Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p t h e r m e n g

Research Paper

A comparative study on PCM and ice thermal energy storage tank for
air-conditioning systems in office buildings
Mohammad Hoseini Rahdar a,*, Abolghasem Emamzadeh b, Abtin Ataei a
a Graduate School of the Environment and Energy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b
Graduate School of Petroleum Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

H I G H L I G H T S

• A modeling was done to integrate ITES and PCM tanks separately with an A/C system.
• NSGA-II was employed to optimize exergy efficiency and total cost rate functions.
• PCM integrated system reduced more CO2 emission and power consumption.
• ITES integrated system had shorter payback period than PCM one.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Significant increasing demand of air conditioning (A/C) systems has led to more power consumption during
Received 26 August 2015 on-peak hours in recent years. In this paper, a vapor compression A/C system has been analyzed via two
Accepted 21 November 2015 strategies of hybrid systems. First, an ice thermal energy storage (ITES) system is used in the a.m. hybrid
Available online 10 December 2015
system; and thereafter a phase change material (PCM) tank is used as a full storage system (in order) to
shift (the load) from on-peak to off-peak mode. This A/C system is modeled and analyzed from exergetic,
Keywords:
economic and environmental point of views for both cases; then, using non-dominated sorting genetic
Ice thermal energy storage
algorithm-II (NSGA-II), multi-objective optimization is carried out and the optimal values of decision pa-
Phase change material
Exergy rameters are achieved. The exergy efficiency and total cost rate are considered as objective functions,
Economic and then ITES, PCM and conventional systems are compared. The results have illustrated that the power
Multi-objective optimization consumption of ITES and PCM systems are 4.59% and 7.58% lower than the conventional system respec-
tively. Moreover, CO2 emission production for ITES and PCM systems are 17.8% and 27.2% lower than
conventional system respectively.
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
One of the foremost concerns of utilization of A/C systems, which
have widely been used in residential and industrial sectors, is elec-
trical energy utilization for gas compression which not only is cost
effective but also leads to more greenhouse gases, lack of fossil fuels
in the near feature, daily rise in fuel prices and environmental chal-
lenges, which are the main motivators to find ways for using energy
more effectively especially in residential sectors. Thermal energy
storage (TES) systems could play a remarkable role in energy saving
via shifting from on-peak load (daytime) to off-peak load (night-
time) for cooling by the TES system which is one of best methods
for power management and economic advantages. Dincer [1] in-
troduced various information and useful examples for cooling
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +989126132902; fax: (+98)2144424796.
E-mail address: leon.hoseini@yahoo.com (M. Hoseini Rahdar).
thermal energy storage (CTES) and analyzed them from energy and
exergy aspects and mentioned their environmental and economic
advantages. Khudhair and Farid [2] summarized the research of TES
systems incorporating PCMs in building application. Wood et al. [3]
studied technical and economic feasibility for utilization of CTES in
commercial buildings and the results indicated that the CTES system
is more affordable. MacPhee and Dincer [4] reviewed four types of
the ITES in a commercial building for A/C system. They developed
energy and exergy concepts in charging, storage, and discharging
processes and demonstrated that energy analysis is not able to find
the optimal performance of a system and exergy analysis is re-
quired. Habeebullah [5] investigated the economic feasibility of
adding ITES to provide cooling load for Grand Holly Mosque of Mecca
in KSA. Assuming capital and operating costs as objective func-
tions, his study evaluated the system in partial and full storage cases
which concluded that in full storage, combined utilization of an in-
centive tariff model and storing technology leads to reasonable daily
savings. With proceeding technology development, new materials

