Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
Availableonline
Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia156 (2019) 000–000
00 (2017) 244–248
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
2018 5th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2018,
2018 5th International Conference on Power 2018,
19–21 September and Energy Systems
Nagoya, Japan Engineering, CPESE 2018,
19–21 September 2018, Nagoya, Japan
Working Fluid Selection and Performance Evaluation of ORC
WorkingThe
Fluid SelectionSymposium
15th International and Performance Evaluation
on District Heating of ORC
and Cooling
Kankeyan Thurairajaa,b,*, Anusha Wijewardanea, Saliya Jayasekaraa, Chathura
Assessing
Kankeyan the feasibility
Thurairaja a,b,
of usingaa the
*, AnushaRanasinghe
Wijewardane a
heat Jayasekara
, Saliya demand-outdoor
a
, Chathura
Ranasinghe
temperature
Departmentfunction for a University
of Mechanical Engineering,
a
long-term district
of Moratuwa, heat demand
Katubedda, Moratuwa, 10400, Sri Lanka forecast
a b
Faculty
Department of Engineering,
of Mechanical University
Engineering, of Jaffna,ofAriviyal
University Nagar,
Moratuwa, Kilinochchi,
Katubedda, 44000, Sri
Moratuwa, Lanka
10400, Sri Lanka
a,b,c
*, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Correc
a University of Jaffna,
Faculty of Engineering, a b Kilinochchi, 44000, SricLanka
Ariviyal Nagar,
b
I. Andrić
a
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract b
Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
Abstract c
Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) is known as one of the best method amongst the other low-grade energy recovery methods. ORC
can be applied
Organic Rankine forCycle
different
(ORC) applications
is known such
as one asofgeothermal,
the best methodsolar thermal
amongstand the waste heat. However,
other low-grade energy therecovery
application of ORC
methods. ORC in
thesebeapplications
can applied for requires
differentthe selection of
applications suitable
such working fluid
as geothermal, solarfor better and
thermal performance.
waste heat.So, this paper
However, thefocuses on performance
application of ORC in
evaluation
these of ORCs
applications
Abstract for different
requires working
the selection of fluids.
suitableThe modelling
working fluid work was performance.
for better performed using MATLAB
So, this and, a thermo-physical
paper focuses on performance
database,
evaluationREFPROP.
of ORCs for Thedifferent
evaluation is performed
working basedmodelling
fluids. The on the performance of the working
work was performed usingfluid.
MATLABThe resultsand, reveal that MD2M
a thermo-physical
& cyclopentane
database,
District REFPROP.
heating for temperature
The evaluation
networks ranges
are commonly 50addressed ⁰C,inbutane,
- 100 based
is performed on
thethe neopentane
performance
literature as one&ofR245fa
ofthethe for 100
working
most - 150
fluid.
effective ⁰C, ethanol,
Thesolutions
results for methanol
reveal that MD2M
decreasing and
the
propanone
&greenhouse forgas
cyclopentane 150-200
for ⁰C and
temperature
emissions from Water, m-Xylene
ranges
the and⁰C,
50 - sector.
building 100 p-Xylene
butane,
These for 200
neopentane
systems - 320 &
require ⁰C areinvestments
R245fa
high betterforworking
100which fluids
- 150 ⁰C,for
are energythrough
ethanol,
returned extraction.
methanolthe and
heat
propanone
sales. Dueforto150-200 ⁰C andclimate
the changed Water, m-Xylene
conditionsand andp-Xylene
buildingfor renovation ⁰C are better
200 - 320 policies, heatworking
demandfluidsin the forfuture
energycould
extraction.
decrease,
©prolonging
2018 The Authors. Published
the investment return byperiod.
Elsevier Ltd.
© 2019
This The
ismain
an Authors.
open access Published
article by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2018
The
This
The Authors.
scope
is an open of this
access paperunder
Published
article isby
under
