Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Review of water based vapour absorption cooling systems using T

thermodynamic analysis
⁎
P.S. Arshi Banua,b, , N.M. Sudharsanb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rajalakshmi Engineering College(Anna University), Chennai, India

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

Keywords: Heat based vapour absorption cooling technology is the most appropriate, efficient and eco-friendly way of
Vapour absorption cooling system harnessing solar heat energy, as many cooling load requirements are always in phase with the accumulated solar
Solar heat. The performance improvement of such systems has currently become a high research priority, to ensure
Thermodynamic analysis conservation of electrical energy. Performance of these systems depends on two important factors: i) selection of
COP
suitable working fluid pair and ii) adopting appropriate configurations and multiple cascaded ‘effects’ of the
Single-effect
absorption cycles. The Thermodynamic analysis (TDA) or the first law analysis is the broad indicating tool to
Double-effect
Triple-effect predict the performance behavior and suitability of a vapour absorption system for a particular application. In
1.5-effect the present work, a detailed literature survey has been conducted on various water based working fluid pairs and
Half-effect their cascaded effects; single-effect, double-effect, triple-effect, 1.5-effect and half-effect vapour absorption
Performance cooling systems based on TDA. This review paper focuses on two areas: (1) the importance of conducting TDA
Parameters and choosing right parameters in TDA for performance enhancement in order to overcome the drawbacks of
Generator temperature conventional systems. This will help in finding out system for solar based applications, air-cooled applications
and determining solutions to overcome crystallization, corrosion, compactness and initial cost; and, (2) as
generator temperatures represent the amount of solar heat energy required, considered as key parameter. For
various water based vapour absorption systems, the possible range of generator operating temperature re-
quirements and its corresponding attainable COP values has been reviewed and tabulated. This review data can
serve as a source of reference in selecting a suitable solar collector with available fluid pair and configuration or
vice-versa.

1. Introduction
This review work concerns the determination of the most appro-
priate and efficient comfort cooling technology, which offers the dual
advantage of energy and environmental benefits. The vapour absorp-
tion cooling system (VACS) runs on low grade energy such as solar heat
energy or waste heat from industrial processes, which has no global
warming consequences. These systems make use of non-ozone layer
depleting natural materials as working fluid pairs. Hence, the VACS
seem to be a viable option for solar based cooling applications.
Objective of this review is to ascertain the feasibility of the VACS for
solar energy utilization and to discuss the various pros and cons. Its
performance is comparatively lower when compared to the VCRS (va-
pour compression refrigeration system). Choice of proper working fluid
and proper configuration/number of effects are important factors to be
considered for improving the performance of these systems. In the
present work, various water based working fluid pairs and their many
‘effects’ are considered for a review because water is a natural re-
frigerant, is abundantly available, low in cost, and does not have any
harmful effects on the environment. Moreover, its high latent heat of
evaporation makes it ideal as a refrigerant for vapour absorption sys-
tems. The working fluid influences the performance to a certain extent,
but higher performance can be obtained by adopting appropriate con-
figurations/‘cascaded effects’ of the multistage VACS. The ‘effect’ re-
presents the number of times the primary high-temperature heat is
being utilized, to generate refrigerant vapour [1]. In the present work, a
detailed literature survey has been conducted on various water based
single-effect, double-effect, triple-effect, 1.5-effect and half effect VACS
to determine how effectively solar heat can be utilized for a wide range
of temperatures to achieve higher performances by overcoming the
drawbacks of these systems. Performance of all the systems reviewed in
this work are based on thermodynamic analysis(TDA)/first law ana-
lysis, which will decide the parameter range of interest as well as the
suitability of alternate refrigerant-absorbent combination for a specific

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Padur, Chennai 603 103, India.
E-mail address: psarshib@hindustanuniv.ac.in (P.S. Arshi Banu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.092
Received 4 July 2016; Received in revised form 19 September 2017; Accepted 28 October 2017
Available online 29 November 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan
Nomenclature
G, g generator
A, a absorber
C, c condenser
E, e evaporator
COP coefficient of performance/enthalpy based coefficient of
performance
COPmax carnot coefficient of performance
TDA thermodynamic analysis
application [2]. Second law based analysis and heat and mass transfer
based analysis do not come under the scope of this review.
2. Water based working fluid pairs(refrigerant–absorbent
combinations)
VACS literature has several refrigerant-absorbent combinations as
working fluid pairs. They are categorized as water based, ammonia
based, halogenated hydrocarbon based and alcohol based refrigerants
with various absorbent combinations [3]. The most studied combina-
tions are H2O-LiBr and NH3-H2O. The refrigerant (water) having a high
of vaporization and the fact that the absorbent (LiBr) being non-volatile
makes it a favorable pair for VACS [4–11]. Comparatively H2O-LiBr
systems are safer and less complex having a better performance when
compared to NH3-H2O systems. However, H2O-LiBr can be used in
applications requiring refrigeration temperatures above 0 °C. Some
authors [12,13] have suggested that H2O-LiBr pair has more scope for
air conditioning applications using concentrated solar energy.
However, some factors such as corrosion, crystallization and visc-
osity are causes for concern with H2O-LiBr combinations. Some re-
searchers have worked on additives for H2O-LiBr system to overcome
the corrosion problem [14–17]. In H2O-LiBr VACS at high concentra-
tions and high operating temperatures, the solution will undergo crys-
tallization and reduces performance by reducing absorbing capacity.
Crystallization can be overcome by adding one or more salts in a basic
H2O-LiBr system which will increase the operating limit without crys-
tallization [18]. Hence, for the purpose of this review, In addition to
H2O-LiBr other water based refrigerants with allied and alternative salts
of LiBr are considered as absorbents.
3. Thermodynamic analysis
Thermodynamic analysis [19,20] of VACS is carried out with certain
assumptions, considering the flow as steady state, neglecting the po-
tential and kinetic energy changes in components, neglecting frictional
losses and assuming that only pure water vapour comes out of the
generator. Thermodynamic analysis can be performed by finding the
state point vapour pressures and solution concentrations(X) of weak
Fig. 1. a: Basic vapour absorption cooling system. b: Single-effects VACSwith SHX. c: Single-effects VACS with SHX and RHX.
3751
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
VACS/VARS vapour absorption cooling/refrigeration system
ηII second law (exergetic) efficiency
T temperature in °C
Q heat load of components
CR/λ circulation ratio
TDA thermodynamic analysis
HXe heat exchanger effectiveness/heat recovery ratio
TDDD thermodynamic design data
VCRS vapour compression refrigeration system
Wp pump work
and strong solutions using the Dühring plot (p-T-X plot). State point
enthalpies of pure water (refrigerant) can be found from the steam ta-
bles and state point enthalpies of solution can be found from h-T-X
diagram. Mass, energy and concentration balance is performed to find
the heat loads on each component of the system. Finally, the overall
performance parameters can be determined. Some important perfor-
mance parameters considered in TDA are flow ratio (CR), enthalpy-
based coefficient of performance (COP), Carnot coefficient of perfor-
mance (COPmax) and efficiency ratio (ηII).
Reasons to perform thermodynamic analysis/first law analysis:
• To find the influence of operating parameters on performance
parameters.
• To find possible combinations of operating temperatures and their
limits of a system.
• To identify the best combination for a given temperature range of
interest.
• Useful in sizing of the component, such as solution heat exchanger.
• Useful in comparison of the performance of various working fluid
pairs.
Choosing the appropriate parameter and its impact on performance
plays equal role while performing TDA. Several parameters and their
significance have been discussed as follows. The standard operational
parameters such as generator temperature(Tg), condenser temperature
(Tc), absorber temperature(Ta) and evaporator temperature(Te) and its
influence on COP and circular ratio(CR/λ) are considered for TDA, as is
a general feature as seen from open literature. Quality and quantity of
heat source is denoted by generator temperature range by which fea-
sibility in solar thermal applications and choice of solar thermal col-
lector can be determined. The coolant (water/air) to be employed to
remove rejected heat is decided by condenser temperatures and ab-
sorber temperatures. Inference on the risk of crystallization can be
drawn from this range. Cooling loads of equipment represented is by
evaporator temperature. In performance parameters the COP represents
the overall efficiency and the flow ratio / circulation ratio represents
the size of the various heat transfer equipment of VACS. It also indicates
the load and heat losses associate with solution heat exchanger in
 Table 1
Single-effect VACS.