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.107
1359-4311/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).
392 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399
Fig. 1. Schematic configuration of two thermal storage systems.
such as PCM are employed in energy storage system and many in-
vestigators have fulfilled some researches about it. Vakilaltojjar and
Saman [6] used PCM system with various materials for A/C appli-
cations and showed that electricity consumption decreases by using
this system in comparison with conventional systems. Moreno et al.
[7] tested a heat pump coupled with two different configurations
of TES tank including PCM and water tank and concluded that PCM
increased by 14.5% more cooling load than water. Ezan et al. [8]
carried out energy and exergy analyses for an ice-on-coil thermal
energy storage and found that the exergy efficiency increases with
rising the inlet temperature of the working fluid and the length of
the tube. Rismanchi et al. [9] analyzed an ITES system for an office
building in Malaysia which revealed that full storage strategy could
lessen the annual cost of the air conditioning system by 35% and
the payback period varied between 3 and 6 years. An optimiza-
tion analysis on ice thermal energy storage system incorporated with
a water-cooled air-conditioning system was accomplished by Sanaye
and Shirazi [10] and the results showed that electricity consump-
tion in ITES system decreased by about 11% as opposed to the
conventional one. Lee et al. [11] appointed particle swarm algo-
rithm to facilitate optimization of ice storage system combined with
HVAC system in an office building in terms of achieving minimum
life cycle cost while operating strategy is the best. The results in-
dicated that the algorithm was effectively applicable. Also, the value
of power consumption and CO2 emission rose with the expansion
in ice storage tank volume. Ice storage and PCM systems as the most
common cool storage systems are being increasingly used to control
peak-hour electricity demand and too much work needs to be done
to clarify the benefits of each one. However, most of early re-
searches on PCMs have focused much on heating applications
compared to cooling applications. Moreover, there are no ade-
quate and specific studies in relation to Thermal–Economic–
Environmental comparative analysis of these two systems
incorporated with A/C system. Global warming, over recent years,
has been introduced as a serious challenge via environmental com-
munities, and although many works have been carried out to deal
with it, however, the world environmental condition is not satis-
factory. It is necessary to decelerate growth of power plant
worldwide, and energy storage systems have been realized as a
drastic strategy in this context.
In this paper, exergy, economic, and environmental analyses are
accomplished for two types of CTES systems, and then multi-
objective optimization is carried out. Once an ITES system as full
cold storage is incorporated in the A/C system and then PCM system
is substituted for the ITES, each system is analyzed during the charg-
ing and discharging processes; subsequently, multi-objective
optimization of both systems is performed by NSGA-II to obtain
optimal parameters. The objective functions are the exergy effi-
ciency (to be maximized) and total cost rate (to be minimized)
including capital, operating and CO2 emissions penalty costs of the
A/C system. This paper could play a noticeable role in comparing
and choosing the most appropriate thermal energy storage system
for official buildings based on priorities of criteria. Optimal amounts
of design parameters were achieved and compared for each system
through using NSGA-II and regarding the two objective functions,
which is a new proposition in cold energy storage area. Further-
more, the performances of the modeled systems were compared
with that of a conventional one from aspects of annually pro-
duced CO2 as well as power consumption which are innovative
approaches for ITES and PCM cold storage systems simultaneously.
2. Mathematical modeling
This work presents two systems including ITES and PCM as full
cold storage capacity incorporated into the A/C system. The sche-
matic illustrations of both systems with similar charging and
discharging cycles are shown in Fig. 1.The charging cycle is vapor
compression refrigeration with R134a as refrigerant (including evap-
orator, compressor, air-cooled condenser, and expansion valve),
whereas discharging cycle includes storage tank, air handling unit
(AHU), and discharging pump.
During the discharge cycle of the ITES system, water–glycol so-
lution (25% glycol content) works as second fluid, while the same
responsibility is done via water in the PCM system. In this period,
the second fluid passes through the thermal storage tank inside the
tubes and returns to AHU in order to supply cooling load. The charg-
 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399 393

ing cycle produces ice for the ITES system and solid material for PCM tive feature could be a benefit by reducing the energy storage tank
system at off-peak load (from 11 pm to 7 am); also, when one cycle volume. The exergy destruction in ice storage tank is:
is working, the other is switched off.
E D ,ice ,ST = E D ,ice ,ch + E D ,ice ,dc (14)
2.1. Exergy analysis
where E D ,ice ,ch and E D ,ice ,dc are exergy destruction during charg-
ing and discharging processes respectively which are calculated
Energy analysis is a usual process for inspecting functionality of
according to Eqs. (15) and (16):
the thermal performance of systems which is never destroyed during
,ch − (E f − E i )ice ,ch
a process and is calculated according to the first law of thermody- Q
E ice
E
namics. The energy equations have been summarized below (Eqs. E D ,ice ,ch = D ,ice ,ch = (15)
t ch t ch
1–5):

,dc − (E f − E i )ice ,dc

Q
E E ice
Q
Q EV = ST (1) E D ,ice ,dc = D ,ice ,dc = (16)
t ch t dc t dc

where
Q EV
m r = (2)
h 6 − h5 ⎛ T0 ⎞
,ch = Q ST ⎜ − 1⎟
Q
E ice (17)
⎝ T ST ⎠
W Comp = m r (h7 − h6 ) (3)