the CCthe
to Elsevier
assess BY-NC-ND
feasibility license
Ltd.
the CC BY-NC-ND of using(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
license the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection
This
forecast. and
is an open
The peer-review
access article
district of under
under responsibility
Alvalade, the CC BY-NC-ND
located in of thelicense
Lisbon 2018 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
(Portugal), 5th was
International
used as aConference
case study.on The Power
district andis Energy
consistedSystems
of 665
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 2018 5th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering,
Engineering,
Selection
buildings and CPESE
that vary 2018,
peer-review
in both19–21
under September
construction
CPESE 2018, 19–21 September 2018, Nagoya, Japan. 2018,
responsibility
period ofNagoya,
and the
typology.Japan.
2018 5th
Three International
weather Conference
scenarios (low, on Power
medium, and
high) Energy
and Systems
three district
Engineering, CPESE 2018,
renovation scenarios were19–21 September
developed 2018,
(shallow, Nagoya, Japan.
intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
Keywords:
comparedWorking fluid selection;
with results Organic Rankine
from a dynamic heat demandcycle; model,
Performance evaluation;
previously Waste heat
developed andrecovery
validated by the authors.
Keywords:
The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of errorrecovery
Working fluid selection; Organic Rankine cycle; Performance evaluation; Waste heat could be acceptable for some applications
(the error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
1.scenarios,
Introduction
the error value increased up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
1.The
Introduction
value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
The global
decrease in energy
the number demand increases
of heating hourscontinuously
of 22-139h during throughout the years.
the heating season Sources
(depending specify
on thethe world energy
combination demand
of weather and
will increase by 28 % between 2015 to 2040 [1]. The possible solutions are found to be exploring new sources the
renovation
The global scenarios
energy considered).
demand On
increases the other hand,
continuously function
throughout intercept
the increased
years. for
Sources 7.8-12.7%
specify per
the decade
world (depending
energy on
demand or
coupled
will scenarios).
increase by 28The values suggested
% between 2015 to could2040 be used
[1]. Thetopossible
modify the functionare
solutions parameters
found tofor bethe scenariosnew
exploring considered,
sources and
or
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +94718278154
Peer-review under
E-mail address: responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
kankeyan.t@gmail.com
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +94718278154
Cooling.
E-mail address: kankeyan.t@gmail.com
1876-6102 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords:
This Heat
is an open demand;
access Forecast; Climate change
1876-6102 © 2018 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 2018
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 5th International
license Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
2018, 19–21
Selection andSeptember
peer-review2018,
underNagoya, Japan. of the 2018 5th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE
responsibility
2018, 19–21 September 2018, Nagoya, Japan.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1876-6102 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 2018 5th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering,
CPESE 2018, 19–21 September 2018, Nagoya, Japan.
10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.136
 Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 156 (2019) 244–248 245
Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

