Accepted Manuscript

Title: COP optimisation of a triple-effect H2O/LiBr absorption cycle under off-

design conditions

Author: R. Lizarte, J.D. Marcos

PII: S1359-4311(16)00012-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.12.121
Reference: ATE 7535

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received date: 5-10-2015

Accepted date: 30-12-2015

Please cite this article as: R. Lizarte, J.D. Marcos, COP optimisation of a triple-effect H2O/LiBr
absorption cycle under off-design conditions, Applied Thermal Engineering (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.12.121.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will
undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its
final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could
affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 1 COP optimisation of a triple-effect H2O/LiBr absorption cycle under

2 off-design conditions

3 R. Lizartea,*, J.D. Marcosb

a
4 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avda de la Universidad 30, 28911, Leganés,

5 Madrid, Spain
b
6 Escuela Técnica Superior Ingeniería Industrial, UNED, c/Juan del Rosal 12, 28040

7 Madrid, Spain

8 * corresponding author: Tel: +34 916246224, Fax: +34916249430

9 E-mail address: rlizarte@ing.uc3m.es (R. Lizarte)

10 Highlights

11  Optimisation of triple-effect absorption cycle under design/off-design conditions.

12  Relevance of solution mass flow rate distribution is shown.
13  The optimal total solution mass flow rate varies from 7.13- 90 kg/h.
14  Absolute maximum COPs range from 1.87 to 2.13 for the te and tc tested.
15  Useful results for controlling parallel-flow chillers in solar cooling facilities.

16

17 Abstract

18 It is desirable for absorption chillers to attain the highest COP possible when working

19 under design conditions. If these conditions change during a working day, the control

20 variables must be readjusted in order to attain the optimal COP. This work shows the

21 COP optimisation of a triple-effect parallel-flow H2O/LiBr absorption chiller under

22 design and off-design conditions. Computer simulations are conducted for different

23 evaporation and condensation temperatures, considering the same value for the change

24 in solution concentration (Δx) in all generators. These simulations estimate not only the

25 optimum COP as a function of the outlet HTG solution temperature, but also the

26 solution mass-flow rates to be pumped to each generator in order to attain that optimum.

27 For temperatures of 142ºC to 227ºC, the optimal COP ranged from 1.05 to 2.13, and the

28 solution mass flow rates range pumped to LTG, MTG, HTG were 2.1-22.1 kg/h, 2.2-

Page 1 of 31
29 23.8kg/h, and 2.9-44.6 kg/h per kW of cooling capacity, respectively. These results are

30 useful for optimising a triple-effect absorption chiller driven by solar energy.

31 Keywords: triple-effect, absorption, COP, H2O/LiBr, off-design, simulation.

32 1. Introduction

33 Triple-effect H2O/LiBr absorption cycles match the guidelines set by the ambitious

34 "2020 climate and energy package", proposed by the EU. The three main goals of this

35 plan are: 1) a 20% reduction in EU greenhouse emissions from 1990 levels, 2) a 20%

36 improvement in the EU’s energy efficiency, and 3) raising the share of EU energy

37 consumption produced from renewable resources to 20% [1].

38 Regarding the first goal, the H2O/LiBr-absorption technology makes use of a working

39 fluid which is harmless to the stratospheric ozone, with no direct global-warming

40 effects, and which entails a decrease in indirect CO2 emissions derived from its low

41 requirements of electric power, in contrast to the conventional technology of mechanical

42 compression [2, 3]. As for the second goal of EU, concerning absorption machines,

43 more effects require higher heat-source temperature, although the machine is more

44 efficient ([4] - [6]). In air-cooled machines, this energy efficiency decreases when the

45 outdoor temperature increases, but operational costs are lower and they constitute a

46 suitable option for regions under water scarcity ([7]-[9]). Concerning the exergy

47 efficiency, Gomri [6] observed that when the evaporation temperature is varied from

48 4ºC to 10ºC and the condenser temperature is increased from 33ºC to 39ºC, the

49 maximum exergy efficiency values of the triple effect cooling system are in the range of

50 17.7-25.2%. Finally, regarding the third EU objective, this technology can be combined

51 with renewable energies. Waste heat has been used for driving absorption chillers, [10-

52 11], as has solar energy [12]-[19]. Eicker [20] compared some parameters of a single-

53 effect absorption chiller fed by vacuum-tube collectors and double- and triple-effect

54 absorption chillers fed by Fresnel collectors. This researcher concluded that higher
Page 2 of 31
55 primary energy ratio (PER) and lower specific costs (€ per cooling capacity) were

56 achieved by the triple-effect system. Yabase and Makita [21] suggested a solar cooling

57 system coupled with a triple-effect absorption chiller, driven by steam at 230ºC. They

58 achieved a 26% decrease in CO2 emissions in contrast to a solar cooling system coupled

59 with a double-effect machine. Regarding the corrosion that appears in the HTG at high

60 solution temperatures (above 200ºC) [22], research is under way to solve this problem,

61 developing corrosion inhibitors [23], or promoting materials capable of withstanding

62 these working conditions [24]. High solution temperatures provoke also problems

63 related to solution stability. These problems are mitigated by using less reactive

64 corrosion inhibitors such as lithium molybdate (Li2MoO4) and by using more stable

65 performance additives such as 1-heptanol [25]. Bennett [26] investigated high

66 temperature additives for advanced absorption machine. The performance of the

67 additives was tested in a minisorber. Although many additives reached performance

68 levels comparable to 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, few showed the required thermal stability. 1-

69 heptanol, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol and FC-171 offered the best alternatives for high

70 temperature systems. Currently, there are two models of H2O/LiBr triple effect

71 absorption chillers in the market [27, 28] and they are fed with temperatures up to

72 250ºC. This means that research aimed at avoiding corrosion and maintaining thermal

73 stability is successful.