(E f − E i )ice ,ch = (−Q ST ) − mw ,ST T 0 ⎡⎢c p ,w ln ⎛⎜

TFP ,w ⎞
Q cond = m r (h7 − h8 ) (4) ⎣ ⎝ T 0 ⎟⎠
(18)
L ph ,ice ⎛ T ⎞⎤
− + c p ,ice ln ⎜ ST ⎟ ⎥
Q TFP ,w ⎝ TFP ,w ⎠ ⎦
COP =  EV (5)
W Comp
⎛ T0 ⎞
,dc = Q C ,ITES ⎜ − 1⎟
Q
In contrast, exergy is considered for the irreversibility of a process E ice (19)
⎝ T ST ⎠
caused by a rise in entropy. Based on the second law of thermo-
dynamics, exergy analysis not only helps designers to recognize
(E f − E i )ice ,dc = (Q C ,ITES ) − mw ,ST T 0 ⎡⎢c p ,ice ln ⎛⎜
TFP ,w ⎞
cause, location, and actual magnitude of losses in thermal systems
⎣ ⎝ T ST ⎟⎠
[12,13], but it also shows quality of energy in addition to its quan- (20)
tity in a given state when it comes to ambient condition [14]. The L ph ,ice ⎛ T ⎞⎤
+ + c p ,w ln ⎜ 0 ⎟ ⎥
steady state equation of exergy rate balance for a control volume TFP ,w ⎝ TFP ,w ⎠ ⎦
can be written as:
Similarly, the exergy destruction of PCM tank is calculated as
dE CV follows:
= ∑ E Qj − E W + ∑ E i − ∑ Ee − E D = 0 (6)
dt
E D ,PCM ,ST = E D ,PCM ,ch + E D ,PCM ,dc (21)
In the present work, there is only physical exergy which could
be computed as equation below: The exergy destruction during the charging process in PCM tank
can be expressed as:
E ph = m [(h − h0 ) − T 0 (s − s 0 )] (7)
,ch − (E f − E i )PCM ,ch
Q
E E PCM
E D ,PCM ,ch = D ,PCM ,ch = (22)
Eqs. (8)–(27) are used to calculate the exergy destruction rate t ch t ch
for each component of system:
⎛ T0 ⎞
( ) (
E D ,AHU = E1 + E 3 − E 2 + E 4 ) ,ch = Q C ,PCM ⎜ − 1⎟
Q
(8) E PCM (23)
⎝ TPCM ⎠

E D ,Comp = E 6 − E 7 + W Comp
(E f − E i )PCM ,ch = (−Q C ,PCM ) − m PCM T 0 ⎡⎢c p ,PCM ln ⎛⎜
(9) Tm ,PCM ⎞
⎣ ⎝ T 0 ⎟⎠
(24)
E D ,EX = E 8 − E 5 (10 L ph ,PCM ⎛ T ⎞⎤
− + c p ,PCM ln ⎜ ST ⎟ ⎥
Tm ,PCM ⎝ Tm ,PCM ⎠ ⎦
( )
E D ,cond = E 7 − E 8 + W fan ,cond − Econd
Q
(11)
And for discharging process:

( )
E D ,EV = E 5 − E 6 + E EV
Q
(12) E D ,PCM melt E PCM ,dc − (E f − E i )PCM ,dc
Q
E D ,PCM melt = = (25)
t dc t dc
where E D ,EV is related to heat transfer of the evaporator as follows:

⎛T ⎞ ⎛ T0 ⎞
,dc = Q C ,PCM ⎜ − 1⎟
Q
E EV = Q EV ⎜ 0 − 1⎟
Q
(13) E PCM (26)
⎝ TEV ⎠ ⎝ TPCM ⎠

(E f − E i )PCM ,dc = (Q C ,PCM ) − m PCM T 0 ⎡⎢c p ,PCM ln ⎛⎜

Thermal behavior of static ice and PCM tanks is similar during Tm ,PCM ⎞
charging and discharging periods, and both work according to latent ⎣ ⎝ T ST ⎟⎠
(27)
heat capacity. Indeed, ice could play same role as a PCM with freez- L ph ,PCM ⎛ T0 ⎞ ⎤
+ + c p ,PCM ln ⎜
⎝ Tm ,PCM ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
ing point of 0 °C [15], and in most cases, this temperature is lower
Tm ,PCM
than necessary to provide building cooling; however, this nega-
394 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399

Table 1 issue threatening human life. Hence, in this paper, CO2 emission is
Capital cost function of components [15–18]. considered as a serious factor in modeling the system. The follow-
Components Capital cost function ing relation defines the amount of CO2 emission generated by
PCM 12.9 $/kg electricity consumption:
Air handling unit (AHU)
Z AHU = 24, 202 × A AHU
0.4162 m CO 2 = μCO 2 × S elec (31)