Working fluid Tg (°C) Tc Ta Te COP CR HXe Ranges Remarks Ref. no.

H2O-LiBr 70–90 50 30 8 0.63–0.67 9.54–4.38 – 2 < Te < 15 TDDD for H2O-LiBr presented. [22]
30 < Ta < 50
20 < Tc < 50
50 < Tg < 110
H2O-LiCl 70–90 50 30 8 0.47–0.76 27.86–12.45 – 2 < Te < 15 TDDD for H2O-LiCl presented. [31]
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan

30 < Ta < 50
20 < Tc < 50
50 < Tg < 90
H2O-Lil 64.5–86.6 30 30 5 0.5–0.62 27.9–9.3 – 0 < Te < 20 TDDD for H2O-LiCI with and without a heat exchanger calculated. [32]
69.2–87 0.76–0.7 With HX 30 < Ta < 50
20 < Tc < 45
50 < Tg < 100
H2O-CARROL 60–100 30 30 8 0.64–0.79 18.34–3.5 – 2 < Te < 14 High viscous Carrol can increase the heat and mass transfer rates in the absorber and [33]
30 < Ta < 50 overall COP.
20 < Tc < 50
50 < Tg < 100
H2O-NaOH 71.8–90.6 35 35 5 0.5–0.8 4.96–29.24 0.70 5 < Te < 15 Sixteenaqueous salt mixtures have been compares. Better COPs are attained with [35]
H2O-Lil 75.6–93.6 35 35 5 0.77-0.63 99.06–12.68 0.70 H2O-LiBr + LiCl + ZnCl2 and lowest working temperatures are possible with H2O-
H2O-LiCl 63.7–81.4 35 35 5 0.67–0.83 22.06–4.79 0.70 LiCl.
H2O-LiBr 71.8–87.9 35 35 5 0.65–0.82 57.23–6.92 0.70 25 < Tc < 45
H2O-LiCl-LiNO3 71.3–94.2 35 35 5 0.62–0.8 37.95–4.47 0.70
H2O-LiBr + LiI 71.3–88.8 35 35 5 0.62–0.82 60.47–8.14 0.70
H2O-LiBr + ZnBr2 74.1–91.9 35 35 5 0.47–0.79 123.38–16.20 0.70
H2O-LiBr + LiNO3 71.5–94.3 35 35 5 0.63–0.80 55.98–7.41 0.70 25 < Ta < 45
H2O-LiBr + LiSCN 71.6–88.7 35 35 5 0.82–0.63 58.29–7.15 0.70

3752
H2O-LiBr + LiCl + ZnCl2 70.7–88.6 35 35 5 0.66–0.93 66.74–9.15 0.70
H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + 70.7–88.5 35 35 5 0.55–0.81 90.15–11.4 0.70
CaBr2
H2O-LiBr + ZnBr2 + LiCl 69.9–86.9 35 35 5 0.58–0.81 89.27–10.9 0.70 67 < Tg < 95
H2O-LiBr + LiI + C2H6O2 72.4–90.2 35 35 5 0.47–0.79 103.07–11.15 0.70
H2O-NaOH + KOH + 71.4–89.7 35 35 5 0.61–0.87 39.96–6.42 0.70
CsOH
H2O-LiNO3 + KNO3 + 75.1–87.9 35 35 5 0.65–0.92 71.06–11.16 0.70
NaNO3
H2O-LiCl + CaCl2 + Zn 70.2–89.9 35 35 5 0.72–0.84 42.69–7.16 0.70
(NO3)2
H2O-LiBr 101.85 46.25 40.15 5.65 0.75 – – Optimum values Organic salts tried to overcome the drawbacks of the H2O-LiBr and improve the [44,45]
H2O-LiBr + HCO2Na 56.15 46.25 11.15 5.65 0.94 – performance.
H2O-LiBr + HCO2K 55.15 46.25 11.15 5.65 0.94 –
H2O-LiBr + CH3CO2K 56.15 46.25 12.15 5.65 0.94 –
H2O-LiBr + CH 60.15 46.25 12.15 5.65 0.93 –
(OH)CO2Na
H2O-LiBr 81–98 40 40 6 0.29–0.65 – – 1 < Te < 14 The hydroxide mixture operates with a higher range of temperatures, but gives [39–41]
50 < Ta < 100 similar COPasLiBr with H2O.
50 < Tc < 100
100 < Tg < 160
H2O-NaOH + KOH + 81–141 40 40 6 0.29–0.63 – –
CsOH
H2O-LiBr 58–90 30 30 5 0.3–0.8 – 0.75 Pre- 55 < Tg < 90 H2O-LiBr gives better performance at lower Te. [34]
H2O-LiBr + ZnBr2 62.3–90 0.33–0.74 heater (0.75) H2O-LiBr + ZnBr2 + LiCl, H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + CaBr2 gives better performance at
H2O-LiBr + ZnBr2 + LiCl 60–90 0.45–0.75 higher Te.
H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + 59–90 0.32–0.78
CaBr2
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
 Table 1 (continued)

Working fluid Tg (°C) Tc Ta Te COP CR HXe Ranges Remarks Ref. no.

H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + 55.7–129.4 30 30 8 0.85–0.77 – 1 50 < Tg < 150 Better COPs obtained with H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + CaBr2 than H2O-LiBrbut lesser than [37]
CaBr2 H2O-LiBr + LiCl and H2O-LiBr + C2H6O2.
H2O-LiBr 52.6–89 0.84–0.8 H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + CaBr2 can operate at wider temp than above three
H2O-CaCl2 + LiCl + ZnCl2 55.9–83.9 0.82–0.79 combinations, hence suggest it for air-cooled applications.
H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 54.5–151.8 0.81–0.71
H2O-LiBr + LiSCN 60.4–95.8 0.86–0.79
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan

H2O-LiBr + LiCl 55–77.5 0.88–0.83

H2O-LiBr + C2H6O2 60.5–88 0.86–0.83
H2O-[bmim][BF4] 100 40 30 10 0.544 13 – Optimum values Aqueous Ionic liquids mixture Performance and crystallization issues have been [47]
H2O-[emim][BF4] 0.525 18.2 compared with H2O-LiBr.
H2O-[emim][C2H5SO4] 0.569 13.57
H2O-[mmim] 0.662 5.32
[(CH3)2PO4]
H2O-[bmim][I] 0.534 23.7
H2O-[choline][Gly] 0.446 4.79
H2O-[choline][CH3SO3] 0.636 7.32
H2O-[choline][Lac] 0.659 7.79
H2O-[bmim] 0.532 11.17
[(C4H9)2PO4]
H2O-[eeim][(C2H5)2PO4] 0.565 12.38
H2O-[emim] 0.588 7.75
[(C2H5)2PO4]
H2O-[emim][(CH3)2PO4] 0.691 8.66
H2O-LiBr 0.78 4.08
H2O / [DMIM]DMP 80 40 30 10 0.829 8.77 – 63 < Tg < 120 Higher range of operation temperatures obtained. [49]
H2O/LiBr 80 40 30 10 0.835 6.59 – 63 < Tg < 95