new methods to energy extraction from existing sources. The search of solution is drastic and insolvable. The well
known better possible option is extracting electrical energy from heat which were not being able to utilize. This
research has found to use non-conventional fluids in the Rankine cycle for electricity generation as one of the most
predominant low-grade energy extraction method and called as ‘organic Rankine cycle’. Organic Rankine cycle
related researches are backed from 1940s [2]. However, due to the complexity of selection of variables for the
system design still the researches being carried out for various variables and it can be observed that the research
trend in ORC continue to increase in recent years [3]. Especially in this analysis the different temperature ranges
being considered as different heat sources and the performance evaluation is carried out for around 100 working
fluids those can be used in ORCs.

Nomenclature Subscripts
h specific enthalpy E expander
𝑚𝑚̇ mass flow rate P pump
𝑄𝑄̇ Heat Transfer evp evaporator
W Work con condenser
𝜂𝜂 Efficiency 1 evaporator exit/expander inlet
ORC Organic Rankine cycle 2a expander exit/condenser inlet
3 condenser exit/pump inlet
4a pump exit/evaporator inlet

2. Literature Review

Conventional working fluid selection primarily discusses the classification of fluids into three types as wet, dry
and isentropic based on their slope of saturated vapour phase in T-s curves [4] and [5]. Figure 1 represents the T-s
curves of those types of fluids based on their slope. The conventional classification simply neglects the wet fluids
usage in ORC applications due to the superheater requirement for better efficiencies. The system without
superheater for wet fluids will result in low efficiency and droplets in the exit of expanders. Dry and isentropic
fluids show better efficiencies in expanders as there are no droplets formation in dry and isentropic fluids in the exit
of expanders [6]. Wet fluid system design consist of separate superheaters in the cycle to avoid the liquid droplets
within the expander [5] as the life time of the expander dramatically reduces if the dryness fraction of the expanders’
exit conditions falls below 0.9. Researches suggests that the dry and isentropic fluids are more suitable for ORC
applications [4]. However, the prime Rankine cycle fluid, water falls in this wet classification.

Figure 1 - Types of working fluids based on T-s curves.

a) wet - water (Negative slop)
b) dry - benzene (Positive slop)
c) isentropic - R11 (vertical)
Selection of the working fluid depends on the thermo-physical properties of the fluids i.e. enthalpy, critical
temperature, critical pressure, maximum stability temperature, latent heat. Moreover, the chemical stability, Ozone
Depletion Potential (ODP) and Global Warming Potential (GWP), safety and availability of fluids are also influence
the selection of fluid for a specific application [4].
246 Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 156 (2019) 244–248
Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

There are numerous number of researches being carried out for various heat sources in search of proper working
fluid for a specific application is summarized in [4]. The results are tabulated and shown in Table 1 & Figure 2 [7].
Different researches propose different analogies to justify their selection based on the results obtain from the first
law efficiency, second law efficiency, work output, total irreversibility, exergy efficiency and net work output.

Figure 2 - Optimal selection of working fluids corresponding to the heat source temperature level [7]

Table 1 – Working fluid selection for different temperature ranges by different researches

Evaporation Temperature (⁰C) Fluid Suggestion by various researches and summarized by [4]
50 - 100 R134a, R245fa, R227ea, Hexane, R123, Butane and R141b
100 - 150 R236ea, Solkatherm, R245fa, R11, R114, R245fa, R601a, R601, R141b and R113
150 - 200 R245fa, Benzene and Ethanol
200 - 300 Butylbenzene and R123
250 - 500 n-hexane, n-pentane, toluene, n-octane, toluene and n-dodecane

3. System configurations and types of sources and their conditions for analysis

The available working fluids in the REFPROP [8] (Thermo-physical database) is selected for the analysis of
simple ORC cycle. The considered component layout is shown in Figure 3, which contains evaporator, expander,
condenser and pump. The system is modelled in MATLAB [9] with linked to REFPROP database using default
mathematical equations of those components and analysis is carried out for different evaporation temperature for
specified evaporation pressure and condensation pressure for fluids available in the database (around 100 fluids).

3.1. Selection of system variables and assumptions for analysis

The temperature ranges of type of sources decided based on the availability of temperature ranges in practical
applications and they are tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2 - Potential heat sources with their temperature ranges

Type Available applications Heat Source
Temp. (°C)
Waste Heat Aluminum anode baking [10] 300 - 500
Recovery Lime industry [10] 200 - 600
Steam boiler exhaust [11] 230 - 480
Exhaust gases from gas fired 70 - 230
boilers [12]
Internal combustion engines 66 - 120
[11]
Process steam condensate [12] 50 - 90
Geothermal Geopressured [13] 90 - 200
Solar Stationary solar thermal 50 - 100
collector [14] Figure 3 - Layout of simple ORC cycle
 Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 156 (2019) 244–248 247
Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

• The systems are assumed to be operated in steady state.

• The efficiency of the pump and turbine is assumed to be 0.65 [5] and [15].
• The condensation temperature is varied in the range of 22 to 40 °C
• The evaporation pressure is varied in the range of 1000 to 1400 kPa.
• The evaporation temperature is varied in the range of 30 - 350 °C.