74 Another way of avoiding this problem is to prevent H2O/LiBr from reaching high

75 temperatures [29] and [30].

76 Absorption chillers are devices that transfer heat at three temperature levels

77 (evaporation, condensation-absorption and desorbing temperatures) [31]. Thus, once

78 evaporation and absorption-condensation temperatures are settled, there is a certain

79 HTG solution temperature for which the maximum COP is attained. According to the

80 literature, most researchers calculate the maximum COP in terms of the temperature of

Page 3 of 31
 81 the HTG ([32], [6], [5], [33]). Grossman et al. [32] simulated a wide range of

82 combinations of water-cooled triple-effect H2O/LiBr absorption cycles (series, parallel,

83 reverse). The most efficient combination proved to be the double-condenser coupled

84 alternate (DCCA) cycle having a parallel-flow arrangement, with a resulting COP of

85 1.729 with outlet HTG solution temperature of 218ºC and a 63% solution concentration

86 at the absorber inlet. For the same inlet conditions, the COP increased to 1.825 when the

87 solution mass flows of each generator were not the same. Kaita [34] carried out a

88 simulation analysis of the aforementioned configurations, but the new design included a

89 refrigerant heat exchanger (CHX) to recover heat from the condensed refrigerant

90 leaving the LTG. This configuration improved the COP by 0.03 to 0.05. On the other

91 hand, the concentration of the solution when entering the absorber decreased to 59.5%.

92 Sedigh and Saffari [35], having made a thermodynamic analysis of the DCCA

93 configuration, reported a design point with a COP of 1.7 for an evaporation temperature

94 of 8ºC, absorption and condensation temperatures of 35ºC, and an outlet HTG solution

95 temperature of 180ºC.

96 Marcos et al. [36] used a different criterion to reach the optimal COP for a double-effect

97 cycle. These researchers considered the same variation of solution concentration (Δx)

98 for each generator and calculated the maximum COP depending on Δx. They claimed

99 that this approach maximized the production of refrigerant. Their results were validated

100 experimentally. The criterion followed in [36] has not been applied for triple-effect

101 cycles in any other work available.

102 When feeding with a variable-temperature heat source, as happens in solar-cooling

103 facilities, the machine works under off-design conditions most of the time. No mass

104 flow rates are available in the literature for optimising the COP under such conditions,

105 despite its importance for the daily average COP.

Page 4 of 31
106 The present work presents the calculation of optimal COPs for a triple-effect parallel-

107 flow absorption chiller under off-design conditions. The most suitable solution mass-

108 flow rates to be pumped to each generator, in order to reach the optimal COPs as the

109 outlet HTG solution temperature changes, are presented. A variable temperature heat-

110 source scenario can arise, for instance, when working with a solar-collector field. To the

111 authors´ knowledge, this is a novel type of analysis in some respects, since there are no

112 previous works that provide the mass flow rates to be pumped to each generator to get

113 the optimal COPs for a triple-effect parallel flow absorption chiller under off-design

114 conditions. Concerning the solution mass flow rates, most researchers obtain the design

115 point by setting a fixed value for the solution mass flow rate to meet the cooling

116 capacity [29], or considering equal solution mass flow rates to be pumped to each

117 generator [32], [34]. However, it is expected that the optimum solution mass flow rates

118 vary with the operating conditions. From a control point of view, the knowledge of

119 optimum mass flow rates is essential to take full advantage of the chiller as

120 temperatures (te,tc,tHTG) change.

121 A simulation code has been developed for a wide range of Δx, considering the same

122 value of Δx for each generator, as has been done for double-effect systems [36].

123 Different evaporation (5, 8, and 10ºC) and condensation temperatures (30ºC, 35ºC, and

124 40ºC) are considered. The results may be useful to optimise solar-cooling facilities with

125 high-efficiency LiBr-water absorption chillers.

126 2. Description of the thermodynamic cycle

127 Fig. 1 depicts a scheme of the triple-effect cycle studied. It is the double-condenser

128 coupled alternate (DCCA) cycle with parallel-flow arrangement, described by

129 Grossman [32], in which the refrigerant generated leaves the high and medium

130 temperature generators (HTG, MTG) and feeds the medium and low temperature

131 generators (MTG, LTG), respectively. This configuration was chosen because, on the

Page 5 of 31
132 one hand, it provides the highest COP [32], and on the other hand, from a regulation

133 standpoint, in contrast to the series configuration, it offers the possibility of setting the

134 solution mass-flow rate in each generator (m4, m11, and m17). This ability is essential if

135 the machine is intended to operate under variable feeding-temperature conditions, as is

136 the case when being driven by solar energy.

