaporation temperature and SRC condensation temperature) were
studied on net power output, energy and exergy efficiencies, total cost
rate and unit cost of electricity. For numerical report of system per-
formance, three operation points including a selected point from Pareto
front, performance point with the most net power output and perfor-
mance point with the least total cost rate were defined for each

Table 10
Total performance of configurations at the optimal point with toluene in ORC.
Configuration Wnet (kW) en (%) ex (%) ExD, tot (kW) cel, SRC ($/GJ) cel, ORC ($/GJ) Z ($/h) CD ($/h) Ctot ($/h) f (%)

1 3326 20.63 22.15 11,927 29.51 ————— 484.4 563.7 1048 46.22
2 3254 20.88 22.42 11,453 28.8 39.72 478.8 546.8 1026 46.68
3 4293 19.7 21.15 16,286 29.13 41.89 647.3 786.7 1434 45.14

129
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

configuration with various organic fluids. The most net power output
and total cost rate occur in configuration 3 while using R113 and they
are respectively equal to 5337 kW and 2238 $/h. Moreover, the least
net power output and total cost rate are related to configuration 2 and
they are equal to 2469 kW while using n-Hexane and 802 $/h while
using toluene. In accordance with the obtained results, the most effi-
cient thermo-economic performance could be obtained in configuration
2 and 3 while using toluene. Also, solar collector cost rate is singly more
than summation of other components cost rate that it shows its weak
exergoeconomic performance. By investigating of system performance
in selected optimum point from Pareto front, it was defined that all
three studied models could have optimum performance if therminol VP-
1 was used instead of nanofluid in solar field. Finally, by comparing
three studied configurations in selected optimum point, it was specified
that configurations 1 and 2 have relatively similar performance.
Furthermore, employing configuration 3 (despite of more generated
power) is not suggested due to its weak thermo-economic performance.

Appendix A. Economic model

The equations presented below are employed to calculate initial investment cost of various system components. Moreover, cost index from
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) is applied to update all equipment cost to year 2016 (ChemEng, 2017). To update the equipment cost
the following equation is used (Bejan et al., 1996):
Cost index at reference year
Cost at reference year = original cost ×
Cost index at original year (A.1)
For heat transfer fluid system and solar collector (Kurup and Turchi, 2015):
Zcol = 170Aap (A.2)
ZHTF = 70Aap (A.3)
For SRS and nanofluid pumps (Ahmadi, 2013):

0.71· 0.2
Znf SRC,p = 705.48(Wnf SRC,p ) 1+
1 nf SRC,p (A.4)
For ORC pump (Nazari et al., 2016):
ZORC,p = 3540(WORC,p )0.71 (A.5)
For SRC evaporator (Ahmadi, 2013):
0.8 0.8 0.8
qsup qtp qsub
ZSRC,eva = 6570 + + + 21276mSRC + 1184.4m nf 1.2
Tlmtd,sup Tlmtd,tp Tlmtd,sub (A.6)
For ORC evaporator of configuration 3 (Nazari et al., 2016):
0.78
AORC,eva
ZORC,eva = 130
0.093 (A.7)
In which AORC,eva is calculated in APPENDIX B.
For SRC turbine (Ahmadi, 2013):
3
0.05 Ti,tur 866
ZSRC,tur = 3880(WSRC,tur )0.7 · 1 + · 1 + exp
1 10.42
SRC,tur (A.8)
For ORC turbine (Shokati et al., 2015):
Ztur = 6000(WORC,tur )0.7 (A.9)
For SRC condenser (Ahmadi, 2013):
qSRC,con
ZSRC,con = 280.74 + 746mcold
2.2 Tlmtd,SRC,con (A.10)
For ORC condenser (Nazari et al., 2016):
ZORC,con = 1773mORC (A.11)

Appendix B. ORC evaporator area calculation

To obtain the cost of ORC evaporator in configuration 3 it is considered as shell and tube heat exchanger and required area of ORC evaporator
calculated by using the following correlations. For more information, refer to Ref. (Kakaç et al., 2012).

qsub qtp,j
AORC,eva = +
Usub × Tlmtd,sub j
Utp,j × Tlmtd,tp,j (B.1)
In which U is overall heat transfer coefficient and heat transfer process in two phase region is divided to 50 small segments.