3753
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan
VACS.
4. TDA review of water based simple/single-effect VACS
A basic vapour absorption refrigeration system (VACS) contains four
major components [21], generator (G), condenser(C), evaporator (E)
and absorber (A) as shown in Fig. 1a. Heat is supplied externally to the
generator (G) which contains a strong salt solution. Water as refrigerant
gets evaporated from (G) flows to the (C) then by pressure differential
flows to (E) and finally gets dissolved with weak salt solution in (A) to
make it strong for its closed loop circulation. Salt solution is circulated
between the absorber (A) and generator (G) and acts as a thermal
compressor. The evaporator gets the cooling effect due to expansion of
condensed liquid. Here, LiBr solution is considered as the absorbent. A
single-effect is a simple and frequently used system in analyzing VACS,
as shown in Fig. 1b. The working procedure of the single-effect system
is the same as the basic VACS. The solution heat exchanger (SHX)
preheats the weak solution from the absorber by utilizing heat from hot
strong solution leaving the generator. Hence performance enhancement
is obtained due to a reduction in the amount of heat supplied to the
generator [19].
H2O-LiBr is considered as the best working fluid pair due to its fa-
vorable properties for vapour absorption in literature. Almost all water
based flugeneratorid pairs have been compared with H2O-LiBr. TDA of
single-effect H2O-LiBr VACS was done by Eisa [22,23] Grossman [24]
Sun [25] and Chua [26]. They found the influence of operating tem-
peratures on performance parameters such as (CR), (COP), (COPmax)
and (ηII). It was found that COPmax and COP values increase with in-
crease in temperatures of generator and evaporator but decrease with
temperatures of condenser and absorber. Omer Kaynkali [27] compared
the single effect systems shown in Fig. 1b and c, with and without re-
frigerant heat exchanger (RHX). It is found that the influence of (SHX)
is more than (RHX) on COP of single-effect systems. Other than the
above parameters, Mostafavi [28,29] considered ambient temperature
as a critical parameter to develop air-cooled systems and Atmaca [30]
found that the performance of an absorber is the most important factor
that affects the COP and the cost of H2O-LiBr VACS.
Alternative aqueous salts of LiBr have been investigated and com-
pared with H2O-LiBr systems using thermodynamic design data (TDDD)
by the following authors. TDDD is listed data format, which contain the
concentrations, CR, COPmax and COP values at various operating tem-
perature ranges from the results obtained from TDA. Eisa [22] and Sun
[25] developed TDDD for the H2O-LiBr VACS without SHX. Grover [31]
compared TDDD of H2O-LiCl with H2O-LiBr system under similar con-
ditions. Chaudhari [32] studied TDDD for the H2O-LiI system with and
without heat exchanger. These studies were focused on the operational
limits with no emphasis on the design and sizing of equipment. Best
[33] elucidated the TDDD for water-Carrol (lithium bromide-ethylene
glycol, ratio 4.5) mixture to show that the heat and mass transfer rates
can be increased in the absorber using viscous mixtures such as Carrol.
In literature, studies on mixing of salts comprise mostly of com-
parative analysis. Some of the authors did COP based comparative work
for fixed range of component temperatures to find a better performing
fluid pairs for solar thermal range of temperatures are discussed here.
Malik [34] carried out TDA of four aqueous solutions of along with LiBr
salts for a wide range of operating conditions. He found that better
performance are obtained for the H2O-LiBr at lower evaporator tem-
peratures while for the H2O-LiBr + ZnBr2 + LiCl and H2O-LiBr +
ZnC12 + CaBr2 solutions at higher evaporator temperatures. This study
emphasized the cooling range based comparison, but did not carry out
comparison for solar applications and air cooled applications. Sar-
avanan [35] did comparative TDA on sixteen aqueous solutions (refer
Table 1). He studied the influence of component temperatures on the
performance parameters like cutoff temperature, CR, COP, ηII and heat
exchanger effectiveness (HXe) of the above aqueous solutions. It was
concluded that better performances and ηII are obtained with H2O-LiBr
3754
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
+ LiCl + ZnCl2 mixture where a slower generator temperatures
working is possible with H2O-LiCl mixture compared to other combi-
nations. However crystallization and applicability in air cooled appli-
cations has not been discussed in this work. Iyoki [36] studied the
single-effect VACS using H2O-LiBr-LiScN system in order to examine
whether this system was suitable for a solar powered single-effect
VACS.
Though H2O-LiBr is a commonly accepted working fluid, crystal-
lization/limited solubility does pose limitations in its use as discussed in
the previous section. Another category of mixing of salts that have been
tried in water based VACS systems is to find mixtures with wider range
of operating temperatures without entering into crystallization zone are
discussed here. At these wider ranges of temperature, systems can work
safely with air-cooled method instead of water cooled method to carry
away rejected heat, this in turn will reduce the size of the system. Iyoki
[37] performed TDA of six aqueous salt combinations (refer Table 1). It
was found that H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + CaBr2mixture performs better than
H2O-LiBr can also work at wider range of generator and condenser
temperatures. Hence, the above salt mixture has been proposed for air-
cooled systems. Uemura [38] found that use of single hydroxide with
water shows the same crystallization problems as LiBr. Best [39–41]
compared the performance of three hydroxide mixtures (H2O-NaOH +
KOH + CsOH) with H2O-LiBr and found that similar COPs are obtained
in both the combinations. However, the system operating with the al-
ternative hydroxide mixtures could operate with a higher range of
condenser/absorber temperatures and can also operate in air cooled
applications. Arshi and Sudharsan [42] performed TDA and found that
H2O-LiBr + LiNO3 + LiI + LiCl mixture has higher COPs and wider
range of operating temperatures than H2O-LiBr, hence suitable for air-
cooled application without crystallization.
Not only inorganic salts, but also organic salts of similar chemical
and physical properties have been tried as potential working fluids
along with LiBr in VACS [43]. In this regard, Rodríguez [44,45] pro-
posed mixtures of LiBr with organic salts such as potassium formate,
sodium formate, potassium acetate and sodium lactate as working
fluids in VACS. It is found that mixing of organic salt in lithium bromide
reduced properties such as vapour pressures, crystallization tempera-
ture and latent heat of absorption. Hence, higher performance was
achieved.
Current research trend of working fluids has been extended from
solid salts to liquid salts called Ionic liquids (ILs). Ionic liquids are li-
quid salts at room temperature. The favoring properties of ILs in VACS
applications are: negligible vapour pressure, non-flammability, thermal
stability, good solubility, low melting point, and staying in the liquid
state over a wide temperature range. They also avoid the crystallization
and corrosion problems of the H2O-LiBr system [46]. Though numbers
of IL mixtures have been tried along with various refrigerants, the lit-
erature of water based IL alone has been discussed here. In this regard,
thirteen water based ionic liquid combinations(refer Table 1) have been
analyzed and compared with H2O-LiBr in a single effect VACS by Yo-
kozeki [47]. It was found that all these ILs have similar performance
compared to H2O – LiBr. Another IL comparative study of H2O –
[EMIM][DMP] and H2O – LiBr was performed under the same oper-
ating conditions by Zhang [48]. It was found that though the COP of the
H2O-[EMIM][DMP] was lower than that of H2O-LiBr, it could operate
at lower generation temperature than H2O- LiBr. Hence it has scope as
a new working pair in absorption systems driven by low-grade heat
such as solar thermal energy. Dong [49] proposed H2O-([DMIM]DMP),
another water based IL combination as working fluid. It is found that,
though the COP is nearly equal, operating temperature range is higher
for this H2O-IL compared to H2O-LiBr. Hence, crystallization and cor-
rosion issues of H2O-LiBr VACS can also be resolved with ILs.
Table 1 contains the results obtained from TDA of H2O-LiBr and
other water based additives and alternative salts of LiBr in single effect
VACS. It shows generator temperature range of each fluid pair and its
corresponding COP ranges and circular ratios at particular condenser
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan
and absorber temperatures.
5. TDA review of water based double-effect VACS
Single-effect systems are simple in working and construction, but
after a certain limit COP does not increase with an increase in generator
temperature [22,26]. Hence double-effect needs to be adopted to
achieve higher COP in absorption systems by effectively making use of
the higher temperature heat sources than single effect VACS. Double-
effect VACS contains two generators. High temperature heat is supplied
to the high-pressure generator (G1) externally to produce the super-
heated refrigerant vapour. This vapour is reused as a heat source to the
lower-pressure generator (G2), to produce additional refrigerant va-
pour. The refrigerant vapour is generated twice; hence it is called
double-effect absorption systems. In general, there are two circulation
methods for strong and weak solutions in the double-effect absorption
refrigerating machine: series flow and parallel flow double-effect ab-
sorption systems. Series-flow double-effect H2O-LiBr VACS is the most
adapted configuration, which is shown schematically in Fig. 2a. The
weak solution produced in the absorber (A) is directly pumped to the
(G1) first. The strong solution from (G1) is sent to (G2) then it passes
into (A). Another possible arrangement of series flow shown in Fig. 2b
is, the weak solution produced in (A) is pumped to the (G2) first, and
then pumped to (G1). Then the strong solution from (G1) is directly sent
to (A). Fig. 2c shows schematically, a parallel-flow, double-effect H2O-
LiBr VACS. The weak solution produced in the absorber is split at the
outlet, and sent to (G1) and (G2) separately. The concentrated solution
from the high-pressure generator passes and mixes with the strong so-
lution from the low-pressure generator and then enters the absorber.
In double-effect vapour absorption systems, it is found that per-
forming the TDA as well as choosing the right parameters is important
factor in the complete analysis. In this regard, the following perfor-
mance studies of series and parallel-flow H2O-LiBr VACS have been
discussed. In the initial study, the performance analysis of double effect
systems was conducted similar to single effect systems by considering
the influence of component temperatures on CR and COP [50,51]. Vliet
[50] did a TDA of double-effect series flow H2O-LiBr VACS and found
the influence of input parameters such as component temperatures and
flow control methods of refrigerant on COP and cooling capacity. The
study revealed that heat exchanger areas (HXA) of the components and
the flow control of refrigerant vapour from one effect to another effect
are important design parameters. Grossman [51] compared the per-
formance of two types of flows, series flow and a parallel flow H2O-LiBr
double-effect VACS. He discussed the effect of generator temperatures
on COP. It is found that the performance of the parallel flow system is
better than the two types of series flow systems. Compared to the series-
flow type, the range of operating conditions of the parallel-flow type is
far away from the crystallization line, but the control and regulation of
the flow rate of solutions are complicated.
Fig. 2. a: Double-effect series flow-I VACS. b: Double-effect series flow-II VACS. c: Double-effect parallel flow VACS.
3755
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
As the double effect system contains more heat exchanging com-
ponents and more solution circulation methods, it is made to work at
higher generator temperatures than single effect systems. Takada [52]
and Xu [53,54] found that the previous approach for the analysis was
not sufficient. Apart from COP, corrosion and crystallization problems
need to be considered for a complete analysis. Hence Takada [52]
considered circulation ratio, heat-recovery ratio and the distribution
ratio of solution as significant parameters and found their influence on
the COP in double-effect parallel-flow VACS. Xu [53,54] considered not
only COP, but heat transfer area and crystallization also important
performance criteria for designing the double-effect VACS. He per-
formed the TDA of double-effect series and parallel flow H2O-LiBr VACS
by considering input parameters as solution circulation ratio and the
heat recovery ratio of solution heat exchanger. He discussed the influ-
ence of the above parameters on COP and heat transfer area. It is found
that the lower solution circulation ratio and the higher heat-recovery
ratio are better for both the COP and total heat-transfer area in series
flow. In parallel flow systems, it is found that the lower solution cir-
culation ratio and the higher heat-recovery ratio will increase COP and
crystallization and reduces total heat-transfer area. Distribution ratio
also affects both the crystallization and corrosion rate in parallel flow
systems. Optimum design and operating conditions are hence suggested
both in series and parallel flow systems.
Apart from the theoretical issues, practical problems of double-ef-
fect VACS were also analyzed by Arun [55,56] using TDA. In practical
double-effect systems, in order to attain full condensation, the low
pressure generator adjusts itself to an equilibrium temperature. In this
regard, he analyzed the performance of double-effect series and parallel
flow H2O-LiBr VACS at equilibrium temperature of low pressure gen-
erator. The influence of component temperatures on COP, circulation
ratio, the equilibrium temperature of low pressure generator and heat
transfer at low pressure generator were discussed. He suggests that the
equilibrium temperature and heat transfer rates are the key parameters
in design and control of the practical absorption system. Comparison of
the parallel-flow system with a series-flow system showed that the COP
of the parallel flow cycle is better than series flow at all the temperature
ranges. It is also found that the effectiveness of the low pressure heat
exchanger has more influence on the performance of the parallel flow
system than series flow system. Optimum operational parameters were
suggested by Arun, for series and parallel practical systems.
Some alternative salts of LiBr were also investigated in double effect
VACS by the following researchers. Won and Lee [57] investigated
TDDD for the H2O-LiCl pair and compared it with H2O-LiBr pair in the
double-effect VACS. It is found that the COP is higher and flow ratios
are lower for the H2O-LiCl pair than for the H2O-LiBr pair. The H2O-LiCl
pair can be used for a lower range of operating temperature conditions
and hence is more suitable for solar absorption cooling systems. Won
[58] investigated TDDD for the H2O-LiBr-LiScN mixture. Comparative
study was conducted between the H2O-LiBr-LiScN mixture with the
 P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan

Table 2
Double-effect VACS.

Working fluid Effect Tg COP Tc Ta Te CR HXe Ranges(°C) Remarks Ref. no

H2O-LiBr Series flow 153.5 1.227 41 38.4 5 12 1,0.9 Not available Optimum design and operating conditions [53]
suggested
H2O-LiBr Parallel flow 159.8 1.239 41 38.4 5 12 0.9,1 Not available Optimum design and operating conditions [54]
suggested
H2O-LiBr Parallel 66.3–148.2 0.3–1.3 23.9 23.9 7.22 – – 65.56 < Tg < 148.9 Performance is better in, parallel flow than the two [55]
Series flow 73–148.3 0.58–1.2 23.9 < Tc < 35 types of series flow systems.
Type-1 23.9 < Ta < 35
Series flow 70.25–148.4 0.3–1.2
Type-2
H2O-LiBr Series flow 110–136–160 1.16–1.36–1.33 35 30 5 21.6–4.4 0.7,0.7 85 < Tg < 170 COP of parallel flow is greater than series flow and [60,61]
25 < Ta < 40 LP HX has more influence on parallel than series
30 < Tc < 45 flow.
2.5 < Te < 7.5
H2O-LiCl Series flow 50–80 1.87–1.975 30 20 8 8.3–2.4 0.9 30 < Tg < 100 The COPis higher for the H2O-LiC1 than H2O-LiBr [57]
20 < Ta < 100 can be used for a lower operating temperature
20 < Tc < 100 hence is suitable for the solar system [40]