137 3. Simulation methodology

138 The thermodynamic cycle has been modelled as a preliminary step for its simulation.

139 Thermodynamic properties of the H2O/LiBr solution were determined from the

140 correlations developed by Pátek and Klomfar [37]. The properties of liquid water and

141 steam were drawn from Moran and Shapiro [38]. Computer simulations were conducted

142 for te at 5ºC, 8ºC, and 10ºC, and tc at 30ºC, 35ºC, and 40ºC. Regarding Δx, it has been

143 considered that ΔxLTG = ΔxMTG = ΔxHTG. This criterion has been experimentally

144 validated for the COP optimisation of a double-effect absorption cycle, [36]. Therefore,

145 this criterion might be promising for triple effect cycles as well. In order to check it, a

146 scan of Δx in each generator (from 1% to 10%) has been performed with different Δx

147 combinations, never exceeding either the crystallization limit for low pressures, or the

148 maximum limit of the concentration and temperature of the solution of the correlations

149 by Pátek and Klomfar [37]. Fig. 2 shows the result of that scan. It can be observed, that

150 optimal COP values (black dots) are obtained when Δx are equal in each generator.

151 For a fixed te and tc, an optimal COP curve will be displayed. A total of six optimal

152 COP curves will be shown. The absolute maximum of these curves will be the design

153 point in each case. The calculations were made based on the following assumptions:

154 • Thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the system is considered [29].

155 • The cycle is operated under steady-state conditions [6], [35].

156 • Heat is not exchanged between the system and surroundings [6], [35].

157 • Absorption and condensation temperatures are equal [6], [35].

Page 6 of 31
158 • Pressure drop in the tubing and components are considered negligible [6], [35].

159 • The refrigerant is saturated vapour at the outlet of the evaporator, and it is

160 saturated liquid at the outlet of the condenser [6], [35].

161 • Flow through the valves is isenthalpic [35], [36].

162 • The refrigerant vapour generated in the HTG and MTG is totally condensed. All

163 the evolved heat is transferred to the MTG and LTG, respectively, as the energy

164 source [29].

165 • The refrigerant is totally vaporized in the evaporator and totally absorbed into the

166 solution in the absorber [29].

167 The computer program has been developed using MATLAB. By iterative simulation of

168 the cycle and by using the operating parameters reported in Table 1, the output

169 parameters determined were: enthalpies, solution and refrigerant mass-flow rates,

170 temperatures, solution concentration entering the absorber, heat-transfer rates in all heat

171 exchangers, and COP. The tolerance for the energy balance is kept within 0.5 %.

172 3.1 Mass and species conservation and first-law analysis

173 Principles of mass and species conservation, and first law of Thermodynamics are

174 applied to each component of the system (Eqs.1-3).

175 (1)

176 (2)

177 (3)

178 The effectiveness of a heat exchanger (Eq.4) can be expressed as follows [39]

179 (4)

180 where it is considered that the heat-capacity rates of hot streams, Chot, are lower than

181 those of cold streams, Ccold, in normal operation (C=m·cp). The efficiencies of all heat

182 exchangers were fixed to 0.8 [29].

Page 7 of 31
183 Next, the aforementioned balances in all the components are shown:

184 HTG:

185 (5)

186 (6)

187 (7)

188 MTG:

189 (8)

190 (9)

191 (10)

192 (11)

193 M1R:

194 (12)

195 (13)

196 LTG:

197 (14)

198 (15)

199 (16)

200 (17)

201 HHX:

202 (18)

203 (19)

204 MHX:

Page 8 of 31
205 (20)

206 (21)

207 LHX:

208 (22)

209 (23)

210 ABS:

211 (24)

212 M2R:

213 (25)

214 (26)

215 COND:

216 (27)

217 EVAP

218 (28)

219 Solution Pump

220 (29)

221 M1s and M2s

222 (30)

223 (31)

224 3.2 COP and ηex

225 The coefficient of performance (COP) and the exergy efficiency of the cycle (ηex) are

226 defined by means of Eqs. (32) and (33), respectively and considering T0=25ºC.

227 (32)

228 (33)

Page 9 of 31
229 4. Results and discussions

230 Firstly, the results for te= 5ºC and tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, and 40 ºC, are shown in detail.

231 Afterwards, the results for the other values of te and the aforementioned values of tc are

232 presented. In addition, some discussions are provided.

233 4.1 te = 5ºC, tc = 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC

234 Fig. 3 displays the COP and ηex against t18 for tc= 30ºC, 35ºC and 40ºC. The value of Δx

235 is displayed over each point of this curve. As expected, the COP decreased as tc

236 increased for a given t18 [6]. For tc= 30ºC, the COP curve attained an absolute maximum

237 (design point). This value, 1.94, was reached with 179.3ºC and ΔxLTG= ΔxMTG= ΔxHTG =

238 6%. Results for all the points of the cycle concerning to this design point are shown in

239 the appendix (Table A).

240 The highest COP values for tc= 35ºC and 40ºC are 1.78 and 1.6, respectively, and they

241 are achieved with t18= 219.4ºC and 221.8ºC. These are not absolute maximum points,

242 and therefore they are not considered as design points.

243 Besides, the effect of tc and t18 on the ηex of the system has been studied. As expected,

244 ηex increases as tc decreases. The highest value obtained is 0.43 and it is attained at

245 t18=155.1ºC and tc= 30ºC. Fig. 3 shows that, as expected [6], for a fixed te, as tc

246 increases, the maximum ηex occurs at a higher t18. It is observed that the maximum

247 values are higher than those obtained in [6]. It is also observed, that t18 ranges from

248 140ºC to 227ºC, so that these kinds of chillers could be driven by medium-temperature

249 collectors. The possibility of feeding a triple-effect absorption chiller with a solar

250 collector field fits with the priorities for solar thermal cooling and refrigeration

251 proposals suggested by [40].

