Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Energetic optimization of regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) T

configurations
⁎
Konstantinos Braimakis , Sotirios Karellas
Laboratory of Steam Boilers and Thermal Plants, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechniou, Zografou 15780, Greece

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

Keywords: The present study focuses on the energetic optimization of regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) config-
ORC urations. More specifically, three regenerative ORCs are examined. The first includes an open preheater, in
Regenerative which the bleed stream is mixed with the working fluid exiting the pump of the cycle (O-ORC). The other two
Recuperator configurations include a closed preheater. In the second configuration, the bleed stream is throttled and con-
Optimization
veyed to the condenser (CB-ORC), while in the third one, it is repressurized via a secondary pump and re-
Bleed
Double stage
circulates into the evaporator of the cycle (CF-ORC). The systems are optimized for different working fluids, and
their energetic efficiencies are estimated and compared to that of a standard ORC (S-ORC). In all cases, the
inclusion of a recuperator has also been investigated. In principle, recuperative and regenerative ORCs are
mostly suitable for dry fluids, while the critical temperature can also have a positive influence on the perfor-
mance improvement. Furthermore, it is estimated that while the recuperative S-ORC has a higher efficiency than
the non-recuperative regenerative cycles, recuperative O-ORC and CF-ORC exhibit a relative efficiency gain
ranging from 4.98% to 8.05% and 6.22% to 9.29%, respectively. The highest efficiency improvement achieved
by the CB-ORC, however, is minimal.

1. Introduction
The Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) is one of the commonly con-
sidered technologies aimed at the production of electricity from low
grade heat, which can be usually derived from biomass fuels [1–4],
solar radiation [3,5,6], geothermal energy [7–9] and industrial waste
streams [10–12]). Its advantages mostly include smaller equipment
component sizes, high modularity and simplicity of construction and
operation [13,14].
Most typical ORCs are based on the implementation of a simple
Rankine cycle, which includes four basic steps: the saturated liquid
refrigerant is firstly pressurized with a pump and then superheated by
the heat source. It is subsequently expanded to produce work and then
condensed to return to its original state and repeat the cycle. One of the
main drawbacks of the standard ORC is its relatively low efficiency,
which can be for the most part attributed to the operation under lower
temperatures, which usually range from 80 to 300 °C.
As such, several alternative system architectures have been pro-
posed as enhancements to the standard cycle. A review of the various
different configurations was carried out by Lecompte et al. [15]. Some
of the efficiency improvement designs aim at optimizing the tempera-
ture profile matching between the external heat source of the system
and the working fluid, thus minimizing the exergy destruction in the
evaporator and increasing the overall exergetic efficiency. On the other
hand, other designs target at increasing the inherent energetic (first
law) efficiency of the cycle.
Among the most commonly investigated options that fall onto the
second category is the addition of a recuperator that is used for utilizing
the heat of the superheated vapor at the expander outlet to preheat the
working fluid before it enters the evaporator. In this way, the external
heat input to the cycle is reduced, while the power output is maintained
at the same level, resulting in an increase of the energetic efficiency.
The implementation of a recuperator is more favourable for dry
working fluids, for which there is more sensible heat to recover
[16–20]. Nonetheless, recuperative ORCs are not recommended when
there is no limitation on the evaporator outlet temperature of the heat
source stream. If this is the case, using a recuperator may lead to re-
duction of the heat absorbed by the system and thus to a drop of the
power output and the exergetic efficiency, since the heat source stream
may exit the evaporator at a higher temperature [16,17].
Another concept that has been proposed is the double stage ORC.
The double stage ORC (DS ORC), often called double evaporation or
dual loop ORC, operates at two evaporation temperatures. Usually, the
first stage (topping ORC) operates at high temperature (HT) and is

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mpraim@central.ntua.gr (K. Braimakis), sotokar@mail.ntua.gr (S. Karellas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.093
Received 28 September 2017; Received in revised form 2 December 2017; Accepted 29 December 2017
Available online 23 January 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

Nomenclature is isentropic
L saturated liquid
Ė exergy rate, kW LP low pressure
f bleed fraction, isentropic factor m mechanical
h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg M motor
ṁ mass flow rate, kg/s max maximum, evaporator pressure
P power, kW min minimum
p pressure, bar net net electricity
Q̇ heat flux, kW nrec non-recuperative
s specific entropy, kJ/kg K out outlet
T temperature, °C pump pump
w specific work rec recuperator, recuperative
reg regenerative preheater
Greek symbols sat saturation
t total
Δ difference V saturated vapor
η efficiency wf working fluid