3756
H2O-LiBr 70–100 1.85-1.85 9–4.4 2 < Te < 10
H2O-LiBr + LiSCN Series flow 60–110 2.45–2.49 30 20 8 13.3–5.8 – 30 < Tg < 110 COP is higher water-LiBr-LiSCN mixture than other [58]
20 < Ta < 40 two
H2O-LiCl 50–80 1.9–2 8.4–2.45 20 < Tc < 60
H2O-LiBr 70.7–110.4 1.87–1.9 9.17–4.77 2 < Te < 10
H2O–LiBr Series flow 168–176 1.05–1.36 50 50 5 48.7–2.5 0.8 80 < Tg < 220 Cooling capacity and crystallization problems [60,61]
5 < Te < 10 checked for air-cooled cycle operation
H2O–LiBr + H2N(CH2)2OH 172–186 1.14–1.39 35.7–13.3 0.8 30 < Tc < 50
H2O–LiBr + HO(CH2)3OH 168–186 1.26–1.49 28.2–10.8 0.8 30 < Ta < 50
H2O–LiBr + 178–200 1.23–1.47 27.1–9.3 0.8
(HOCH2CH2)2NH
H2O-LiBr + LiNO3 + LiI + Series flow 125.3–155.6 1.344–1.617 40 40 6 27.2–6.2 0.8 2 < Te < 14 30 < Ta < 50 30 < Tc < 50Tg(COP = Applicable for air-cooled system with no [62]
LiCl 0) < Tg < Tg (crystallizationonnon) (limit) crystallization problem
H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + CaBr2 Series flow 118.5–135.8 1.6–0.83 30 30 8 – 1 110 < Tg < 155 COP of H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + CaBr2 is better and it [37]
H2O-LiBr 120.3–135.3 1.27–0.85 can operate at wider generator temp range than
H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 124.3–142.2 1.53–0.75 H2O-LiBr.
H2O-LiBr + LiCl + ZnCl2 119.4–138.1 1.59–0.79 Tg2 = 80
H2O-LiBr + ZnBr2 + LiCl 114.8–136.6 1.67–0.79
H2O-CaCl2 + LiCl + ZnCl2 123.1–149.1 1.51–0.78
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan
H2O-LiBr pair and the H2O-LiCl pair. He found that the COP was higher
for H2O-LiBr-LiScN mixture than the H2O-LiBr and the H2O-LiCl pair,
and the flow ratio of H2O-LiBr-LiScN mixture was lesser than the H2O-
LiBr pair.
In air-cooled double-effect VACS, temperatures of absorber and
condenser become much higher than the single-effect absorption sys-
tems. Therefore H2O-LiBr systems work very close to crystallization line
hence effort has been taken in order to overcome the crystallization
problem and develop a small size air-cooled double effect VACS as an
alternative to single effect VACS. Oh [59] analyzed the double-effect
parallel flow H2O-LiBr VACS for air-cooled applications. He found the
effect of inlet air temperature of the absorber, solution circulation ratio,
distribution ratio and leaving temperature difference of heat-ex-
changing components on COP of the system and derived optimum de-
sign data. New working fluids that satisfy the above requirements have
also been developed as potential alternatives to the conventional H2O-
LiBr solution. Lee [60] investigated the performance characteristics of
H2O-LiBr + H2N(CH2)2OH, H2O-LiBr + HO(CH2)3OH, and H2O-LiBr +
(HOCH2CH2)2NH solutions in order to check their validity as working
fluids for the air-cooled VACS. Yoon [61] performed similar work using
H2O-LiBr + HO(CH2)3OH. Koo [62] tried the H2O – LiBr + LiNO3 +
LiI + LiCl system as a working fluid in double effect VACS to overcome
the crystallization problem. Thermodynamic analysis was carried out
for double effect series-flow VACS with the above fluids at various
operating conditions. The performance of the new working fluid was
found to have low crystallization temperature, which is suitable for air-
cooled VACS.
Table 2 gives the TDA results of double effect vapour absorption
cooling systems of H2O-LiBr and other water based additives and al-
ternative salts of LiBr as working fluids. It shows the generator tem-
perature range of each fluid pair and its corresponding COP ranges and
circular ratios at particular condenser and absorber temperatures.
6. TDA review of water based triple-effect VACS
Triple-effect vapour absorption systems have been investigated in
order to improve the performance and to utilize even higher tempera-
ture heat sources than double effect vapour absorption systems. Triple-
effect VACS contain an additional high temperature generator and
condenser compared to double-effect VACS, so it has three generators,
three condensers, one evaporator and one absorber. With increase in
number of effects, heat exchanging components such as generators,
condensers, heat exchangers and pumps will also increase. This will
represent the complexity, heat losses, cost and corrosion of the system.
Hence, Gommed [55] found that the performance of these systems is
Fig. 3. a: Three-condenser-three-desorber (3C3D) triple-effect VACS. b: Double-condenser-coupled (DCC) triple-effect VACS. c: Alternate double-condenser coupled (DCCA) VACS. d: The
dual loop triple-effect VACS.
3757
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
evaluated by considering factors such as position, connections and
configurations of heat exchanging components in addition to the simple
COP based performance evaluation discussed in previous sections.
Various types of triple-effect VACS in their order of evolution and
their performance advantages due to variation in the connections be-
tween the heat exchanging components have been discussed here.
Amongst these, the first and the simplest triple effect cycle is the three-
condenser-three-desorber (3C3D) triple-effect H2O-LiBr VACS [63] as
shown in Fig. 3a. Heat rejected by the high temperature condensers(C1,
C2) is utilized by consecutive lower level generators (G2, G3). Another
type of triple effect cycle is Double Condenser Coupled (DCC) H2O-LiBr
VACS [64–66] which is the same as DCC cycle, but it has an additional
heat exchanger, as shown in Fig. 3b. Heat of hot condensate leaving
high temperature condenser (C1) is utilized to run the lowest tem-
perature generator (G3) by the heat exchanger. This arrangement gives
extra cooling effect by pre-cooled condensate and produces extra re-
frigerant vapour by supplying additional heat to the lowest generator.
Hence, the DCC system performs better than the 3C3D system. Another
form of DCC system is an alternate Double Condenser Coupled (DCCA)
H2O-LiBr VACS. This is similar to DCC system without additional heat
exchanger, as shown in Fig. 3c. The extra cooling effect of this cycle is
obtained from the hot condensate going into the medium temperature
condenser (C2). From the condenser (C2) it will directly enter the
lowest temperature condenser (C3). In DCCA also the same cooling
effect as DCC is produced, but with one lesser heat exchanging com-
ponent, hence it is simpler and performs better than the DCC cycle. All
three VACS were tried in a parallel flow arrangement by changing so-
lution flow connection between the high temperature generator and
absorber. In spite of configuring all the above three systems, it was
found that parallel flow performs better than its corresponding series
flow VACS [67]. Another variation of triple effect VACS is dual loop
triple-effect VACS (DeVault) [68] which is shown in Fig. 3d. It is a
combination of two loops of single effect cycles. Heat rejected from the
condenser and absorber of the higher temperature loop is utilized to run
the generator of lower temperate loop. Nearly double amount of cooling
effect is obtained from two evaporators of both the loops, hence per-
formance increment is obtained. It is hence proved that performance of
higher effect systems is prominently influenced by variation in the
connections or configurations between the heat exchanging compo-
nents.
Alefeld [69] and Marsala [70] compared the performance of various
types of triple effect VACS based on two criteria, one is the number of
heat exchanging components and another is number of pressure and
temperature levels it contains. Here, number of heat exchanging com-
ponents represents the cost of the system and number of pressure and
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan
temperature levels represents the complexity of the system. Later,
Grossman [71] found that accurate performance evaluation and com-
parison could be obtained by considering all state points of triple effect
VACS and by performing TDA in detail. He evaluated the performances
of six types of H2O-LiBr triple effect cycles, they are: 3C3D VACS in
series flow as well as parallel flow, DCC VACS in series flow as well as
parallel flow, ADCC VACS and the dual loop VACS. Common design and
operating conditions were considered for analysis of all these six sys-
tems. The influence of generator temperature on performance para-
meters such as COP, COPmax and cooling capacity was investigated and
it was found that DCCA parallel flow VACS gave the highest perfor-
mance amongst the six variations of systems. Kaita et al. [72] carried
further research on DCCA triple-effect VACS due to its superior per-
formance. They considered DCCA H2O-LiBr VACS with different flow
combinations, such as series flow, parallel flow and reverse flow. De-
tailed TDA was performed and all three systems were compared based
on COP, maximum pressure and temperature. It was found that parallel
flow DCCA system gave the highest COP compared to the two other
systems, whereas maximum pressure and temperatures were found in
the Reverse flow DCCA system.
Though the triple-effect absorption cooling systems give higher
COPs, using LiBr as the working fluid causes corrosion problems at
higher generator temperatures. Kim [73] suggested four types of H2O-
LiBr triple-effect VACS to overcome the corrosion problem. The com-
pressor was introduced at four different state points of the basic triple-
effect cycle. From comparative TDA, it is found that these four systems
can operate at much lower generator temperature than the basic triple
effect cycle. This means that, if a part of mechanical energy is in-
troduced as input from heat energy, the system can be operated at
lower generator temperatures without causing corrosion problem.
Hence, the author suggested that the H2O-LiBr mixture can be used as a
working fluid in triple-effect systems without the risk of corrosion or
without integrating multiple solution circuits.
In triple-effect absorption cooling systems, component temperature
and cooling loads, and their influence on COP have been analyzed in
literature so far. Triple-effect systems contains more heat exchanging
components, more solution circuits, refrigerant circuits and heat utili-
zation methods than double effect systems. With the influence of op-
erational parameters such as circulation ratio, heat recovery ratio and
distribution ratio, it is observed that not only COP, but heat transfer
area, crystallization and corrosion also play a major role in defining the
performance of multiple effect systems. However, there is lack of actual
performance evaluation based on the above parameters in triple-effect
systems. Comparative work with other effects and within the config-
urations of same effect of triple-effect systems has not been performed
based on the above criteria. It is also observed that in triple-effect
systems, various configurations, change in refrigerant flow directions,
change in solution circulation method and effective utilization of heat
between components play a major role in enhancing the performance.
Unlike single and double effect systems, additives and alternatives of
LiBr in aqueous solution have not been tried so far in pilot triple effect
Table 3
Triple-effect VACS.
Working fluid Effect Tg Tc
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect 3C3D parallel-flow cycle 129.2–263.8 29.44
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect 3C3D series-flow cycle 129.2–263.7 29.44
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect DCC parallel-flow cycle 129.7–263.3 29.44
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect DCC series-flow cycle 129.3–263.8 29.44
H2O-LiBr Dual loop Triple-effect Cycle 218.3 29.44
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect DCCA 129.4–263.4 29.44
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect (DCCA)parallel-flow cycle 208–224 32
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect (DCCA)series-flow cycle 200–217 32
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect (DCCA)reverse-flow I 197–205 32
H2O-LiBr Triple-effect (DCCA)reverse-flow II 200–213 32
3758
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
systems to overcome crystallization, corrosion and size problems to
enhance the performance. Table 3 shows the TDA results of various
configurations of tripe-effect vapour absorption cooing systems with
H2O-LiBr as working pair. It gives the generator temperature range of
each configuration and its corresponding COP range at particular con-
denser and absorber temperatures.
7. TDA review of water based 1.5-effect VACS
One and half-effect (1.5-effect) absorption cooling systems can be
considered as a combination of a single-effect and half-effect VACS.
When the generator temperatures are lower than the double-effect and
higher than the single-effect, the 1.5-effect systems may be an appro-
priate choice. There are six configurations of 1.5 effect VACS are
available, only three of them are compatible withH2O-LiBr and other
water based salt solutions without crystallization. In each configura-
tion, again there are parallel, serial, reverse-serial, and reverse-serial-
parallel flow arrangements. The configuration-I (Erickson [74]) is a
combination of a high temperature single-effect subcycle, and a high-
temperature half-effect subcycle, as shown in Fig. 4a. The heat rejected
from the high temperature condenser (C1) is used to run the low-tem-
perature generator (G3) and the heat from a high temperature absorber
(A2) is used in the low-temperature generator (G2) to generate re-
frigerant vapour. The configuration-II (Erickson [74], Inoue [75]) is a
combination of a high temperature single-effect subcycle and a low-
temperature half-effect subcycle, as shown in Fig. 4b. The heat rejected
from the high temperature condenser (C1) is divided into two parts.
One part of the heat is delivered into G2 and the other part is delivered
into G3 to drive the low-temperature subcycle. The configuration-III
(Zhen [76]) is a combination of a high temperature half-effect subcycle,
and a low-temperature single-effect subcycle, as shown in Fig. 4c. The
heat from C1 and A2 is delivered into G2 to drive the low-temperature
subcycle.
Though various configurations of 1.5-effect cycles were developed,
literature contains very few performance studies that give the optimum
generator temperature of 1.5-effect VACS. Zhen [76] did a TDA and
found the performances of three configurations of 1.5-effect H2O-LiBr
VACS. He analyzed the influence of component temperatures and so-
lution heat exchanger effectiveness on the performances of the three
configurations of 1.5-effect systems. COP and flexibility in operation
were found to be higher in configuration II compared to the two other
configurations. It was also found that variation of performance was
higher due to change in absorber temperature than the generator
temperature. Table 4 shows the TDA results of various configurations of
1.5-effect and comparison with other effect vapour absorption cooling
systems with H2O-LiBr as working pair. It also gives the generator
temperature range of each configuration and its corresponding COP
ranges at particular condenser and absorber temperatures.
Though 1.5-effect systems fits in-between single and double effect
cycles from generator temperature and COP point of view, a review of
literature indicates that actual comparison has not been done based on
Ta Te COP Ranges Ref. no.
29.44 7.22 0.43–1.4 93.33 < Tg < 260 [71]
29.44 7.22 0.43–1.3
29.44 7.22 0.93–1.6
29.44 7.22 0.88–1.43
29.44 7.22 1.42
29.44 7.22 0.97–1.73
32 7 1.9–2 190 < Tg < 240 [72]
32 7 1.7–1.9
32 7 1.8–1.9
32 7 1.8–2
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761