252 Fig. 3 also reflects that, as tc decreases, t18 attains a smaller minimum value. That is, for

253 tc= 40ºC, the minimum value for t18 is 195.3ºC, for tc= 35ºC it is 169.4ºC, and for

Page 10 of 31
254 tc=30ºC it is 141.6ºC. Thus, it can be seen, that the lower tc is, the more advantage can

255 be taken of a solar collector field.

256 4.1.1 Optimal COP curves: parameters

257 The following paragraphs show the solution concentration, mass flow, and heat-transfer

258 rates, and mechanical power for these optimal COP curves.

259 Solution concentration

260 The solution concentration leaving the absorber (x1) is defined once te and ta are fixed.

261 For tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, and 40ºC, x1 is 52.2%, 54.9%, and 57.4%, respectively. The

262 solution concentration returning to the absorber (x8) was maintained below the

263 crystallization limit.

264 Mass-flow rates

265 Fig. 4 shows the solution mass-flow rates distributed to each generator as a function of

266 t18. The mass-flow rate for HTG (m17) is higher than those for MTG (m11) and LTG

267 (m4). It can be seen that, up to a certain value of t18, a minor change in the solution

268 mass-flow rates (m4, m11, m17) can result in dramatic increases in COPs. Subsequently,

269 any increase in the flow rate has little effect. It is also observed that, for a certain t18, the

270 mass-flow rates to be pumped to the generators increases with tc. For instance, for t18=

271 195ºC, if tc= 30ºC, m17= 4.65 kg/h, but if tc= 40ºC, the value of m17 becomes 10-fold the

272 aforementioned value. Therefore, this graph shows the importance of controlling the

273 solution mass-flow rate to be pumped to each generator as t18 and tc change.

274 The total solution mass-flow rate varies with t18 between 9.4 kg/h and 90 kg/h. The

275 solution mass-flow rates required in each generator to reach the highest COP (1.94) are

276 m4= 4.14 kg/h, m11= 4.53 kg/h and m17= 5.97 kg/h, and the refrigerant mass-flow rates

277 generated are m26= 0.43 kg/h, m23= 0.47 kg/h, and m21= 0.62 kg/h.

278 Heat-transfer rates and mechanical power

Page 11 of 31
279 The ratio md:mr in HTG increases as t18 increases ( Eq. 6). This makes QHTG decrease

280 and COP increase (Eq. 7, 32). In addition, as expected, QHTG decreases as tc decreases

281 (Fig. 5). QLTG is barely influenced by the increment of tc and t18 (Fig. 5). Fig. 6 shows

282 that, for all tc, as t18 increases, the values of QHHX, QMHX, QLHX decrease and become

283 more similar. On the other hand, Wp ranges from 1 W to 8.6 W. Particularly, at the point

284 with the highest COP, the heat-transfer rates in the heat exchangers and the pump power

285 are: QHTG= 0.52 kW, QMTG= 0.39 kW, QLTG= 0.35 kW, QCOND= 0.35 kW, QABS= 1.17

286 kW, QHHX= 0.21 kW, QMHX= 0.25 kW, QLHX= 0.21 kW, and Wp= 1 W. These heat-

287 transfer values are in the same order of magnitude as those reported by Sedigh and

288 Saffari [35].

289 4.2 te= 8ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC

290 The solution concentration leaving the absorber, for tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, and 40ºC, is 50.1%,

291 53%, and 55.7%, respectively. The solution concentration returning the absorber (x 8)

292 has also been maintained below the crystallization limit.

293 Fig. 7 plots COP and ηex against t18 for a new evaporation temperature, te= 8ºC, and for

294 tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, and 40ºC. As expected, for a given t18, COP increases when te increases

295 [6]. For tc= 30ºC and 35ºC, the COP curves show absolute maximum values (design

296 points). These values are 2.05 and 1.87, and they are attained with t18= 162.4ºC and

297 202.6ºC, respectively, and with ΔxLTG = ΔxMTG = ΔxHTG = 6% and 7%, respectively. The

298 maximum COP for tc = 40ºC (1.74) is attained for t18= 227ºC. It is not an absolute

299 maximum, so it is not going to be considered a design point. The maximum value of ηex

300 is 0.42 and it is attained at t18=141.4ºC and tc= 30ºC.

301 Comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 7, it is observed that as te increases, t18 attains a smaller for

302 t18 is 183.9ºC, for tc= 35ºC it is 154.7ºC, and for tc= 30ºC it is 128.7ºC (Fig. 7). Thus, it

303 can be seen that, the higher te is, the more advantage can be taken of a solar collector

304 field.

Page 12 of 31
305 The total solution mass-flow rate varies with t18 between 7.3 kg/h and 87 kg/h. If tc=

306 30ºC, the solution mass-flow rates required in each generator to reach the highest COP

307 (design point) are m4= 4.08 kg/h, m11= 4.4 kg/h and m17= 5.6 kg/h, and the refrigerant

308 mass flow rates generated are m26= 0.44 kg/h, m23= 0.47 kg/h, and m21= 0.6 kg/h. On

309 the other hand, if tc= 35ºC, the solution mass-flow rates required in each generator to

310 reach the highest COP (design point) are m4= 3.65 kg/h, m11= 3.98 kg/h and m17= 5.41

311 kg/h while the refrigerant mass-flow rates generated are m26= 0.43 kg/h, m23= 0.46 kg/h

312 and m21= 0.63kg/h. It was found that, in both cases, the solution mass-flow rates

313 required are very similar (Fig. 8).