Subscripts Abbreviations

0 ambient CB regenerative cycle with closed preheater and bleed stream

bleed bleed stream throttling
c cold CF regenerative cycle with closed preheater and bleed stream
cond condenser recirculation
crit critical GHG greenhouse gas
e electric GWP global warming potential (relative to carbon dioxide)
ev evaporator HP high pressure
exp expander LP low pressure
G generator O regenerative cycle with open preheater
h hot ODP ozone depletion potential (relative to R11)
HP high pressure ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
hs heat source S standard cycle
in inlet

positioned before the low temperature (LT) stage (bottoming ORC).
After exiting the HT evaporator, the heat source stream successively
enters the evaporator of the LT stage. One of the earliest studies on
multi stage ORCs was carried out by Gnutek and Bryszewska-Mazurek
[21], who simulated a system operating with R123 and considered two
and four serial heat exchangers for recovering heat with fixed tem-
perature drops in each one. A multi-segment sliding vane expander was
considered, consisting of multiple expansion machines attached to a
common drive shaft. The authors estimated that the four level ORC
exhibited the highest power output and exergetic efficiency. In another
study, Ayachi et al. [22] investigated the exergetic optimization of
single and multiple stage ORCs for waste heat recovery from almost dry
and moist heat source streams. The authors examined different com-
binations of working fluids, such as R1234yf, R245fa (topping cycle)
and R245fa, R125, R41 and CO2 (bottoming cycle) and estimated that
the addition of a LT bottoming cycle for recovering the heat during the
condensing process offers an efficiency increase potential of about 33%.
Shokati et al. [9] performed an exergoeconomic optimization of stan-
dard, double stage as well as dual fluid (DF) ORC and Kalina power
plants for geothermal applications. They concluded that the double
stage ORC reached the maximum value of power output (15.22%,
35.09% and 43.48% higher than the power output of the standard, DF
ORC and Kalina cycle respectively). Nevertheless, the Kalina cycle was
found to be the optimal in terms of thermoeconomics, since it was as-
sociated with the minimum specific electricity generation cost. Zhang
et al. [23] carried out a performance analysis of a small scale DS ORC to
recover waste heat from a light-duty diesel engine and pointed out that
the dual stage ORC is a promising technology for waste heat recovery
from vehicular diesel engines. In addition to this, a double stage ORC
for high temperature small scale waste heat recovery was investigated
by Chengyu et al. [24], who compared the DS ORC to a Brayton cycle
and a thermoelectric generator, each being coupled to a bottoming
ORC. The authors concluded that the DS ORC was superior to the other
technologies in terms of energy utilization. Mosaffa et al. [25] con-
ducted a thermoeconomic analysis of different ORC configurations
applied for geothermal heat and liquefied natural gas (LNG) cold en-
ergy utilization. He compared the performance of double stage ORCs
operating with different working fluids to that of a standard, re-
cuperative and regenerative ORC. The ORC systems operated along
with a gas turbine, powered by natural gas. The authors concluded that
although the recuperative cycle exhibited the best economic perfor-
mance, the DS ORC system produced the highest power output. In-
Hwan Choi et al. [26] also investigated the implementation of multiple
stage (including two and three stages) ORCs for LNG energy utilization.
The authors compared these cycles with conventional ones from a
thermodynamic and an economic standpoint and concluded that the
multi stage systems are very promising despite the increased costs.
Soffiato et al. [27] focused on the optimization of ORC cycles for waste
heat recovery on board an LNG carrier. The authors investigated the
performance of a standard, a regenerative and a two-stage ORC. Ac-
cording to their findings, the highest power output was exhibited by the
two-stage configuration, being almost two times higher than that of the
standard and the regenerative systems. Yang et al. [28] investigated a
dual loop ORC for diesel engine waste heat recovery. It was estimated
that the maximum efficiency of the system reached 5.4%, with a
maximum net power output of 27.85 kW. The overall efficiency in-
crease of the system was estimated equal to 13%. Sciubba et al. [29]
compared the performance of a double stage ORCs for marine engine
waste heat recovery, while also exploring the benefits that can occur by
the addition of a recuperator in the low temperature stage. The results