Pump where μCO2 is the emission conversion factor of grid electricity

Z pump = 4590 × W pump
0.55
and Selec is the annual electricity consumption. This parameter
value is considered as 0.968 kg kWh−1 [21]. The CO2 emission
Ice storage tank penalty cost is assumed to be 90 US dollars per ton of CO2 emis-
Z ST = 11, 761 × V ST0.53
sion [19]. Therefore, the rate of CO 2 emission penalty cost is
expressed as:
Evaporator
Z EV = 4832 × A EV
0.68

⎛ m CO 2 ⎞ × c
⎜⎝ ⎟ CO 2
 1000 ⎠ (32)
Compressor Z CO 2 =
Z Comp = 11, 642 × W Comp
0.46 N × 3600

Expansion valve
Z EX = 114.5 × m r 2.2.4. The payback period
Based on retrofit design, utilizing ITES and PCM systems imposes
Condenser additional investment and maintenance costs (including ice storage
Z cond = (1397 × Acond
0.89
) + 629 × W fan0.76 tank and PCM materials, respectively) compared with the conven-
tional system. These investment costs can be compensated with
reduction in electricity consumption when ITES or PCM system is
used instead of a conventional system.
The payback period of additional charges can be obtained from
2.2. Economic analysis
[22–24]:
Economic analysis consists of three major parts: capital and main-
⎛ (1 + i )p − 1⎞ ⎛ i ⎞
tenance costs, operational costs, and CO2 emission penalty costs. Due Δ (Z op ) ⎜ + Z SV ⎜ = Δ (∑ Z k ) (33)
to significant changes in these costs during economic life of the ⎝ i (1 + i )p ⎟⎠ ⎝ (1 + i )p ⎟⎠
systems, levelized annual values should be applied.
where Δ (Z op ) is the annual saving operational costs, ZSV is the
( )
difference in salvage values of systems, Δ ∑ Z k stands for the ad-
2.2.1. Capital and maintenance costs ditional capital cost of ITES or PCM system instead of conventional
Estimated cost functions for the components (Zk) of the system system and the extra cost payback period, p, would be calculated
are indexed in Table 1 [16–19]. With respect to capital cost func- for both systems.
tions, the capital cost rate (US dollar per unit of time) can be written
as:
3. Multi-objective optimization with NSGA-II evolution
Z × CRF × Φ algorithm
Z k = k (28)
N × 3600
3.1. Objective functions and design parameters
where CRF is specified as follows [20]:
In this study, exergy efficiency as the first objective function and
i (1 + i )
n
CRF = (29) total cost rate as the second one are considered for multi-objective
(1 + i )n − 1 optimization. While the first function must be maximized, the second
one must be minimized. The objective functions are defined as
where i and n are the interest rate and system lifetime, follows:
respectively.
Objective function I:
2.2.2. Operational costs E D ,tot (34)
Ψtot = 1 − 
The operational cost of the entire system (electricity consump- W Comp + W fan ,cond + W pump + W fan ,AHU

tion cost) can be obtained from:
Objective function II: Z k = ∑ Z k + Z op + Z CO 2 (35)
⎡ c elec ,off −peak ⎤
⎣
( )
Z op = ⎢ W fan ,cond + W Comp ×
3600 ⎥⎦
(30)
where ĖD,tot indicates the exergy destruction rate of the whole
⎡ ⎛ 4 c elec ,on −peak 7 c elec ,mid −peak ⎞ ⎤
⎣
( )
+ ⎢ W fan ,AHU + W pump ,dc × ⎜ ×
⎝ 11 3600
+ ×
11 3600 0 ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎟
system components (including evaporator, condenser, compres-
sor, AHU, expansion valve and thermal storage tank) and Ėin is the
input exergy of the entire system (electricity consumption of com-
The coefficients 4/11 and 7/11 in the second bracket are re- pressor, fans and pump). Exergy efficiency, showing the system
ferred to as portion of electricity consumption during on-peak and performance, must be maximized obviously; furthermore, the de-
mid-peak, respectively. cision parameters are listed in Table 2. It is notable that the state
of refrigerant at the inlet and outlet of the evaporator and con-
2.2.3. Environmental analysis denser is fully saturated (no superheating and subcooling) for this
The more electricity generated, the more CO2 emitted into the system. System constraints for each configuration, which are vari-
atmosphere which leads to global warming, which is a significant ation range of decision variables, are listed in Table 3.
 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399 395