3.2. System of equations for analysis

• •
Pump work input,
WP = m
• ( h4a − h3 ) Expander work output,
WE = m
• ( h1 − h2a ) Efficiency, •
WE − WP
•

P E th = •

Q evap
• •
Evaporator heat input, Q •
Condenser heat output, Q •
=
evap m(h − h )
1 4a =
cond m(h 2a − h3 )

4. Results

The efficiency of the working fluids varied from 0.2 to 20 % for the above prescribed boundary conditions for
different working fluids. The simulated results of efficiencies are plotted in a surface plot with variation of working
fluids with temperatures. The plot is prescribed in Figure 4 (List of working fluids used were tabled in Table 3).
Based on the results the best performance values are filtered, and proper working fluids were selected for each
temperature ranges. The selected working fluids are tabled in Table 4.

Figure 4 - Efficiency variation map of different working fluids for different temperatures based on simulation

Table 3 - Naming of fluids for above mentioned Figure 4 with their relevant numbers in the plot.
No Fluid No Fluid No Fluid No Fluid No Fluid No Fluid No Fluid
1 1-Butene 13 Trifluoro-iodo-methane 25 Hexane 37 m-Xylene 49 R114 61 R152a 73 Rc318
2 Propanone 14 Cyclohexane 26 Isobutene 38 Neopentane 50 R115 62 R161 74 Re134
3 Ammonia 15 Cyclopentane 27 Isohexane 39 Nonane 51 R12 63 R21 75 Re143a
4 Benzene 16 Cyclopropane 28 Isooctane 40 Novec649 52 R1216 64 R218 76 Re245cb2
5 Butane 17 OMCTS 29 Isopentane 41 Octane 53 R123 65 R22 77 Re245fa2
6 Undecane 18 Decane 30 Isobutane 42 o-Xylene 54 R1233zd 66 R227ea 78 Re347mcc
7 Dodecane 19 Diethylether 31 MD2M 43 Pentane 55 R1234yf 67 R236ea 79 Sulfur dioxide
8 Methylcyclohexane 20 DMC 32 MDM 44 Propane 56 R1234ze 68 R236fa 80 Trans-2-butene
9 Cis-2-butene 21 Methoxymethane 33 Methanol 45 Propyne 57 R124 69 R245ca 81 Toluene
10 n-Propylcyclohexane 22 Phenylethane 34 MethylLinolenate 46 p-Xylene 58 R134a 70 R245fa 82 Water
11 Decafluorobutane 23 Ethanol 35 HMDSO 47 R11 59 R141b 71 R365mfc
12 Dodecafluoro-pentane 24 Heptane 36 MethylOleate 48 R113 60 R142b 72 R40
248 Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 156 (2019) 244–248
Kankeyan Thurairaja et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