130
H. Habibi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132

1
U=
d
ln o

( )+1
sh
do
din
2kw
+
do
din () 1
t
(B.2)
where do, din and kw are respectively outer diameter, inner diameter and thermal conductivity of heat exchanger tube wall. t and sh respectively
refer to convection heat transfer coefficient of tube side and shell side (Kakaç et al., 2012).

sh,sub = id J (B.3)
The suggested value of J for shell and tube heat exchanger design is 0.6. Heat transfer coefficient of pure cross-flow in an ideal tube bank is
represented by id and it can be obtained as below (Kakaç et al., 2012).
2 0.14
msh ksh 3
µsh
id = Ji c psh · ·
Ash c psh µsh µ wsh (B.4)
In which Ji is Colburn factor (Kakaç et al., 2012).
a
1.33
Ji = a1 pt ·(Resh )a2
do (B.5)
pt is tube pitch and a is computed as follows:
a3
a=
1 + 0.14(Resh )a 4 (B.6)
a1, a2 , a3 , a4 values can be found in Ref. (Kakaç et al., 2012).
In this step, convection heat transfer coefficient for subcooled flow in tube side is calculated as below (Kakaç et al., 2012):

fr
kt 8
(Ret 1000)Prt
=
()
t,sub
d in 1 + 12.7 fr 0.5 (Pr 23 1)
8 t
(B.7)
fr shows friction factor and it is calculated as follows (Kakaç et al., 2012):
fr = (0.79lnRet 1.64) 2
(B.8)
Heat transfer coefficient of tube side fluid is calculated by following equations for two phase region of ORC evaporator (Kheiri et al., 2014):

t,tp,j = Ej t,l,j (B.9)

0.75 0.41
Qi l
Ej = 1 + 3000(Bo)0.86 + 1.12
1 Qj v (B.10)
0.8
d in kl
t,l,j = 0.023 Gt (1 Qj) Prl 0.4
µl d in (B.11)
subscripts “l” and “v” represent for saturated liquid and saturated vapor. Qj shows vapor quality in each segment. Boiling number and mass velocity
which respectively were shown by Bo and Gt, can be obtained by following equations (Kheiri et al., 2014):
q
Bo =
Gt h fg (B.12)
mt
Gt =
At (B.13)

References
Abdelghani-Idrissi, M., Khalfallaoui, S., Seguin, D., Vernières-Hassimi, L., Leveneur, S.,
2018. Solar tracker for enhancement of the thermal efficiency of solar water heating
system. Renew. Energy 119, 79–94.
Ahmadi, P., 2013. Modeling, analysis and optimization of integrated energy systems for
multigeneration purposes. Diss.
Ahmadi, P., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2011. Exergy, exergoeconomic and environmental
analyses and evolutionary algorithm based multi-objective optimization of combined
cycle power plants. Energy 36 (10), 5886–5898.
Al-Sulaiman, F.A., 2013. Energy and sizing analyses of parabolic trough solar collector
integrated with steam and binary vapor cycles. Energy 58, 561–570.
Al-Sulaiman, F.A., 2014. Exergy analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors integrated
with combined steam and organic Rankine cycles. Energy Convers. Manage. 77,
441–449.
Alashkar, A., Gadalla, M., 2017. Thermo-economic analysis of an integrated solar power
generation system using nanofluids. Appl. Energy 191, 469–491.
Ashouri, M., Vandani, A.M.K., Mehrpooya, M., Ahmadi, M.H., Abdollahpour, A., 2015.
Techno-economic assessment of a Kalina cycle driven by a parabolic Trough solar
collector. Energy Convers. Manage. 105, 1328–1339.
Badar, A.W., Buchholz, R., Ziegler, F., 2012. Single and two-phase flow modeling and
analysis of a coaxial vacuum tube solar collector. Sol. Energy 86 (1), 175–189.
Baghernejad, A., Yaghoubi, M., 2011. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of an
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) using genetic algorithm. Energy
Convers. Manage. 52 (5), 2193–2203.
Behar, O., Khellaf, A., Mohammedi, K., Ait-Kaci, S., 2014. A review of integrated solar
combined cycle system (ISCCS) with a parabolic trough technology. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 39, 223–250.
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., Moran, M., 1996. Thermal design and optimization. John Wiley
& Sons.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2017a. Parametric analysis and optimization of a solar driven
trigeneration system based on ORC and absorption heat pump. J. Cleaner Prod. 161,
493–509.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2017b. Parametric analysis and optimization of an organic
rankine cycle with nanofluid based solar parabolic trough collectors. Renew. Energy