Table 2
Decision parameters for optimization of both systems.
Parameter Description
T3 Second fluid temperature at AHU inlet
T4 Second fluid temperature at AHU outlet
TST Temperature of the thermal storage tank
TEV Refrigerant temperature at the
evaporator
TCond Refrigerant temperature at the
condenser
3.2. NSGA-II method for multi-objective optimization
In various science practices, applications of multi-disciplinary
design optimization (MDO) have been the trend of designing
complex systems. Therefore, applying an impressive technique to
solve multi-objective optimization problem is required; in fact, there
are a set of solutions which are not dominated by other solutions,
referred as to Pareto optimal set, and the associated objective func-
tion values are called the Pareto frontier. NSGA-II improves the non-
dominated sorting algorithm and reduces the computational
complexity. It sorts the combination of parents and children pop-
ulation with elitist strategy, introduces the crowded comparison
operator to improve diversity of solutions, and avoids the use of niche
operators [25,26].
The NSGA-II code is made into the MATLAB software and then
objective functions including exergy efficiency and total cost rate,
design parameters constraints and system details are imported as
working function. After a specific number of iterations, first rank
of the algorithm outputs is considered as one set of optimal solu-
tions. After that, optimum point from that based on priorities of user
must be found. In this paper, weight of each objective was as-
sessed 50%–50% due to equal importance. Next, a decision making
method, TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an
Ideal Solution), is employed to select optimum point from Pareto
frontier. Decision making is used to find the optimal point in op-
timization solution which is based on non-dimensionalizing of all
objective functions. This is due to the fact that in most cases, the
units of objective functions are different. For example, when the unit
of the total cost rate is USD s−1, the exergy efficiency is a non-
dimensional objective. TOPSIS is known as a multiple attribute
decision-making (MADM) method which is a significant part of state-
of-the-art decision science. It always involves multiple decision
attributes and multiple decision alternatives. The purpose of the
decision-making is finding the most desirable alternative(s) from
a discrete set of feasible alternatives with respect to a finite set of
attributes [27].
In this method, beside the ideal point (the point in which each
objective is optimized regardless of the satisfaction of other objec-
tives), a non-ideal point is defined which is the ordinate in the
objective space in which each objective has its worst value. To have
a criterion for sorting the solutions, a factor is defined as follows:
d i−
Cl i = (36)
d i+ + d i−
where d i − and d i + are interval of optimization points from
negative-ideal and ideal points, respectively.
4. Case study

The above thermal storage systems are applied for installing in

Table 3
Variation range of design parameters and system constraints.
Constraints Reason
3 < T3 < 5 Typical data for refrigeration systems
11 < T4 < 13 Typical data for refrigeration systems
−10 < TST < 0 Typical data for refrigeration systems
−30 < TEV < 0 Minimum and maximum refrigerant
saturation temperatures in evaporator
for wide range of applications
(TWB,out) + 5 < TCond < 60 Minimum and maximum refrigerant
saturation temperatures in condenser for
wide range of applications
TEV < TST For heat transfer between evaporator
and storage tank
TFP,Glycol < TST To avoid icing of water/glycol solution at
discharge cycle
an office building located in Ahwaz, in south of Iran, in which two
300 ton refrigeration cycles are used in an A/C system that works
from 7 am to 6 pm. The required cooling loads of building, con-
ventional system, and thermal storage system are illustrated in Fig. 2,
and ambient temperature variation curve during daytime and night-
time for a year of the region is presented in Fig. 3 [28]. Fig. 2 shows
that the capacity of refrigerant cycle in conventional mode is
2000 kW, whereas in thermal storage mode it is 1750 kW. This sig-
nificant difference comes from dissimilarity of two systems to provide
peak cooling load. The refrigerant cycle is chosen based on daily peak
load in conventional system (blue bars) in contrast with ice storage
system chosen based on the average of building demanded load
(green line). Thermo-physical properties of PCM (RT3HC) are indexed
in Table 4 [16]. R134a is used in vapor compression refrigeration
cycle as refrigerant. Ambient pressure, room temperature and rel-

Fig. 2. Cooling load of building, conventional chiller and chiller coupled with TES system. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
396 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399

Table 5
Accreditation of modeling results with reported values in Ref. 32.