Fig. 4. a: Configurations-I of 1.5 effect VACS. b: Configurations-II of 1.5 effect VACS. c: Configurations-III of 1.5 effect VACS.

system complexity, heat transfer areas, crystallization and corrosion

between the effects or within the configurations. Unlike single and
double effect systems, additives and alternatives of LiBr have has not
been tried in 1.5-effect systems to overcome crystallization, corrosion
and size problems and are hence not available in literature.

8. TDA review of water based half-effect (two stage) VACS

Two-stage or half-effect H2O-LiBr absorption refrigeration cooling

system is a good choice when the operating temperatures of generator
are lower than the single-effect systems. The two-stage H2O-LiBr VACS
is shown schematically in Fig. 5. The H2O-LiBr solution is circulated
within two separate loops. One is between low-pressure absorber (Al)
and generator (Gl). Then the refrigerant vapour generated in Glis send Fig. 5. Two stage/half-effect absorption VACS.
to Ah instead of condenser. Another solution circuit is between high-
pressure absorber (Ah) and generator (Gh). The performance of single-
9. TDA review of other advanced cycles VACS
effect and double-effect VACS has been extensively studied by many
researchers, but fewer information is available on half-effect/two-stage
GAX cycles, also known as generator absorber heat exchange cycles,
VACS in literature. Ma [77] performed a detailed TDA for a two-stage
are formed by varying the arrangement of the heat transfer between the
H2O-LiBr absorption refrigeration system. He discussed the effect
absorber and the generator of simple VACS.The COP of the GAX cycle
component temperature on coefficient performance (COP) and found
can be enhanced upto 40% than that of the conventional single effect
that these systems are significant in recovering low temperature heat
VACS for the same operating conditions [78]. From literature it is found
sources of solar energy. Although half-effect systems will work at lower
that NH3-H2O is more suitable for GAX cycle than H2O-LiBr as working
generator temperatures, the system complexity is more than that of
fluid pair. The reasons are limited range of operating conditions and the
single effect systems. The influence of parameters such as circulation
crystallization problem associated with H2O-LiBr. Though Literature
ratio and heat recovery ratios of heat exchangers have not been con-
contains more works on Simple GAX, Branched GAX and Absorption-
sidered for analysis, in literature. Comparative work with the other
compression GAX cycles where H2O-LiBr has not been preferred as
effects based on above criteria is also not available in literature. Table 5
working fluid due to the above reason. Rare works on H2O-LiBr base
shows the TDA results of water based half effect vapour absorption
advanced GAX cycles in literature are discussed as follows: Kaushik
cooing systems. It gives the generator temperature range of each fluid
[79] studied the Absorber heat recovery GAX cycle using H2O-LiBr and
pair and its corresponding COP ranges at particular condenser and
obtained higher COP compared to the simple VACS at higher generator
absorber temperatures.
temperatures. However, the system was restricted to a limited range of
operating conditions due to the crystallization problem. Sabir [80]

Table 4
1.5-effect VACS.

Effect Working Tg Tc Ta Te COP CR HXe Remarks Ref.

fluid

Half-effect H2O-LiBr 59–88 42 37 5 0.29–0.41 – 0.6 3 configuration of 1.5 effect system proposed and it will fill the gap of [76]
single-effect H2O-LiBr 80–108 42 37 5 0.25–0.75 – 0.6 generation temperature between single-effect and double effect.
double-effect H2O-LiBr 133–180 42 37 5 0.67–1.31 – 0.6
1.5-effect Configuration-I H2O-LiBr 109–145 42 37 5 0.52–1 65.2–7.6 0.6
1.5-effect Configuration- H2O-LiBr 106–145 42 37 5 0.6–1.02 44.4–7.6 0.6
II
1.5-effect Configuration- H2O-LiBr 108–145 42 37 5 0.46–1.01 98.2–7.6 0.6
III

3759
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761

Table 5
Half effect VACS.

Working fluid Effect Tg Tc Ta Te COP HX e Remarks Ref.

H2O-LiBr Two stage 75–87 32 32 7 0.38 – TDA of two stage H2O-LiBr absorption refrigeration system [77]
H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + Two stage 44.1–112.3 30 30 8 0.43–0.39 1 H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 + CaBr2 can operate at wide temp range compared to other [37]
CaBr2 combinations
H2O-LiBr 56.2–73 0.42–0.41
H2O-CaCl2 + LiCl + 60.3–68 0.412–0.407
ZnCl2
H2O-LiBr + ZnCl2 41–90 0.44–0.38
H2O-LiBr + LiSCN 54–85.3 0.44–0.4
H2O-LiBr + LiCl + ZnCl2 41.2–83.5 0.44–0.399
H2O-LiBr + C2H6O2 55.6–71.2 0.439–0.427