131
H. Habibi et al.
114, 1376–1393.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2017c. Parametric investigation of nanofluids utilization in
parabolic trough collectors. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2, 71–79.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2018a. Parametric analysis and optimization of a cooling system
with ejector-absorption chiller powered by solar parabolic trough collectors. Energy
Convers. Manage. 168, 329–342.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2018b. Performance analysis and optimization of an absorption
chiller driven by nanofluid based solar flat plate collector. J. Cleaner Prod. 174,
256–272.
Boyaghchi, F.A., Chavoshi, M., 2018. Monthly assessments of exergetic, economic and
environmental criteria and optimization of a solar micro-CCHP based on DORC. Sol.
Energy 166, 351–370.
Cabrera, F., Fernández-García, A., Silva, R., Pérez-García, M., 2013. Use of parabolic
trough solar collectors for solar refrigeration and air-conditioning applications.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 103–118.
ChemEng CEPCI, 2017. Chemical engineering plant cost index. Chem Eng 80.
Choi, B.C., Kim, Y.M., 2013. Thermodynamic analysis of a dual loop heat recovery system
with trilateral cycle applied to exhaust gases of internal combustion engine for pro-
pulsion of the 6800 TEU container ship. Energy 58, 404–416.
Deb, K., 2001. Multi‐objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms Vol. 16. John
Wiley & Sons, United States.
Desai, N.B., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2016. Thermo-economic analysis and selection of
working fluid for solar organic Rankine cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 95, 471–481.
Desai, N.B., Kedare, S.B., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2014. Optimization of design radiation for
concentrating solar thermal power plants without storage. Sol. Energy 107, 98–112.
Elsheikh, A., Sharshir, S., Mostafa, M.E., Essa, F., Ali, M.K.A., 2017. Applications of na-
nofluids in solar energy: a review of recent advances. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82,
3483–3502.
Forristall, R., 2003. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar re-
ceiver implemented in engineering equation solver. National Renewable Energy Lab,
Golden, CO.(US).
Hosseini, S.E., Barzegaravval, H., Ganjehkaviri, A., Wahid, M.A., Jaafar, M.M., 2017.
Modelling and exergoeconomic-environmental analysis of combined cycle power
generation system using flameless burner for steam generation. Energy Convers.
Manage. 135, 362–372.
Kakaç, S., Liu, H., Exchangers, A.P.H., 2012. Selection, rating, and thermal design. CRC
Press.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2012. A detailed thermal model of a parabolic trough collector receiver.
Energy 48 (1), 298–306.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2013. Solar energy engineering: processes and systems. Academic Press.
Kaviri, A.G., Jaafar, M.N.M., Lazim, T.M., 2012. Modeling and multi-objective exergy
based optimization of a combined cycle power plant using a genetic algorithm.
Energy Convers. Manage. 58, 94–103.
Kerme, E.D., Chafidz, A., Agboola, O.P., Orfi, J., Fakeeha, A.H., Al-Fatesh, A.S., 2017.
Energetic and exergetic analysis of solar-powered lithium bromide-water absorption
cooling system. J. Cleaner Prod. 151, 60–73.
Kheiri, A., Feidt, M., Pelloux-Prayer, S., 2014. Thermodynamic and economic optimiza-
tions of a waste heat to power plant driven by a subcritical ORC (Organic Rankine
Cycle) using pure or zeotropic working fluid. Energy 78, 622–638.
Kurup, P., Turchi, C.S., 2015. Parabolic trough collector cost update for the system ad-
visor model (SAM). Technical Report No. NREL/TP-6A20-65228. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. https://www. nrel. gov/docs/fy16osti/
65228. pdf.
Lazzaretto, A., Tsatsaronis, G., 2006. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 31 (8–9), 1257–1289.
Leong, K., Ong, H.C., Amer, N., Norazrina, M., Risby, M., Ahmad, K.K., 2016. An overview
on current application of nanofluids in solar thermal collector and its challenges.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 1092–1105.
Li, J., Li, P., Pei, G., Alvi, J.Z., Ji, J., 2016. Analysis of a novel solar electricity generation
system using cascade Rankine cycle and steam screw expander. Appl. Energy 165,