Parameter Value(K) Outputs Reported Modeling Error (%)

(kJkg−1) (kJkg−1)

Tin,EV 263.6 10.208 10.9123 6.9

Tout,comp 350.9 E D ,EV

Tout,cond 314.3 19.479 21.0687 8.16

Tin,comp 264.3 E D ,comp

Tamb 302 7.9245 8.3603 5.5

Troom 289.6 E D ,cond

Fig. 3. Variation of the environment temperature [28]. (For interpretation of the ref-
erences to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
ative humidity are considered to be 1 atm, 21 °C and 55%,
respectively. The electricity costs during on-peak, mid-peak and off-
peak are 0.073 US$/kWh, 0.0365 US$/kWh and 0.0183 US$/kWh [29],
respectively.
The annual interest rate, lifetime of the system and mainte-
nance factor are considered as 22% [30], 15 years and 1.06,
respectively. The salvage value (ΔZSV) is determined to be 10% of the
difference between the capital costs of each system (conventional
and TES systems) [31]. The system operational hours per year are
2400 and 3300 hours for charging (from 11 pm to 7 am) and dis-
charging (from 7 am to 6 pm) processes, respectively. The system
is used for 10 months (from March to December).
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Model verification
In order to verify modeling results of vapor compression refrig-
eration system, the exergy destruction of the evaporator, compressor
and condenser of the system based on refrigerant R-12 achieved from
the developed model has been compared with the corresponding
results reported in Ref. 32. The results are mentioned in Table 5, and
the maximum deviation from the reported values was obtained as
8.16%.
5.2. Optimization results
The NSGA-II parameters for this optimization are listed in Table 6;
and based on these, Pareto frontiers are gained from multi-objective
optimization and illustrated in Fig. 4 indicating serious disagree-
ment between the objective functions as this was predictable at first.
In whole, all points on Pareto frontier can be considered as optimal
point of the system and priority of objective functions specifies the
final target point [10]. Rise in the exergy efficiency leads to higher
total cost rate, whereas reduction of the exergy efficiency acts re-
versely. The results of multi-objective optimization for the end points
of both Pareto frontiers are indexed in Table 7.
Table 4
Thermo-physical properties of used PCM (RT3HC) [16].
Melting point (°C)
Density (liquid) (kg m−3)
Density (solid) (kg m−3)
Specific heat (kJ kg−1 K−1)
Melting latent heat (kJ kg−1)
Toxic
The values of optimum decision variables for multi-objective op-
timization using TOPSIS method are presented in Table 8. The
objective function values at optimum decision variables for ITES and
PCM systems are 46.93%, 0.09541248 USD s −1 and 53.44%,
0.15902942 USD s−1 respectively. The exergy destruction of the system
components as well as the economic analysis results are indicated
in Tables 9 and 10.
As can be seen in Table 9, exergy destruction differences between
ITES and PCM systems during charging cycle are due to evapora-
tor temperature variation for each system which leads to different
compressor capacity. Currently, the PCM has relatively high price
which causes higher annual total cost for PCM system; still, as PCM
price will decrease in the future, investments on PCM could be done
with a shorter payback period. Likewise, the ITES and PCM systems
are compared with a conventional system during annual operat-
ing period (10 months) to evaluate the electricity consumption. The
results indicate that the power consumption is decreased by 4.59%
and 7.58% for the ITES and PCM systems respectively. Electricity con-
sumption curves for the three systems are depicted in Fig. 5.
In spite of all mentioned advantages of the TES system, it imposes
extra capital cost. However, regarding reduction of power consump-
tion, it will be compensated in a few years. Payback periods of the
capital cost which can be calculated using Eq. (28) are 3.16 and 5.56
years for the ITES and PCM systems respectively.
Finally, for more comprehensive implement of survey, the results
of the optimized modeling were compared with those of a hybrid
cold storage system (mainly ice storage tank with partially PCM for
pre-cooling inlet air) incorporated with a water-cooled vapor com-
pression cycle from Ref. 33. The results conveyed that CO2 emission
rate decreased by 17.5% for the hybrid system, while PCM system
(in this paper) was lessened by 22.4% in comparison with the con-
ventional system. However, the reduction was only 12.4% for ITES
in this paper. On the other hand, payback period related to the hybrid
system was obtained as 3.97 years, whereas ITES and PCM systems
acquired 3.16 and 5.56 years respectively.
6. Conclusions
In the current paper, two TES systems including ITES and PCM
systems were modeled for HVAC applications, and the models were
analyzed from exergetic, economic and environmental aspects.
Exergy efficiency as the thermodynamic performance, total cost rate
as the economic status and environmental factors were consid-
Table 6
3
NSGA-II parameters for modeling.
770
880 Population size 150
2 Crossover percentage 0.8
200 Mutation percentage 0.4
No Mutation rate 0.02
 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399 397

Fig. 4. Pareto frontier of ITES and PCM systems. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 7 Table 10
Results of multi-objective optimization for the end points of the both Pareto frontier. Annual total cost and CO2 emission amount.