354
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas
indicated that the addition of the second stage led to an increase of the
electricity production of up to 8.11% and 2.67% in small and large scale
systems, respectively. Despite resulting in increasing the thermal effi-
ciency of the ORC, the recuperator did not improve the waste heat
recovery efficiency, since it was associated with higher exhaust gas
temperatures at the system outlet.
Meanwhile, another efficiency improvement option is the applica-
tion of regenerative ORCs. Similarly to the case of recuperative ORCs, in
regenerative cycles the working fluid is preheated before entering the
evaporator. However, in contrast to recuperative ORCs, the heat is
derived from bleed vapor that is extracted at an intermediate expansion
stage. In the most commonly investigated variation of the regenerative
ORC, the preheating occurs in an open-type heat exchanger, in which
the subcooled liquid and vapor streams are mixed. So far, a rather
limited number of works have focused on regenerative ORCs. Mosaffa
et al. [30] investigated regenerative ORCs among other configurations
for geothermal energy utilization. The authors concluded that the
highest energetic and exergetic efficiencies are obtained for re-
generative and recuperative cycles, respectively. Mehrpooya et al. [31]
performed an exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a re-
generative solar ORC combined with a recuperator. The system was also
coupled with an LNG tank in order to attain very low condensation
temperatures and pressures. Mago et al. [32] compared the energetic
and exergetic performance an open-type regenerative ORC with that of
the standard cycle. He concluded that the regenerative ORC can lead to
improved energetic and exergetic performance while pointing out the
positive correlation between the boiling point temperature of the
working fluids and the thermal efficiency that can be achieved by the
system. In another study, Meinel et al. [20] also compared an open-type
regenerative ORC with a standard and a recuperative ORC under dif-
ferent boundary conditions, corresponding to a constant heat source
outlet temperature and a constant pinch point in the evaporator. The
authors reported that the thermal efficiency for regenerative ORCs is
maximized at intermediate bleed pressures. An overall efficiency im-
provement in the range of 1–3% compared to the standard cycle was
calculated for different types of fluids. Desai and Bandyopadhyay [33]
also examined an open-type regenerative ORC combined with a re-
cuperator. They reported that the combination of a recuperator with a
regenerative preheater had a better performance than simple re-
generative or recuperative cycles, leading to an average energetic ef-
ficiency improvement by 16.5%, reaching a maximum of 34.3% for n-
perfluropentane compared to the standard ORC. Gang et al. [34] in-
vestigated an open-type regenerative ORC with a recuperator, coupled
with solar collectors and PCMs. Similarly to other studies, the authors
observed that there is an intermediate optimal regenerative pressure/
temperature which maximizes the efficiency of the ORC. The authors
accordingly reported an efficiency improvement by 9.2% compared to
the standard cycle. Yari [35] performed an exergetic evaluation of
combined open-type regenerative and recuperative ORCs, among other
configurations. He concluded that the maximum exergetic efficiency
was exhibited by the recuperative ORC using R123 and was calculated
equal to 7.65%. As far as the regenerative recuperative configuration is
considered, the author concluded that the increased exergy losses of the
geothermal fluid stream, which leaves the system at a higher tem-
perature, offset the decrease of the exergy destruction in the evaporator
and the condenser. Rashidi et al. [36] researched a more complex
system consisting of two open regenerative preheaters and three tur-
bines, implementing the artificial bees colony and artificial neural
network optimization methods. In accordance with other studies, the
authors found that there are interdependent optimal intermediate bleed
pressures that optimize the energetic efficiency. Xi et al. [37] performed
a parametric optimization of standard and open-type, single and double
stage regenerative ORCs. The integration of a recuperator was not
considered. The authors found that the double stage regenerative ORC
exhibited the highest exergetic efficiency, equal to 56.87% compared to
55.01% (standard ORC) and 50.61% (single stage regenerative ORC).
355
Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370
They also estimated that the regenerative ORCs had higher energetic
efficiencies. Liu et al. [38] focused on the thermo-economic optimiza-
tion of different ORC system configurations for low temperature geo-
thermal plants. The examined configurations included among others a
recuperative cycle and a regenerative cycle with an open-type re-
generative preheater. Interestingly, the authors concluded that despite
the slightly higher energetic performance of recuperative and re-
generative systems, their higher capital costs inhibited their economic
competitiveness and suggested that the standard cycles are more cost-
efficient. Imran et al. [39] carried out a thermoeconomic optimization
of different regenerative ORCs aimed at waste heat recovery. The re-
generative cycles included a single and a double stage open-type re-
generative cycle. The optimization variables were the evaporation
pressure, the superheating degree, the pinch point values in the eva-
porator and the condenser as well as the bleed fraction (i.e. the per-
centage of the mass flow of the total vapor at the expander inlet that is
extracted). The authors concluded that the average thermal efficiency
increase of the single and the double stage regenerative cycles was
equal to 1.01% and 1.45%, respectively. However, an additional spe-
cific investment cost of 187 $/kW and 297 $/kW was estimated for
these two cases. Furthermore, the authors reported that increasing the
superheat degree bears no significant efficiency gains, while it is asso-
ciated with high costs. On the other hand, they found that increasing
the pinch point led to a slight increase of the specific investment cost
and a drop of the thermal efficiency and that the evaporation pressure
exhibits the highest influence on both of these parameters. Zare [40]
applied an exergoeconomic analysis to compare the performance of
different regenerative ORCs for binary geothermal power plants. In
total, three configurations were examined by the author; a standard
ORC, a recuperative ORC, as well as an ORC with an open-type re-
generative preheater. Similarly to other thermoeconomic studies,
costing correlations were used for the estimation of the costs of all in-
dividual components and the total installation. From the optimization
results, the author concluded that the highest power output and the
lowest total product cost, total capital investment cost and shortest
payback period was exhibited by the standard ORC. Meanwhile, the
highest energetic and exergetic efficiency was observed for the re-
cuperative ORC. Safarian and Ramoun [41] performed assessments of a
standard and a regenerative ORC (with open-type preheater) while also
examining the inclusion of a recuperator in each case. However, the
design of the cycles was not optimized and the calculation of their
performance was carried out only for one case. The authors concluded
that the regenerative-recuperative ORC had the best energetic effi-
ciency, equal to 22.8% and 35.5%, respectively. Bina et al. [42] eval-
uated various ORC configurations, including a standard and a re-
cuperative ORC, along with a regenerative cycle including an open-type
preheater and a double stage system. The authors considered the uti-
lization of the geothermal outlet of the Sabalan flash cycle plant, lo-
cated in Iran. Five different criteria were used for the optimization of
the systems; the energetic efficiency, the exergetic efficiency, the net
power output, the production cost and the total cost. In respect to the
energetic and exergetic efficiency, the recuperative ORC had the best
performance. However, when considering the energy production cost
and the total energy cost, the regenerative and the standard ORC were
the optimal cycles. Lastly, based on the results of a multi-criteria ana-
lysis undertaken by using the method of Shannon’s Entropy, the re-
cuperative ORC was the best system, followed by the standard, the
regenerative and the double stage system.
Despite the large number of studies on the energetic analysis of
ORCs, so far most have focused on either standard or recuperative
systems, while relatively few have investigated the potential of re-
generative configurations. Furthermore, even considering the limited
studies on regenerative systems, in most cases these focus on one
configuration, including an open-type preheater, while alternative
systems have not been researched. Additionally, the performance of
combined regenerative and recuperative systems has not been
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