132
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 116–132
627–638.
Liu, B., Rivière, P., Coquelet, C., Gicquel, R., David, F., 2012. Investigation of a two stage
rankine cycle for electric power plants. Appl. Energy 100, 285–294.
Mansouri, M.T., Ahmadi, P., Kaviri, A.G., Jaafar, M.N.M., 2012. Exergetic and economic
evaluation of the effect of HRSG configurations on the performance of combined
cycle power plants. Energy Convers. Manage. 58, 47–58.
Marefati, M., Mehrpooya, M., Shafii, M.B., 2018. Optical and thermal analysis of a
parabolic trough solar collector for production of thermal energy in different climates
in Iran with comparison between the conventional nanofluids. J. Cleaner Prod. 175,
294–313.
Mwesigye, A., Huan, Z., Meyer, J.P., 2015. Thermodynamic optimisation of the perfor-
mance of a parabolic trough receiver using synthetic oil–Al2O3 nanofluid. Appl.
Energy 156, 398–412.
Nazari, N., Heidarnejad, P., Porkhial, S., 2016. Multi-objective optimization of a com-
bined steam-organic Rankine cycle based on exergy and exergo-economic analysis for
waste heat recovery application. Energy Convers. Manage. 127, 366–379.
Raj, P., Subudhi, S., 2018. A review of studies using nanofluids in flat-plate and direct
absorption solar collectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 84, 54–74.
Rovira, A., Montes, M.J., Varela, F., Gil, M., 2013. Comparison of heat transfer fluid and
direct steam generation technologies for integrated solar combined cycles. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 52 (2), 264–274.
Sadeghi, M., Mahmoudi, S., Saray, R.K., 2015. Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-ob-
jective optimization of an ejector refrigeration cycle powered by an internal com-
bustion (HCCI) engine. Energy Convers. Manage. 96, 403–417.
Sarsam, W.S., Kazi, S., Badarudin, A., 2015. A review of studies on using nanofluids in
flat-plate solar collectors. Sol. Energy 122, 1245–1265.
Sciubba, E., Tocci, L., Toro, C., 2016. Thermodynamic analysis of a Rankine dual loop
waste thermal energy recovery system. Energy Convers. Manage. 122, 109–118.
Shokati, N., Ranjbar, F., Yari, M., 2015. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of
basic, dual-pressure and dual-fluid ORCs and Kalina geothermal power plants: a
comparative study. Renew. Energy 83, 527–542.
Shu, G., Liu, L., Tian, H., Wei, H., Liang, Y., 2013. Analysis of regenerative dual-loop
organic Rankine cycles (DORCs) used in engine waste heat recovery. Energy Convers.
Manage. 76, 234–243.
Shu, G., Liu, L., Tian, H., Wei, H., Yu, G., 2014. Parametric and working fluid analysis of a
dual-loop organic Rankine cycle (DORC) used in engine waste heat recovery. Appl.
Energy 113, 1188–1198.
Sint, N.K.C., Choudhury, I., Masjuki, H., Aoyama, H., 2017. Theoretical analysis to de-
termine the efficiency of a CuO-water nanofluid based-flat plate solar collector for
domestic solar water heating system in Myanmar. Sol. Energy 155, 608–619.
Sokhansefat, T., Kasaeian, A., Kowsary, F., 2014. Heat transfer enhancement in parabolic
trough collector tube using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 33, 636–644.
Song, J., Gu, C.-W., 2015. Performance analysis of a dual-loop organic Rankine cycle
(ORC) system with wet steam expansion for engine waste heat recovery. Appl. Energy
156, 280–289.
Toghyani, S., Baniasadi, E., Afshari, E., 2016. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization
of an integrated Rankine power cycle and nano-fluid based parabolic trough solar
collector. Energy Convers. Manage. 121, 93–104.
Xu, C., Wang, Z., Li, X., Sun, F., 2011. Energy and exergy analysis of solar power tower
plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (17–18), 3904–3913.
Yang, F., Cho, H., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., 2017. Thermoeconomic multi-objective optimi-
zation of a dual loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for CNG engine waste heat re-
covery. Appl. Energy 205, 1100–1118.
Zhang, H., Wang, E., Fan, B., 2013. A performance analysis of a novel system of a dual
loop bottoming organic Rankine cycle (ORC) with a light-duty diesel engine. Appl.
Energy 102, 1504–1513.
Zhou, Y., Wu, Y., Li, F., Yu, L., 2016. Performance analysis of zeotropic mixtures for the
dual-loop system combined with internal combustion engine. Energy Convers.
Manage. 118, 406–414.