analyzed the performance of a novel GAX resorption heat driven re-
frigeration cycle using H2O-LiBr. The novel system was simple as that of
a single effect VACS and the performance was found to be sensitive to
the inlet temperature of the cooling water and chilled water. The COP
of the system was better than that of the conventional single effect
VACS, but less than that of the simple GAX cycles. In another category
of advanced cycles, Wu [81] found that H2O-LiBr pair is the most sui-
table working fluid for Ejector hybrid absorption cycles. The reasons
they found are water vapour (the refrigerant) can be used directly as the
working fluid for ejectors; simplicity in construction of cycle; and it
gives better performance. Hence it is inferred that there is a scope of
research in the advanced cycles using H2O-LiBr and other water based
VACS.
10. Conclusion
In an effort to ensure effective utilization of solar heat energy for
cooling applications performance behavior of heat driven water based
VACS has been reviewed based on TDA. Various parameters that in-
fluence the performance in the TDA have been discussed. The following
observations and conclusions are retrieved from the literature review of
water based vapour absorption cooling systems.
• Single effect H O-LiBr system is considered as a typical vapour ab-
2 1990;96:709–14.
sorption cooling system in literature; hence nearly all the systems
analyzed in literature have been compared with this system. Various
salt mixtures with and without LiBr have been tried in single effect
systems to find the feasibility for solar based applications and air-
cooled applications to overcome size and crystallization problems.
Single effect systems have been extensively analyzed based on COP.
ranges along with their corresponding COP ranges for various effects
and their diverse configurations. This data can be used for selecting
appropriate working fluids and configuration for an existing solar
collector or for selecting an appropriate solar collector for existing
working fluids and configuration.
• Hence, it is concluded that solar heat energy can be used effectively
and economically with the selection of a proper working fluid,
number of effects and configuration of vapour absorption systems
for cooling. This can be done through TDA by selecting appropriate
parameters prior to the development of a vapour absorption system.
References
[1] Srikhirin Pongsid, Aphornratana Satha, Chungpaibulpatana Supachart. A review of
absorption refrigeration technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2001;5:343–72.
[2] Badarinarayana K, Srinivasa Murthy S, Krishna Murthy MV. Thermodynamic ana-
lysis of R21-DMF vapour absorption refrigeration systems for solar energy appli-
cations. Int J Refrig 1982;5(2):115–9.
[3] Sun Jian, Fu Lin, Zhang Shigang. A review of working fluids of absorption cycles.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1899–906.
[4] McNeely LA. Thermodynamic properties of aqueous solutions of LiBr. ASHRAE
Trans 1979;85:413–34.
[5] Patterson MR, Perez-Blanco H. Numerical fits of properties of lithium-bromide H2O
solutions. ASHRAE Trans 1988;94:2059–77.
[6] Lee RJ, DiGuilio RM, Jeteter SM, Teja AS. Properties of LiBr–H2O solutions at high
temperatures and concentrations. Part II. Density and viscosity. ASHRAE Trans
[7] Jeter SM, Moran JP, Teja AS. Properties of LiBr–H2O solutions at high tempera-
turesand concentrations. Part III. Specific heat. ASHRAE Trans 1992;98:137–49.
[8] Lenard JLY, Jeter SM, Teja AS. Properties of LiBr–H2O solutions at high tempera-
tures and concentrations. Part IV. Vapor pressure. ASHRAE Trans 1992;98:167–72.
[9] Berestneff AA. Absorption refrigeration. Mech Eng 1949;72:216–35.
[10] Ullah KR, Saidur R, Ping HW, Akikur RK, Shuvo NH. A review of solar thermal
refrigeration and cooling methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:499–513.
[11] Modahl RJ, Lynch PJ. Arsenic trioxide corrosion inhibitor for absorption re-

• With the increase in higher effects, heat exchanging components,
cost, heat losses, and corrosion and crystallization problems will
increase. Hence H2O-LiBr double effect systems have been analyzed
not only based on COP but also on system complexity, corrosion and
cost. Various alternative salt mixtures of LiBr were also tried in
double effect systems to overcome size and crystallization in air
cooled applications.
frigeration system. US Patent No. 3609086; 1971.
[12] Jaruwongwittaya T, Chen G. A review: renewable energy with absorption chillers in
Thailand. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1437–44.
[13] Hassan HZ, Mohamad AA. A review on solar cold production through absorption
technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5331–48.
[14] Iyoki S, Uemura T. Studies on corrosion inhibitor in water-lithium bromide ab-
sorption refrigerating machine. Reito 1978;53(614):1101–5.
[15] Wen TC, Lin SM. Corrosion inhibitors the absorption system. J Chin Inst Chem Eng
1992;22:3116.

• Though Triple, 1.5 effect systems are more complex than double
effect, they were analyzed only based on COP. Very few research
information are available on based system complexity/size, crys-
tallization and corrosion in literature. New alternative salt mixtures
of LiBr have not been tried as working fluid in these systems. Apart
from selection of proper parameters effective utilization of heat
between heat exchanging components and arrangement of the
components also plays vital role in enhancing the COP of these
systems.
[16] Verma SK, Mekhjian MS, Sandor GR, Nakada N. Corrosion inhibitor in lithium
bromide absorption fluid for advanced and current absorption cycle machines.
ASHRAE Trans 1999;105(1):813–8.
[17] Albertson CE, Krueger RH. Heat transfer additives for absorbent solution. US Patent
No. 3580759; 1971.
[18] Adegoke CO. Solubility of the water–lithium bromide–zinc bromide combination.
Int J Refrig 1993;16:45–8.
[19] Ramgopal M. 〈http://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IITKharagpur/
RefandAirCond/pdf/RACLecture15.pdf〉; 2009.
[20] Herold Keith E, Radermacher R, Klein SA. Absorption chillers and heat pumps. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1996.
[21] Ramgopal M. 〈http://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IITKharagpur/

• Although various parameters have been analyzed in literature, RefandAirCond/pdf/RACLecture14.pdf〉; 2009.

generator temperature and its influence on COP is considered as
core parameters due to their role in effective utilization of solar heat
energy. Hence, in the present work, optimum results obtained from
TDA of water based VACS are enlisted as generator temperature
[22] Eisa MAR, Devotta S, Holland FA. Thermodynamic design data for absorption heat
pump systems operating on water-lithium bromide: part I, cooling. J Energy
1986;24:287–301.
[23] Eisa MAR, Devotta S, Holland FAA. Study of the operating parameters in water-
lithium bromide absorption cooler. Energy Res 1986;10:137–44.
[24] Gommed K, Grossman G. Performance analysis of staged absorption heat pump:

3760
P.S. Arshi Banu, N.M. Sudharsan
water-lithium bromide systems. ASHRAE Trans 1990;96:1590–8.
[25] Sun Da-Wen. Thermodynamic design data and optimum design maps for absorption
refrigeration systems. Appl Therm Eng 1997;17(3):21–221.
[26] Chua H, Toh H, Malek A, Ng K, Srinivasan K. Improved thermodynamic property
fields of LiBr–H2O solution. Int J Refrig 2000;23:412–29.
[27] Kaynakli Omer, Kilic Muhsin. Theoretical study on the effect of operating condi-
tions on performance of absorption refrigeration system. Energy Convers Manag
2007;48:599–607.
[28] Mostafavi M, Agnew B. The effect of ambient temperatures on the surface area of
components of an air-cooled lithium bromide/water absorption unit. Appl Therm
Eng 1996;16(4):313–22.
[29] Mostafavi M, Agnew B. The impact of ambient temperature on lithium bromide-
water absorption machine performance. Appl Therm Eng 1996;16(6):515–22.
[30] Atmaca I, Yigit A, Kilic M. The effect of input temperatures on the absorber para-
meters. Int. Commun Heat Mass Transf 2002;29(8):1177–86.
[31] Grover GS, Eisa MAR, Holland FA. Thermodynamic design data for absorption heat
pump systems operating on water-lithium chloride-part one. Cooling. Heat
Recovery Syst CHP 1988;8(1):33–41.
[32] Patil KR, Chaudhari SK, Katti SS. Thermodynamic design data for absorption heat
pump systems operating on water-lithium iodide-part I. Cooling. Heat Recovery
Syst CHP 1991;11(5):341–50.
[33] Best R, Rivera W, Oskam A. Thermodynamic design data for absorption heat pump
systems operating on water-carrol. Part I: cooling. Heat Recovery Syst CHP
1995;15(5):425–34.
[34] Malik IH, Altamush Siddiqui M. Optimization of generator temperatures in the heat
operated absorption cycle using four types of aqueous salt solutions. Energy
Convers Manag 1996;37(4):433–45.
[35] Saravanan R, Maiya MP. Thermodynamic comparison of water-based working fluid
combinations for a vapour absorption refrigeration system. Appl Therm Eng
1998;18:553–68.
[36] Iyoki S, Hanafusa Y, Koshiyama H. Studies on the water-lithium bromide-lithium
thiocyanate absorption refrigerating machine. Refrigeration 1981;56:641–61.
[37] Iyoki S, Uemura T. Performance characteristics of the water-lithium bromide zinc
chloride calcium bromide absorption refrigerating machine, absorption heat pump
and absorption heat transformer. Int J Refrig 1990;13(3):191–6.
[38] Uemura T, Hasaba S. Studies on the lithium bromide water absorption refrigerating
machine. Tech. Report 6, Kansai University; 1964; p. 31–55.
[39] Romero RJ, Rivera W, Pilatowsky I, Best R. Comparison of the modeling of a solar
absorption system for simultaneous cooling and heating operating with an aqueous
ternary hydroxide and with water/lithium bromide. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2001;70:301–8.
[40] Romero RJ, Rivera W, Best R. Comparison of the theoretical performance of a solar
air conditioning system operating with water/lithium bromide and an aqueous
ternary hydroxide. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2000;63:387–99.
[41] Romero RJ, Rivera W, Gracia J, Best R. Theoretical comparison of the performance
of an absorption heat pump system cooling and heating operating with an aqueous
ternary hydroxide and water/lithium bromide. Appl Therm Eng 2001;21:1137–47.
[42] Arshi Banu PS, Sudharsan NM. Feasibility studies of single-effect H2O-LiBr+LiI
+LiNO3+LiCl vapour absorption cooling system for solar based applications. J
Chem Pharm Sci 2017;12(1–7).
[43] Riffat S, James S, Wong W. Experimental analysis of the absorption and desorption
rates of HCOOK/H2O and LiBr/H2O. Int J Energy Res; 22; p. 1099–103.
[44] Donate M, Rodriguez L, De Lucas A, Rodríguez JF. Thermodynamic evaluation of
new absorbent mixtures of lithium bromide and organic salts for absorption re-
frigeration machines. Int J Refrig 2006;29:30–5.
[45] De Lucas A, Rodriguez JF, Villasenor J, Donate M, Molero C. Performance eva-
luation and simulation of a new absorbent for an absorption refrigeration system.
Int J Refrig 2004;27:324–30.
[46] Khamooshi Mehrdad, Parham Kiyan, Atikol Ugur. Overview of ionic liquids used as
working fluids in absorption cycles. Advances in mechanical engineering. Hindawi
Publishing Corporation, Volume 2013, Article ID 620592; 2013.
[47] Yokozeki A, Shiflett Mark B. Water solubility in ionic liquids and application to
absorption cycles. Ind Eng Chem Res 2010;49:9496–503.
[48] Zhang XD, Hu DP. Performance simulation of the absorption chiller using water and
ionic liquid 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium dimethylphosphate as the working pair.
Appl Therm Eng 2011;31(16):3316–21.
[49] Dong Li, Zheng Danxing, Nie Nan, Li Yun. Performance prediction of absorption
refrigeration cycle based on the measurements of vapor pressure and heat capacity
of H2O + [DMIM]DMP system. Appl Energy 2012;98:326–32.
[50] Vliet GC, Lawson MB, Lithgow RA. Water-lithium bromide double-effect absorption
cooling cycle analysis. ASHRAE Trans 1982;88:811–23.
3761
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 3750–3761
[51] Grossman G, Gommed K, Gadoth D. A computer model for simulation of absorption
systems in flexible and modular form. ASHRAE Trans 1987;93:2389–428.
[52] Takada S. Absorption chiller and heat pump. 2nd edition Tokyo: Japanese
Association of Refrigeration Press; 1989.
[53] Xu GP, Dait YQ, Tou KW, Tso CP. Theoretical analysis and optimization of a double-
effect series-flow-type absorption chiller. Appl Therm Eng 1996;16:975–87.
[54] Xu GP, Dait YQ. Theoretical analysis and optimization of a double-effect parallel-
flow –type absorption. Appl Therm Eng 1997;17:157–70.
[55] Arun MB, Maiya MP, Srinivasa Murthy S. Equilibrium low pressure generator
temperatures for double-effect series flow absorption refrigeration systems. Appl
Therm Eng 2000;20:227–42.
[56] Arun MB, Maiya MP, Srinivasa Murthy S. Performance comparison of double-effect
parallel-flow and series flow water-lithium absorption refrigeration systems. Appl
Therm Eng 2001;21:1273–9.
[57] Won SH, Lee WY. Thermodynamic design data for double-effect absorption heat
pump systems using water-lithium chloride-cooling. Heat Recovery Syst CHP
1991;11(1):41–8.
[58] Won SH, Chung HS, Lee H. Simulation and thermodynamic design data study on
double-effect absorption cooling cycle using water-LiBr-LiScN mixture. Heat
Recovery Syst CHP 1991;11(2/3):161–8.
[59] Oh MD, Kim SC, Kim YL, Kim YI. Cycle analysis of an air-cooled LiBr/H2O ab-
sorption heat pump of parallel-flow type. Int J Refrig 1994;17:555–65.
[60] Kim Jin-Soo, Park Young, Lee Huen. Performance evaluation of absorption chiller
using LiBr +H2N(CH2)2OH +H2O,LiBr +HO(CH2)3OH + H2O, and LiBr
+(HOCH2CH2)2NH +H2O as working fluids. Appl Therm Eng 1999;19:217–25.
[61] Yoon JI, Kwon OK. Cycle analysis of air-cooled absorption chiller using a new
working solution. Energy 1999;24:795–809.
[62] Lee HR, Koo KK, Jeong S, Kim JS, Lee H, Oh YS, Park DR, Baek YS. Thermodynamic
design data and performance evaluation of the water + lithium bromide + lithium
iodide + lithium nitrate + lithium chloride system for absorption chiller. Appl
Therm Eng 2000;20:707–20.
[63] Oouchi T, Usui S, Fukuda T, Nishiguchi A. Multi-stage absorption refrigeration
system. U.S. Patent No. 4:520-634; 1985.
[64] Miyoshi N, Sugimoto S. Aizawa M. Multi-effect absorption refrigerating machine. U.
S. Patent No. 4551991; 1985.
[65] Biermann WJ, DeVault RC. Triple-effect absorption refrigeration system with
double-condenser coupling. U.S. Patent No. 5205136; 1992.
[66] DeVault RC, Grossman G. Triple-effect absorption chiller cycles. In: Proceedings of
the International gas research conference. IGRC92, Orlando, Florida; 16–19
November 1992.
[67] Grossman G, Wilk M. Advanced modular simulation of absorption systems. Int J
Refrig 1994;17:231–44.
[68] DeVault RC. Triple-effect absorption chiller utilizing two refrigerant circuits. U.S.
Patent No. 4732008; 1988.
[69] Alefeld G. Regeln fur den Entwurf von MehrstufigenAbsorbermaschinen (rules for
the design of multistage absorption machines). Brennst-Warme-Kraft
1982;34:64–73.
[70] DeVault RC, Marsala J. Ammonia-water triple-effect absorption cycle. In:
Proceedings of the ASHRAE paper no. AT-90-27-1 presented at the ASHRAE winter
meeting, Atlanta, GA; 10–14 February 1990.
[71] Grossman G, Wilk M, DeVault RC. Simulation and performance analysis of triple-
effect absorption cycles. ASHRAE Trans 1994;100(2):452–62.
[72] Kaita Y. Simulation results of triple-effect absorption cycles. Int J Refrig
2002;25:999–1007.
[73] Kim Jin-Soo, Ziegler Felix, Lee Huen. Simulation of the compressor-assisted triple-
effect H2O/LiBr absorption cooling cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2002;22:295–308.
[74] Erickson DC. One-and-a-half effect absorption cycle. US patent No. 5016444; 1991.
[75] Inoue N. Static characteristics of various absorption cycles. Trans Japan Soc Refrig
Air Cond Eng 2003;20(3):297–308. [Japanese].
[76] Wang Jianzhao, Zhen Danxing. Performance of one and a half-effect absorption
cooling cycle of H2O/LiBr system. Energy Convers Manag 2009;50:3087–95.
[77] Ma WB, Deng SM. Theoretical analysis of low-temperature hot source driven two-
stage LiBr/H2O absorption refrigeration system. Int J Refrig 1996;19(2):141–7.
[78] Jawahar CP, Saravanan R. Generator absorber heat exchange based absorption
cycle-a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2372–82.
[79] Kaushik S, Kumar Rajesh. Thermodynamic feasibility of an absorber heat recovery
cycle for solar air conditioning. Heat Recovery Syst 1985;5(2):117–26.
[80] Sabir HM, Chretienneau R, Elhag YBM. Analytical study of a novel GAX-R heat
driven refrigeration cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2004;24(14–15):2083–99.
[81] Wu S, Eames IW. A novel absorption-recompression refrigeration cycle. Appl Therm
Eng 1998;18:1149–57.