sufficiently examined, while the energetic optimization aspects of these
architectures regarding key design variables has not been explored.
The present study aims to provide a systematic comparison of var-
ious regenerative cycles (non-recuperative and recuperative) in respect
of their energetic efficiency. Apart from the regenerative ORCs in-
cluding an open-type preheater (O-ORC), two additional configurations
are investigated, which, to the best knowledge of the authors, have not
been previously examined. The first one is the closed-type preheater
regenerative ORC with backwards bleed condensate circulation (CB-
ORC). In this configuration, the bleed stream exiting the preheater is
throttled until its pressure matches the condensation pressure of the
cycle and then flows into the condenser. Although a portion of its heat
content is not utilized, this system does not require the application of a
secondary pump, with potential economic benefits. The second one is
the closed-type preheater regenerative ORC with forward bleed con-
densate circulation (CF-ORC). In this system, the bleed stream is pres-
surized after exiting the regenerative preheater and recirculates into the
evaporator. This system is similar to the O-ORC. However, it enables
the combined variation of the bleed pressure and the bleed fraction,
adding one additional degree of freedom for optimizing its overall
performance, as will be subsequently presented. In all cases, the re-
generative ORCs are simulated with and without recuperators and
compared to the standard ORC. As a result, a total of 8 configurations
are simulated and evaluated. Furthermore, an exhaustive search opti-
mization methodology has been applied taking into account the critical
variables of each cycle to maximize the energetic efficiency. The opti-
mization results are accompanied by parametric analyses in order to
explore the relation between the optimization variables and their im-
pact on the system performance. The ultimate goal of the present work
is the systematic analysis and evaluation of the different variations of
non-recuperative and recuperative regenerative ORC, the comparison
of their performance and an examination of their optimization princi-
ples.
2. Modelling and optimization
2.1. Modelling
For modelling the systems, steady state simulation is assumed, while
pressure drops and heat losses through pipes and other equipment
components are considered negligible. CoolProp software [43] is used
for the calculation of the thermophysical properties of the working
fluids.
In the model used for this configuration in the present study, the only
independent system variable is the evaporation pressure of the cycle
(pmax).
The open preheater-regenerative ORC (O-ORC), presented in Fig. 2,
includes the open preheater as well as two expander stages and pumps,
corresponding to a higher and a lower pressure level, respectively. In
this configuration, a fraction of the working fluid stream exiting the HP
stage is extracted and led into the preheater, where it is mixed with the
subcooled stream exiting the LP pump (or the recuperator, in the case of
recuperative cycles). The energy balance equation in the regenerative
preheater is:
Δhreg,c
fbleed =
Δhreg,c + Δhreg,h (2)
In the above equation, Δhreg,c (=h4 − h3) and Δhreg,h (=h7 − h3) are
the enthalpy differences of the cold and hot stream, respectively, in the
regenerative preheater (following the notation of Fig. 2. The fraction of
the extracted working fluid at the HP stage outlet is determined so that
the working fluid after the preheater (state point 4) is at saturated li-
quid state. Therefore, it follows that:
h4 = hL (p = pbleed ) (3)
Τhe streams that are mixed inside the open preheater are at the
same pressure. Consequently, due to the fact that the mixing process
occurs at an intermediate pressure level between the condensation and
the expander inlet pressures, the O-ORC requires the addition of an
additional pump. Hence, it follows that:
p2 = p3 = p4 = p7 = pbleed (4)
Two independent variables are considered for modelling the O-ORC
configuration: the evaporation pressure (pmax) and the vapor extraction
pressure (pbleed).
The closed preheater-regenerative ORC involves a closed type pre-
heating heat exchanger in which heat is delivered from the bleed
stream exiting the HP stage into the subcooled liquid exiting the pump
(or the recuperator). The vapor and the subcooled liquid streams are
not mixed.
In the closed preheater-regenerative ORC with backwards bleed
condensate circulation (CB-ORC), presented in Fig. 3, the bleed stream
exits the regenerative preheater at saturated liquid state and is throttled
until its pressure is equal to the condensation pressure of the cycle