314 4.3 te= 10ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC

315 The solution concentration leaving the absorber, for tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, and 40ºC, is 48.6%,

316 51.8%, and 54.5%, respectively. The solution concentration returning the absorber (x8)

317 has been also maintained below the crystallization limit.

318 Fig. 9 plots COP and ηex against t18 for a new evaporation temperature, te= 10ºC, and for

319 tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, and 40ºC. For tc= 30ºC and 35ºC, the COP curves reach absolute

320 maximums (design points). These values are 2.13 and 1.94, and they are attained with

321 t18= 152.4ºC, 184.5ºC, respectively. In addition, in both cases ΔxLTG = ΔxMTG = ΔxHTG =

322 6%. The maximum COP for tc= 40ºC (1.78) is attained for t18= 213.4ºC. It is not an

323 absolute maximum, and therefore it is not considered a design point. With this new

324 value of te, for tc=30ºC, the minimum value for t18 is 120.2ºC, for tc=35ºC it is 146.6ºC

325 and for tc=40ºC it is 172.7ºC (Fig. 9). The maximum value of ηex is 0.41 and it is

326 attained at t18=133 ºC and tc= 30ºC. Comparing Figs. 3, 7 and 9 it is observed that, as

327 expected [6], for a fixed tc, as te increases, ηex decreases and the maximum ηex occurs at

328 a lower t18. It is also observed that the maximum values are higher than those obtained

329 in [6].

Page 13 of 31
330 The total solution mass-flow rate varies with t18 between 7.13 kg/h and 85 kg/h. If tc=

331 30ºC, the solution mass-flow rates distributed to each generator to reach the highest

332 COP (design point) are m4= 4.04 kg/h, m11= 4.31 kg/h and m17= 5.35 kg/h (Fig. 10.)

333 while the refrigerant mass flow rates generated are m26= 0.44 kg/h, m23= 0.47 kg/h, and

334 m21= 0.59 kg/h. On the other hand, if tc= 35ºC, the solution mass-flow rates required in

335 each generator to reach the highest COP (design point) are m4= 4.15 kg/h, m11= 4.5

336 kg/h, and m17= 5.95 kg/h (Fig. 10), whereas the refrigerant mass-flow rates generated are

337 m26= 0.43 kg/h, m23= 0.47 kg/h, and m21= 0.62 kg/h.

338 A comparison of Fig. 4, 8 and 10 shows that, for fixed t18 and tc, with the increase of te,

339 the solution mass-flow rates to be pumped to LTG, MTG and HTG decrease. That is,

340 for t18 = 195ºC and tc = 35ºC, if te = 5ºC the solution mass-flow rates pumped are m4 =

341 7.9 kg/h, m11 = 8.9 kg/h and m17= 12.6 kg/h, but if te =10ºC, they are m4 = 4.1 kg/h, m11=

342 4.5 kg/h and m17= 6 kg/h. Finally, it is also observed that, the design points derived from

343 different te and tc reach similar values for mass-flow rates of the solution to be pumped

344 to each generator.

345 To the authors´ knowledge, there are no experimental works on triple-effect parallel –

346 flow H2O/LiBr absorption chillers, therefore it is not feasible to experimentally validate

347 this model. On the other hand, the comparisons with those research works that use

348 correlations for the H2O/LiBr solution properties previous to those published by Pátek

349 and Klomfar do not apply, since those previous correlations are valid only up to 175ºC,

350 and the temperatures in a triple effect cycle go beyond this value. In order to discuss the

351 improvement of this methodology, a comparison with the results obtained by Sedigh

352 and Saffari [35] has been carried out. They simulated also a parallel-flow configuration

353 and made use of the Pátek and Klomfar correlations.

354 Table 2 shows the results obtained in [35] and from the present work for tc= 35ºC and

355 ɛHE=0.7. It can be observed that for values under off-design conditions, the results of the
Page 14 of 31
356 present work achieve an improvement in the COP up to 0.4. This reinforces the

357 necessity of controlling the mass flow rates pumped to each generator in off-design

358 conditions.

359 5. Conclusions

360 COP optimisation of a triple-effect parallel-flow H2O/LiBr absorption chiller has been

361 carried out for a variable-temperature heat source. Computer simulations were

362 conducted for a number of te (5ºC, 8ºC, and 10ºC) and tc (30ºC, 35ºC, and 40ºC), which

363 are the most commonly used values for te and tc in air-conditioning applications. The

364 same Δx in each generator was considered as an inlet condition. Optimal COP curves

365 have been built as a function of the outlet HTG solution temperature (t18) for each te and

366 tc. Design points are provided for each curve. These points are the absolute maxima of

367 the COP curves. The conclusions are:

368  Controlling the solution mass flow rates to be pumped to each generator is

369 essential when working with a heat source whose temperature cannot be

370 controlled, as it happens in solar cooling facilities. These results provide the

371 solution mass flow rates to be distributed to each generator to attain the optimal

372 COP when tc, te and tHTG change, in order to take full advantage of an absorption

373 chiller during its performance. The regulation of the mass flow rate can lead to

374 an improvement up to 0.4 in the COP under off-design conditions.