Objective function ITES PCM ITES PCM

Maximum exergy efficiency (%) 48.36 55.57 Annual investment and operating cost 482,823 806,591
Total cost rate at maximum exergy 0.13158658 0.25060449 of entire system ($)
efficiency(USD s−1) Annual CO2 emission amount (kg) 3,015,225 2,670,306
Minimum exergy efficiency (%) 21.97 30.45
Total cost rate at minimum exergy 0.07240784 0.13214334
efficiency(USD s−1)
efficiency was 46.93% for ITES and 53.44% for PCM system while the
optimum total cost was 0.482823 MUS$ for ITES and 0.806591 MUS$
ered and the multi-objective optimization of each system was for PCM system. In addition, according to the results, the annual
accomplished via NSGA-II algorithm and optimal results of design power consumption of the PCM and ITES systems diminished by
parameters were obtained. Next, the optimal results of multi- 7.58% and 4.59% respectively in comparison with the conventional
objective optimization of both systems were compared with the system. The CO2 emission values of PCM and ITES systems were 27.2%
conventional system. The results indicated that the optimum exergy and 17.8% lower than the typical system respectively. Finally, eco-
nomic parameters were considered. The capital cost of the PCM
system was higher than the ITES. The payback period of PCM system
Table 8 compared to the conventional system was estimated to be 5.56 years,
Optimum decision parameters for ITES and PCM systems using TOPSIS method. while for the ITES system, it was 3.16 years. Although the payback
Decision parameters ITES PCM period of the PCM system may make it non-economic currently, but
with respect to the importance of the global warming issue, in the
4.99 4.99
T3 (°C ) case of PCM cost reduction in the near future, it could be more eco-
nomically justified.
11 11
T4 (°C )
Nomenclature

−0.23 1.62
TST (°C ) c co 2 Emission penalty cost per ton ($/kg)
E Exergy flow rate (kW)
−3.01 0.99 Q Heat transfer rate (kW)
TEV (°C )
Z Investment cost rate ($/s)
m Mass flow rate (kg/s)
Tcond (°C )
57.55 56.51
W Work rate (kW)
A Heat transfer area (m2)
celec Electricity cost ($/kWh)
COP Coefficient of performance
Table 9
cp Specific heat at constant pressure (kJ/kg K)
The exergy destruction of the components. CRF Capital recovery factor
E Exergy (kJ)
Components exergy ITES PCM
destruction h Enthalpy
i Annual interest rate
AHU (kW) 60 60
ST (kW) 75 74
Lph Latent heat (kJ/kg)
EV (kW) 116 103 m Mass (kg)
Comp (kW) 223 196 N Annual operational hours (hr)
EX (kW) 36 35 n System lifetime (year)
Cond (kW) 149 132
P Extra cost payback period (year)
398 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399

Fig. 5. Power consumption of conventional, ITES and PCM systems. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