2.1.1. Heat source

In all cases, the heat input to the ORC (Q̇ ORC,in) is assumed equal to
1000 kWth. The heat is provided through a stream of pressurized hot
water at 300 °C. The temperature drop of the hot water stream in the
evaporator is 20 K. Given the above data, the mass flow of the heat
source stream (ṁhs) is calculated via the following equation:
̇ ,in = ṁ hs (hhs,in−hhs,out )
QORC (1)

In the above equation, hhs,in and hhs,out are the enthalpy values of the
heat source stream at the evaporator inlet and outlet, corresponding to
temperatures of 300 and 280 °C, respectively. Lastly, a minimum pinch
point of 10 K between the heat source and the working fluid streams is
assumed.

2.1.2. ORC configurations

The diagrams of the different ORC configurations that are simulated
are presented in Figs. 1–4.
The standard ORC (S-ORC), presented in Fig. 1, has been in-
vestigated in numerous studies and its modelling principles are well
known. In the present work, the modeling of the S-ORC is based on the
Fig. 1. Standard ORC (S-ORC).
methodology that was followed in previous works of the authors [44].

356
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

h10 = hL (p = pbleed ) (5)

p11 = p7 = pcond (6)

Moreover, the throttling is an isenthalpic process:

h11 = h10 (7)

The closed preheater regenerative ORC with forward bleed con-

Fig. 2. Open preheater regenerative ORC (O-ORC).
densate circulation (CF-ORC), which is presented in Fig. 4, is similar to
the CB-ORC. However, in this case, the bleed stream exiting the re-
generative preheater at saturated liquid state flows into an HP pump
and is pressurized until it reaches the expander inlet pressure. After
exiting the HP pump, it is mixed with the cold stream exiting the re-
generative preheater (or the recuperator) and flows into the evaporator
of the cycle. The energy balance equation in the regenerative preheater
of the CF-ORC configuration is:
fbleed Δhreg,c
=
1−fbleed Δhreg,h (8)

In the above equation, Δhreg,c (=h4 − h3) and Δhreg,h (=h7 − h10)
are the enthalpy differences in the cold and hot streams in the re-
generative preheater.
In both the CB and the CF-ORC configurations, the independent
variables used for their modelling and optimization are the evaporation
pressure (pmax), the bleed pressure (pbleed), as well as the bleed fraction
(fbleed).
In all configurations, the expander inlet temperature is calculated
based on the evaporation pressure, according to the methodology pre-
sented in [44], which is also summarized in Table 1. In short, the vapor
at the evaporator outlet is superheated until its specific entropy is equal
to the maximum value of entropy of the saturation line, in order to
prevent its expansion within the two phase region.
For the recuperative cycles, the effectiveness of the recuperator is
defined as the ratio between the actual and the maximum theoretical
temperature increase of the cold stream:
ΔTc
ηrec,eff =
Fig. 3. Closed preheater regenerative ORC with backwards bleed condensate circulation ΔTc,max (9)
(CB-ORC).
In all cycles, the recuperator effectiveness is set at 0.9. The value of
ΔTc,max is calculated for each cycle based on the inlet temperatures of
the cold and hot streams as well as the condensation and evaporation
temperatures. It is also assumed that no phase change occurs in the cold
and hot stream of the recuperator.
The modelling assumptions, constraints, as well as the independent,
optimization variables and their search bounds are summarized in
Table 2.
The working fluids included in the present study be investigated
very low global warming (< 150) as well as no ozone (0) depletion
potential (GWP, ODP) in accordance with environmental regulations
such as the Kyoto [45] and the Montreal [46] protocol and the F-gases
[47,48] regulations. Furthermore, a selection of working fluids having a
wide range of critical temperatures and pressures was made, in order to
establish the effect of these key parameters on their behaviour. The

Table 1
Maximum cycle temperature calculation procedure.

Fig. 4. Closed preheater regenerative ORC with forward bleed condensate circulation Subcritical ORC Dry fluids
(CF-ORC). If p < psat(s = sV,max), Tmax = Tevap + 5 K
If p > psat(s = sV,max),
Tmax = T(p = pmax,s = sV,max)
before being mixed with the vapor exiting the LP stage (or the re- Wet fluids
cuperator). The advantage of this configuration is that it does not re- sV,max = ssat(T = Tcond)
quire the operation of two feed pumps. Tmax = T(p = pmax, s = sV,max)
Supercritical ORC Tmax = (p = pmax, s = sV,max)
The energy balance equation in the regenerative preheater of the
All configurations p > pcrit + 2, p < pcrit-2
CB-ORC configuration is the same one with Eq. (2). Cooling fluid inlet temperature 15 °C at 1.013 bar
Meanwhile, it follows that: and pressure

357
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

Table 2 The energetic efficiency is given by the equation:

Main assumptions and optimization variables (optimization variables in bold).
Pe,net
ηe =
Variables Values and constraints ̇
QORC (11)
Efficiencies In the above equation Pe,net is the net electric power output of the
Electromechanical efficiency (ηmηG) 95% system, which is equal to the gross electric power output of the ex-
Pump motor efficiency (ηM) 85%
pander(s) minus the electricity consumption of the pump(s).
Expander isentropic efficiency (ηexp,is) 75%
Pump isentropic efficiency (ηpump,is) 70% Ppump wpump ⎞
Heat exchangers
Pe,net = Pe,exp−Pe,pump = ηm ηG Pexp− = ṁ wf ⎛⎜ηm ηG wexp− ⎟
ηM ⎝ ηM ⎠ (12)
Heat source inlet temperature 300 °C
Heat source outlet temperature 280 °C In the above equation the factors ηm, ηG and ηM stand for the me-
Heat input to the ORC (for energetic assessment) 1000 kWth
chanical efficiency of the expander and the efficiency of the generator
Pinch point in regenerative preheater ≥5 K
Recuperator effectiveness 0.90 and pump motor, respectively, while ṁwf is the mass flow rate of the
Pinch point in recuperator ≥5 K working fluid in the evaporator. The latter is calculated by the equa-
Condensation temperature max (40, Tsat(p = 0.5 bar)) tion:
Cooling water temperature increase in the 10 K
condenser ̇
QORC
Pinch point in condenser >5 Κ ṁ wf =
Δh wf ,ev (13)
Optimization variables
Εvaporator pressure (pmax) – all configurations In the above equation, Δhwf,ev is the specific enthalpy difference of
Minimum evaporation pressure (pmaxmin) 1.5pcond the working fluid at the evaporator outlet-inlet. Therefore the net
Maximum evaporation pressure (pmaxmax) min(40 bar, 1.4pcrit) electricity output can be expressed by the equation:
Bleed pressure (pbleed) – O, CB, CF-ORC
wpump
Minimum bleed pressure (pbleedmin) 1.1pcond ηm ηG wexp− ηM
Maximum bleed pressure (pbleedmax) min(0.9pmax, psat(Tcrit-10)) ηe =
Bleed fraction (fbleed) – CB, CF-ORC Δh wf ,ev (14)
(also in O-ORC as a dependent variable)
Minimum bleed fraction (fbleedmin) 0.05 The variables wexp and wpump are the total specific expander and
Maximum bleed fraction (fbleedmax) 0.95 pump work, respectively. These depend on the bleed pressure, which
determines the enthalpy difference in the HP and LP stages/components
and on bleed fraction, which affects the respective flow rates based on
working fluids and their main properties are presented in Table 3.
the specific configuration of the system. The above variables for each
The temperature entropy diagrams of the investigated working
configuration are summarized in Table 5.
fluids are plotted in Fig. 5.
In Table 4, the condensation temperatures and pressures for the
2.2. Optimization
working fluids investigated, as estimated by the assumptions presented
in Table 2, are summarized. Meanwhile, another index is calculated for
In the present study, the goal of the optimization is the maximiza-
each working fluid, which is called the “isentropic factor”, hereby de-
tion of the energetic efficiency. As shown in Table 2, the optimization
fined as:
variables include the evaporation pressure (all configurations), the
T (s = sV ,max )−T (s = sV ,min ) bleed pressure (regenerative ORCs), as well as the bleed fraction (CB-
fis =
sV ,max −sV ,min (10) ORC and CF-ORC). The evaporation and bleed pressure are critical
design variables since they directly influence the pressure ratios and
The isentropic factor is used to provide an approximate estimate of
thus the power output of the expansion stages and the power con-
the saturated vapor line slope of each working fluid. It adopts lower
sumption of the pumps. Furthermore, they determine the temperature
values for dry fluids that have a high positive slope, while it is negative
of the working fluid at the expander inlet, the temperature of the bleed
for wet fluids. The value of sV,max is calculated based on the metho-
vapor, as well as the temperature of the expanded superheated vapor
dology summed in Table 1. It is assumed that for dry fluids,
entering the recuperator, thus affecting the enthalpy drops in the re-
sV,min = sV(T = Tcond), while for wet fluids, sV,min = sV(p = 0.9pcrit).
spective heat exchangers (evaporator, regenerative preheater and re-
Based on the methodology presented in Table 1, the maximum cycle
cuperator). Lastly, the bleed fraction affects the mass flow rate of the
temperatures for the working fluids examined as a function of the
working fluid throughout the expanders, the pumps and the heat ex-
evaporator pressure are plotted in Fig. 6.
changers, wholly affecting the performance of the system.
In principle, working fluids with higher critical temperatures op-
In accordance with the methodology presented in previous works of
erate under higher cycle temperatures. Since the condensation tem-
the authors [44], a brute force (exhaustive search) optimization algo-
perature is roughly the same for all working fluids (with the exception
rithm is applied. An iterative loop is implemented for each optimization
of toluene), high Tcrit fluids operate under higher cycle temperature
variable, in which it is varied from a minimum to a maximum bound.
differences. Meanwhile, it is evident that recuperative and regenerative
Each iterative loop is nested within another, thus all possible
cycles exhibit better potential for efficiency improvement when the
difference between the maximum cycle temperature and the con-
Table 3
densation temperature is higher. This is because in this case it is pos- Working fluids and their properties.
sible to extract steam at higher temperatures, while at the same time the
temperature of the expanded vapor at the recuperator inlet is higher, Fluid Tcrit (°C) pcrit (bar) ODP GWP ASHRAE safety group [49]
leading to an increased amount of recoverable heat. Therefore, the
Toluene 318.6 41.3 – – –
working fluid can reach even higher temperatures before entering the Cyclohexane 280.5 40.8
evaporator. Cyclopentane 238.5 45.2 – – –
Isohexane 224.6 30.4 – – –
n-pentane 196.6 33.7 0 4 A3
2.1.3. Performance parameters
Butane 152.0 38 0 4 A3
In this section, the most important parameters used for the ther- R1234yf 94.7 33.8 0 4 Α2
modynamic evaluation of the cycles are presented.