375  Different design points derived from different te and tc inlet conditions are

376 displayed. To reach those values, the mass-flow rates to be pumped to low,

377 medium, and high temperature generators are on average, 4 kg/h, 4.3 kg/h, and

378 5.7 kg/h, per kW of cooling capacity, respectively. The COP of those design

379 points range from 1.87 (te =8ºC, tc =35ºC) to 2.13 (te=10ºC, tc=30ºC).

380  When te is varied from 5ºC to 10ºC and tc is varied from 30ºC to 40ºC, the

381 maximum exergy efficiency values are in the range of 25%-43%.

Page 15 of 31
382  For off-design conditions, with t18 ranging from 142ºC to 227ºC depending on

383 te and tc, the optimal COPs reached are between 1.05 and 2.13 and the total

384 solution mass-flow rate pumped to the generators between 7.13 and 90 kg/h, per

385 kW of cooling capacity.

386  The change in solution mass-flow rate with t18, tc and te, and its influence on the

387 optimal COP denotes the necessity of controlling the quantity pumped to each

388 generator. Up to a certain value of t18, a control of the solution, mass-flow rates

389 pumped to each generator is essential, due to their effect on the COP value.

390 Subsequently, the mass-flow rates remain constant, attaining similar values.

391  As tc decreases, and te increases, t18 reaches a smaller minimum value. Thus, it

392 can be concluded, that the higher te and the lower tc are, the more advantage can

393 be taken of a solar collector field.

394  The current configuration of absorption chillers in the market is series-flow.

395 Thus, these results can be useful for optimising the control regulation of future

396 parallel-flow prototypes driven by a variable temperature source, such as solar

397 energy.

398 Appendix

399 Acknowledgements

400 This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology under

401 National Plan research project ENE2010-20650-CO2-02.

402 Nomenclature

403 ABS absorber

404 C heat capacity rate (J/s K)

405 COND condenser

406 COP coefficient of performance

407 cp specific heat (kJ/kg K)

Page 16 of 31
408 EVAP evaporator

409 h enthalpy (kJ/kg)

410 HHX high-temperature solution heat exchanger

411 HTG high-temperature generator

412 LHX low-temperature solution heat exchanger

413 LTG low-temperature generator

414 m mass flow rate (kg/s)

415 M mixer

416 MHX middle-temperature solution heat exchanger

417 MTG middle-temperature generator

418 P pressure (kPa)

419 Q heat transfer rate (kW)

420 t temperature (ºC)

421 W mechanical power (kW)

422 x mass fraction of lithium bromide (%)

423 Greek symbols

424 ε heat exchanger effectiveness

425 η efficiency

426 Subscripts

427 a absorption

428 c condensation

429 e evaporation

430 ex exergy

431 p pump

432 HX heat exchanger

433 i inlet

Page 17 of 31
434 o outlet

435 r refrigerant

436 s solution

437 ρ mass density (kg/m3)

438 References

439 [1] European Commission, 2015. The 2020 climate and energy package.

440 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm (accessed on 2015).

441 [2] R.M Tozer, R.W James. Fundamental thermodynamics of ideal absorption cycles.

442 Int. J. Refrigeration 20(2) (1997) 120–135.

443 [3] E. Fahlén, L. Trygg, E.O. Ahlgren. Assessment of absorption cooling as a district

444 heating system strategy – A case study. Energy Convers. Manag. 60 (2012) 115–124.

445 [4] F. Ziegler, R. Kahn, F. Summerer, G. Alefeld. Multi-effect absorption chillers. Int. J.

446 Refrigeration 16(5) (1993) 301-311.

447 [5] A. Hajizadeh, F. Ranjbar, S.M. Seyed. Performance comparison of triple-effect

448 parallel flow and series flow absorption refrigeration systems. J. App. Sci. 8(16) (2008)

449 2913-2918.

450 [6] R. Gomri, R. Investigation of the potential of application of single effect and

451 multiple effect absorption cooling system. Energy Convers. Manage. 51 (2010) 1629-

452 1636.

453 [7] D.S. Kim, C.A. Infante-Ferreira. Air-cooled LiBr–water absorption chillers for solar

454 air conditioning in extremely hot weathers. Energy Convers. Manag. 50(4) (2009) 1018-

455 1025.

456 [8] R. Lizarte, M. Izquierdo, J.D. Marcos, E. Palacios. An innovative solar-driven

457 directly air-cooled LiBr–H2O absorption chiller prototype for residential use. Energy

458 Build. 47 (2012) 1-11.

Page 18 of 31
459 [9] J.D. Marcos, J.D. Prototipo de máquina de absorción de LiBr/H2O de doble efecto

460 condensada por aire. Simulación, optimización y resultados experimentales. PhD thesis,

461 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. 2008.

462 [10] A. Haywood, J. Sherbeck, P. Phelan, G. Varsamopoulos, S.K.S Gupta.

463 Thermodynamic feasibility of harvesting data center waste heat to drive an absorption

464 chiller. Energy Convers. Manage. 58 (2012) 26-34.

465 [11] S. Popli, P. Rodgers, V. Eveloy. Gas turbine efficiency enhancement using waste

466 heat powered absorption chillers in the oil and gas industry. App. Therm. Eng. 50(1)

467 (2013) 918-931.