Q Heat transfer (kJ) [4] D. MacPhee, I. Dincer, Performance assessment of some ice TES systems, Int.
J. Therm. Sci. 48 (2009) 2288–2299.
S Annual electricity consumption (kWh)
[5] B.A. Habeebullah, Economic feasibility of thermal energy storage systems,
S Annual electricity consumption (kWh) Energy Build. 39 (2007) 355–363.
T Temperature (K) [6] S.M. Vakilaltojjar, W. Saman, Analysis and modeling of a phase change storage
t Time(s) system for air conditioning applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 21 (2001) 249–263.
[7] P. Moreno, A. Castell, C. Solé, G. Zsembinszki, L.F. Cabeza, PCM thermal energy
V Volume (m3) storage tanks in heat pump system for space cooling, Energy Build. 82 (2014)
Z Investment cost ($) 399–405.
[8] M.A. Ezan, A. Erek, I. Dincer, Energy and exergy analyses of an ice-on-coil
Greek symbols thermal energy storage system, Energy 36 (11) (2011) 6375–6386.
μ Emission conversion factor
[9] B. Rismanchi, R. Saidur, H.H. Masjuki, T.M.I. Mahlia, Energetic, economic and
environmental benefits of utilizing the ice thermal storage systems for office
Ψ Exergy efficiency building applications, Energy Build. 50 (2012) 347–354.
Φ Maintenance factor [10] S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi, Four E analysis and multi-objective optimization of an ice
thermal energy storage for air-conditioning applications, Int. J. Refrig. 36 (36)
(2012) 828–841.
Subscripts [11] W. Lee, Y. Chen, T. Wu, Optimization for ice-storage air-conditioning system
AHU Air handling unit using particle swarm algorithm, Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 1589–1595.
amb Ambient [12] T.J. Kotas, The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis, Krieger Publication
Co, Florida, 1995.
c Cooling [13] A. Shirazi, M. Aminyavari, B. Najafi, F. Rinaldi, M. Razaghi, Thermal–economic–
ch Charging environmental analysis and multi-objective optimization of an internal-
comp Compressor reforming solid oxide fuel cell–gas turbine hybrid system, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
37 (2012) 111–124.
cond Condenser [14] S. Sanaye, A. Fardad, M. Mostakhdemi, Thermoeconomic optimization of an ice
d Destruction thermal storage system for gas turbine inlet cooling, Energy 36 (2011) 1057–
dc Discharging 1067.
[15] E.C. Guyer, Handbook of Applied Thermal Design, 1st ed., CRC Press, Ohio,
elec Electricity 1999.
EV Evaporator [16] Rubitherm, Innovative PCM’s and thermal technology, <http://
ex Expansion valve www.rubitherm.com/english>; 2015.
[17] O. Rezayan, A. Behbahaninia, Thermo-economic optimization and exergy
f Final
analysis of CO2/NH3 cascade refrigeration systems, Energy 36 (2) (2011)
fp Freeze point 888–895.
i Initial [18] R. Smith, Chemical Process: Design and Integration, second ed., John Wiley &
in Inlet Sons, New York, 2005.
[19] S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi, Thermo-economic optimization of an ice thermal energy
op Operational storage system for air-conditioning applications, Energy Build. 60 (2013)
out Outlet 100–109.
r Refrigerant [20] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, M. Moran, Thermal Design and Optimization, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1996.
ST Storage tank [21] J. Wang, Z. Zhai, Y. Jing, C. Zhang, Particle swarm optimization for redundant
tot Total building cooling heating and power system, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 3668–3679.
w Water [22] K.K. Humpherys, S. Kattell, Basic Cost Engineering, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1981.
wb Wet bulb [23] M.M. Oskounejad, Engineering Economy, Tehran Polytechnic, Tehran, Iran, 2006.
[24] S. Sanaye, M.A. Meybodi, M. Chahartaghi, Modeling and economic analysis of
References gas engine heat pumps for residential and commercial buildings in various
climate regions of Iran, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 1129–1138.
[25] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective
[1] I. Dincer, On thermal energy storage systems and applications in buildings, genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE T. Evolut. Comput. 6 (2002) 182–197.
Energy Build. 34 (2002) 377–388. [26] N. Srinivas, K. Deb, Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting
[2] A.M. Khudhair, M.M. Farid, A review on energy conservation in building in genetic algorithms, Evol. Comput. 2 (3) (1994) 221–248.
applications with thermal storage by latent heat using phase change materials, [27] Z. Yue, A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of
Energy Convers. Manag. 45 (2004) 263–275. decision makers using TOPSIS, Appl. Math. Model. 35 (4) (2011) 1926–1936.
[3] L.L. Wood, A.K. Miedema, S.C. Cares, Modeling the technical and economic [28] Islamic Republic of Iran Meteorological Organization, Weather data for Ahwaz,
potential of thermal energy storage systems using pseudo-data analysis, <http://www.chaharmahalmet.ir/stat/archive/iran/khz/AHWAZ/3.asp>;
Resource Energy Econ. 16 (1994) 123–145. 2015.
 M. Hoseini Rahdar et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 96 (2016) 391–399 399

[29] Islamic Republic of Iran Energy Ministry, Electricity pricing, [33] M. Navidbakhsh, A. Shirazi, S. Sanaye, Four E analysis and multi-objective
<http://www.bahaye_bargh.tavanir.org.ir>; 2015. optimization of an ice storage system incorporating PCM as the partial cold
[30] Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Interest rate, storage for air-conditioning applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 58 (1–2) (2013)
<http://www.cbi.ir/showitem/12570.aspx>; 2015. 30–41.
[31] Iranian Ministry of Industries, The official website of Iranian Ministry of
Industries, <http://www.mim.gov.ir>; 2015.
[32] T. Hari Prasad, K. Poli Reddy, D. Raghu Rami Reddy, Refrigeration exergy analysis
of vapor compression refrigeration system, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 4 (2009)
2505–2526.