Table 4 - Selected of working fluids (Based on better performance) for different temperature ranges
Evaporation
Selected Working Fluids (Based on better performance)
Temperature (°C)
30 - 40 MD2M, cyclopentane, R11, isooctane, OMCTS & HMDSO
45 - 60 MD2M, cyclopentane, isooctane, OMCTS & HMDSO
65 R124, MD2M, OMCTS, HMDSO, cyclopentane & isooctane
70 Isobutane, R142b, Rc318, MD2M, cyclopentane & OMCTS
75 1-butene, isobutene, R236fa, R142b, isobutane & perfluorobutane
80 Butane, R236ea, Re134, 1-butene, isobutene & R236fa
85 Cis-2-butene, trans-2-butene, R114, butane, Re245cb2, Re134 & R236ea
90 R21, R245fa, cis-2-butene, trans-2-butene, R114 & Butane
100 - 110 R1233zd, R21, Neopentane, R245fa, cis-2-butene, trans-2-butene, R114 & butane
120 R11, Re245fa2, R245ca, R1233zd, R21, Neopentane, R245fa
140 R141b, pentane, R11, R365mfc, R123, isopentane & diethylether
150 Methanol, R113, R141b, pentane, R11, diethylether & R365mfc
175 - 180 Ethanol, methanol, propanone, cyclopentane, isohexane, R113 & R141b
200 Water, benzene, ethanol, methanol, propanone, cyclopentane & hexane
250 - 320 Water, m-Xylene, p-Xylene, ethylbenzene, toluene & benzene
5. Conclusion
Based on the analysis, there are different fluids available for different temperature ranges to extract power from
the available heat sources, the working fluids thermo-physical properties heavily influences on the choice of the
fluid. Based on the results, low ODP, low GWP, it can be concluded that MD2M & cyclopentane for temperature
ranges 50 - 100 ⁰C, butane, neopentane & R245fa for 100 - 150 ⁰C, ethanol, methanol and propanone for 150 - 200
⁰C and Water, m-Xylene and p-Xylene for 200 - 320 ⁰C are better working fluids for energy extraction. Even though
the analysis provides that there are possibilities of heat extraction using the different working fluids possible, the
results must be verified based on the practical aspects such as availability of possible components to extract the
energy from the sources, the availability of the working fluid, safety and environmental friendliness of the working
fluid, economic feasibility of the system. As future work in this research the broader analysis of fluids for different
temperatures will be limited to a specific range (Around 175 °C temperature and 14 bar pressure - especially
targeting the steam boiler exhaust gases). Experimental test rig will be constructed, and analysis will be limited to
certain fluids in that range. And the analysis will be carried out for both experimental and mathematical modelling.
Economic feasibility of the system will also be analysed for the specified range.
References
[1] “International Energy Outlook 2017,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017.
[2] B. B. Holmes, “Method of translating heat energy into motive power”. United States of America Patent 2301404A, 20 March 1939.
[3] R. Dickes, O. Dumont, R. Daccord, S. Quoilin and V. Lemort, “Modelling of organic Rankine cycle power systems in off-design
conditions: An experimentally-validated comparative study,” Energy, vol. 123, pp. 710-727, 2017.
[4] J. Bao and L. Zhao, “A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic Rankine cycle,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 24, no. October 2016, pp. 325-342, 2013.
[5] S. Quoilin, “Sustainable energy conversion through the use of organic Rankine cycles for waste heat recovery and solar applications.,”
Faculty of Applied Science of the University of Liege (Belgium), Liege, 2011.
[6] D. Mikielewicz and J. Mikielewicz, “A thermodynamic criterion for selection of working fluid for subcritical and supercritical domestic
micro CHP,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 30, no. 16, pp. 2357-2362, 2010.
[7] D. Wang, X. Ling, H. Peng, L. Liu and L. L. Tao, “Efficiency and optimal performance evaluation of organic Rankine cycle for low grade
waste heat power generation,” Energy, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 343-352, 2013.
[8] E. H. M. M. M. Lemmon, NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP,
Version 9.1, Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2013.
[9] MATLAB 2013a, Natick: The MathWorks, 2013.
[10] “Waste Heat Recovery Technology Overview,” U.S. Departament of Energy, 2015.
[11] S. Bhawan and R. Puram, “Chapter 8 - Waste Heat Recovery,” in Energy Efficiency in Thermal Utilities, 2003, pp. 173-189.
[12] “Waste Heat Recovery: Technology Opportunities in the US Industry,” U.S. Department of Energy, 2008.
[13] “World Energy Resources: Chapter 9 - Geothermal,” World Energy Council, 2013.
[14] Y. S. Kim, K. Balkoski, L. Jiang and R. Winston, “Efficient stationary solar thermal collector systems operating at a medium-temperature
range,” Applied Energy, vol. 111, p. 1071–1079, 2013.
[15] Md. Ali Tarique, I. Dincer and C. Zamfirescu, “Experimental investigation of a scroll expander for an organic Rankine cycle,”
International Jounral of Energy Research, vol. 38, no. 14, pp. 1825-1834, 2014.