468 [12] R. Best, W. Rivera. A review of thermal cooling systems. App. Therm. Eng. 75(22)

469 (2015) 1162-1175.

470 [13] M.U. Siddiqui, S.A.M Said. A review of solar powered absorption systems.

471 Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 93–115.

472 [14] Z. Li, X. Ye, J. Liu. Performance analysis of solar air cooled double effect

473 LiBr/H2O absorption cooling system in subtropical city. Energy Convers. Manage. 85

474 (2014) 302-312.

475 [15] Z.S. Lu, R.Z. Wang. Experimental performance investigation of small solar air-

476 conditioning systems with different kinds of collectors and chillers. Sol. Energy, 110

477 (2014) 7-14.

478 [16] Z. Li, X. Ye, J. Liu. Optimal temperature of collector for solar double effect

479 LiBr/H2O absorption cooling system in subtropical city based on a year round

480 meteorological data. App. Therm. Eng. 69(1–2) (2014) 19-28.

481 [17] R. Lizarte, M. Izquierdo, J.D. Marcos, E. Palacios. Experimental comparison of

482 two solar-driven air-cooled LiBr/H2O absorption chillers: Indirect versus direct air-

483 cooled system. Energy Build. 62 (2013) 323-33.

Page 19 of 31
484 [18] T. Mateus, A.C. Oliveira. Energy and economic analysis of an integrated solar

485 absorption cooling and heating system in different building types and climates. App.

486 Energy, 86(6) (2009) 949-957.

487 [19] M. Izquierdo, R. Lizarte, J.D. Marcos, G. Gutiérrrez. Air conditioning using an air-

488 cooled single effect lithium bromide absorption chiller: Results of a trial conducted in

489 Madrid in August 2005. App. Therm. Eng. 28 (8-9) (2008) 1074-1081.

490 [20] U. Eicker. Technological developments and market perspectives for renewable

491 energy cooling systems. Renewable Heating and Cooling. 2012.

492 [21] H. Yabase, K. Makita. Steam Driven triple effect absorption solar cooling system.

493 International Refrigeration and Air conditioning Conference. Purdue, 1-8, 2012.

494 [22] H. Iizuka. The corrosion inhibitors, Reito, 68 (789) (1993) 35–40.

495 [23] K. Mori, M. Oka, T. Ohhashi. Development of triple-effect absorption chiller-

496 heater (2003)

497 http://members.igu.org/html/wgc2003/WGC_pdffiles/10626_1045222692_11599_1.pdf

498 (accessed on 2015).

499 [24] S. Jiangzhou, R.Z. Wang. Experimental research on characteristics of corrosion-

500 resisting nickel alloy tube used in triple-effect LiBr/H2O absorption chiller. App.

501 Therm. Eng. 21(11) (2001) 1161-1173.

502 [25] R. H. Reiner, W. Del Cul, H. Pérez-Blanco, M.R. Ally, A. Zaltash. Evaluation of

503 the potential performance additives for the advanced lithium bromide chiller. Oak Ridge

504 National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. 1991.

505 [26] S. Bennett. The effect of surfactants on steam absorption into lithium bromide

506 solution. M.S. thesis in mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University. 1995.

507 [27] Thermax Ltd., http://www.thermaxglobal.com/ (accessed on 2015).

508 [28] Kawasaki Thermal Engineering Ltd., http://www.khi.co.jp/corp/kte/EN/ (accessed

509 on 2015).

Page 20 of 31
510 [29] J.S. Kim, F. Ziegler, H. Lee. Simulation of the compressor-assisted triple-effect

511 H2O/LiBr absorption cooling cycles. App. Therm. Eng.22 (3) (2002) 295-308.

512 [30] M.E. Álvarez, X. Esteve, M. Bourouis. Performance analysis of a triple-effect

513 absorption cooling cycle using aqueous (lithium, potassium, sodium) nitrate solution as

514 a working pair. App. Therm. Eng. 79(25) (2015) 27-36.

515 [31] K. E. Herold, R. Radermacher, S.A. Klein. Absorption Chillers and Heat Pumps.

516 1996. CRC Press.

517 [32] G. Grossman, M. Wilk, RC DeVault, R.C. Simulation and performance analysis of

518 triple-effect absorption cycles. ASHRAE Trans.100 (2) (1994) 452–62.

519 [33] S.C. Kaushik, A. Arora. Energy and exergy analysis of single effect and series

520 flow double effect water–lithium bromide absorption refrigeration systems. Int. J.

521 Refrigeration, 32(6) (2009) 1247-1258.

522 [34] Y. Kaita. Simulation results of triple-effect absorption cycles. Int. J. Refrigeration

523 25(7) (2002) 999-1007.

524 [35] S. Sedigh, H. Saffari. Thermodynamic analysis of triple effect absorption

525 refrigeration systems. Int. J. Energy Technol. 4(7) (2012) 1-8.

526 [36] J.D. Marcos, M. Izquierdo, E. Palacios. New method for COP optimization in

527 water-and air-cooled single and double effect LiBr-water absorption machines. Int. J.

528 Refrigeration 34 (2011) 1349-1359.

529 [37] J. Pátek, J. Klomfar, J. A computationally effective formulation of the

530 thermodynamic properties of LiBr–H2O solutions from 273 to 500 K over full

531 composition range. Int. J. Refrigeration, 29(4) (2006) 566-578.

532 [38] M.J. Moran, H.N Shapiro. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. 5th

533 edition. Ed. Wiley. 2006.

534 [39] F.P. Incropera, D.P Dewitt, T.L Bergman, A.S Lavine. Fundamentals of Heat and

535 Mass Transfer, sixth ed. John Wiley & Sons. 2007.

Page 21 of 31
536 [40] Aleksandar Ivancic, Daniel Mugnier, Gerhard Stryi-Hipp, Werner Weiss. Solar

537 Heating and Cooling Technology Roadmap European Technology Platform on

538 Renewable Heating and Cooling. European Technology Platform. 2014.

539

Page 22 of 31
540 Table A. Results for the state points of the cycle (te=5ºC, tc=30ºC).
541
point t (ºC) x (%) P (kPa) m (kg/h) h (kJ/kgK)

1 30.0 52.2 0.9 14.6 64.4

2 30.0 52.2 230.9 14.6 64.4

3 54.2 52.2 230.9 14.6 116.9

4 54.2 52.2 4.4 4.1 116.9

5 69.4 58.2 4.4 3.7 164.6

6 66.8 58.2 4.4 13.1 160.4

7 37.4 58.2 4.4 13.1 102.8

8 37.4 58.2 0.9 13.1 102.8

9 54.2 52.2 230.9 10.5 116.9

10 93.5 52.2 230.9 10.5 202.4

11 93.5 52.2 37.6 4.5 202.4

12 119.5 58.2 37.6 4.1 264.1

13 112.9 58.2 37.6 9.4 253.5

14 66.0 58.2 37.6 9.4 158.7

15 66.0 58.2 4.4 9.4 158.7

16 93.5 52.2 230.9 6.0 202.4

17 151.5 52.2 230.9 6.0 331.6

18 179.3 58.2 230.9 5.4 391.5

19 110.7 58.2 230.9 5.4 248.9

20 110.7 58.2 37.6 5.4 248.9

21 179.3 - 230.9 0.6 2825.9

22 123.5 - 230.9 0.6 516.5

23 119.5 - 37.6 0.5 2721.8

24 73.3 - 37.6 1.1 1468.3

25 73.3 - 37.6 1.1 307.0

26 69.4 - 4.4 0.4 2629.9

27 30.0 - 4.4 1.5 963.4

Page 23 of 31
 28 30.0 - 4.4 1.5 125.7

29 5.0 - 0.9 1.5 125.7

30 5.0 - 0.9 1.5 2510.0

542
543

Page 24 of 31
544
545
546
QHTG

21
HTG

18 17
Weak solution
Strong solution
Refrigarant QHHX
HHX
19 16

22
MTG
QMTG
23 12
20 11
M1s

13 10
QMHX
M1R MHX
24 14 9
QCOND

25
27 LTG
COND M2R
QLTG
26 5
4
28
15 M2s

6 3

QLHX
LHX

7 2

29 8
1
30
EVAP ABS

QEVAP QABS
547
548
549 Fig. 1 - Scheme of the triple-effect parallel-flow absorption cycle.
550
Page 25 of 31
551
552
553 Fig. 2 - Variation of COP and ηex with t18 and ΔxLTG, ΔxMTG, ΔxHTG (te= 5ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC)
554

555
556
557 Fig. 3- Variation of COPopt and ηex with t18 and ΔxLTG, ΔxMTG, ΔxHTG (te= 5ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC).

Page 26 of 31
558
559 Fig. 4 - Solution mass-flow rates as a function of t18 (QEVAP= 1 kW, te= 5ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC)
560

561
562
563 Fig. 5 - Heat-transfer rates for three generators as a function of t18 (QEVAP= 1 kW, te= 5ºC, tc=
564 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC)

Page 27 of 31
565
566 Fig. 6 - Heat-transfer rates for three solution heat exchangers as a function of t18 (QEVAP= 1 kW,
567 te= 5ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40ºC).
568

569
570
571 Fig. 7 - Variation of COPopt and ηex with t18 and ΔxLTG, ΔxMTG, ΔxHTG (te= 8 ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC,
572 40ºC).
573
574
575

Page 28 of 31
576
577 Fig. 8 - Solution mass-flow rates as a function of t18 (QEVAP= 1 kW, te= 8ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40
578 ºC).
579
580

581
582
583 Fig. 9 - Variation of COPopt and ηex with t18 and ΔxLTG, ΔxMTG, ΔxHTG (te= 10ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC,
584 40ºC).
585
586
587

Page 29 of 31
588
589 Fig. 10 - Solution mass-flow rates as a function of t18 (QEVAP= 1 kW, te= 10ºC, tc= 30ºC, 35ºC, 40
590 ºC)
591
592
593

Page 30 of 31
594 Table 1. Operating parameters
595
QEVAP (kW) 1

te (ºC) 5, 8,10

tc (ºC) 30, 35, 40

εHX 0.8

ηpump 0.6

596
597 Table 2. Comparison of operation conditions
598
THTG(ºC) COP [35] COP [present work]

te= 8ºC 155 0.85 1.09

160 1.25 1.3

180 1.70 1.70

te= 4ºC 170 0.26 0.71

180 1.21 1.27

195 1.53 1.55

205 1.60 1.60

599

Page 31 of 31