358
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

350 presented.
R1234yf
300 butane
temperature (°C)

n-pentane
isohexane 3. Results and discussion
250
cyclopentane
200 cyclohexane 3.1. Overview
toluene
150
In Fig. 7, the maximum energetic efficiency for each optimized
100 configuration is presented. The values corresponding to the data of
50 Fig. 7 are also summarized in Table 7.
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 By comparing the performance of the different configurations, it can
entropy (kJ/kgK) be seen that the CF-ORC exhibits the highest efficiency for all fluids.
The second highest performance is exhibited by the O-ORC, followed by
Fig. 5. Temperature-entropy diagrams of the investigated working fluids.
that of the CB-ORC configuration. In all cases, the S-ORC has the lowest
efficiency.
Table 4 Τhe relative efficiency difference between the optimized re-
Condensation temperatures and pressures for the working fluids examined. cuperative S-ORC, the regenerative cycles and the non-recuperative S-
Fluid Tcond (°C) pcond (bar) fis
ORC is presented in Table 8. This difference for each ith configuration is
defined as:
Toluene 87.5 0.50 0.76
Cyclohexane 58.9 0.50 0.57 ηei −ηeS (nrec )
Cyclopentane 40.0 0.74 1.13
(nrec )
ηeS,diff =
ηeS (nrec ) (15)
Isohexane 40.0 0.51 0.44
n-pentane 40.0 1.16 0.58
Butane 40.0 3.78 1.04
Compared to the non-recuperative S-ORC, the energetic efficiency
R1234yf 40.0 10.18 −1.05 benefits that can be achieved by the regenerative configurations greatly
vary, from a minimum of 4.69% (R1234yf, nrec. CB-ORC) to a max-
imum of 45.20% (isohexane, rec. CF-ORC). The relative efficiency im-
300 provement is lower for low Tcrit fluids (R1234yf and butane), while it is
maximum cycle temperature oC

highest for isohexane and cyclohexane. A negative correlation between

250 the isentropic factor and the efficiency improvement can be observed.
In fact, isohexane (fis = 0.44) and cyclohexane (fis = 0.57) are among
200 R1234yf the most dry fluids examined, as can be verified by their isentropic
butane factors. The efficiency gains are also high for toluene (fis = 0.76) and n-
150 n-pentane pentane (fis = 0.58), while they are comparatively diminished for cy-
isohexane clopentane, which is most the wet fluid, (fis = 1.13), despite its high
cyclopentane Tcrit.
100
cyclohexane In Table 9, the relative efficiency difference between optimized non-
toluene recuperative and recuperative cycles is presented. This difference for
50
each ith configuration is defined as:

0 ηei (rec )−ηei (nrec )

− nrec
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ηerec
,diff =
ηei (nrec ) (16)
evaporator pressure (bar)
When applicable, recuperative cycles lead to an energetic efficiency
Fig. 6. Maximum cycle temperature as a function of the evaporator pressure.
increase for all configurations. This increase is highest for the S-ORC,
followed by the O-ORC, the CF-ORC and the CB-ORC. Obviously, the
Table 5 recuperator can be more effective for S-ORCs than for regenerative
Total specific expander and pump work for the different configurations.
configurations, due to the increased mass flow rate of the working fluid
wexp wpump passing through.
For lower Tcrit fluids (R1234yf and butane), the integration of a
S-ORC Δhexp Δhpump recuperator is thermodynamically infeasible, due to the small differ-
OR-ORC Δhexp,HP + (1 − fbleed)Δhexp,LP Δhpump,HP + (1 − fbleed)Δhpump,LP
ence between the maximum cycle temperature (and in turn the ex-
CB-ORC Δhexp,HP + (1 − fbleed)Δhexp,LP Δhpump
CF-ORC Δhexp,HP + (1 − fbleed)Δhexp,LP fbleedΔhpump,HP + (1 − fbleed)Δhpump,LP
panded vapor temperature) and the condensation temperature, which
results in very limited potential for heat recovery. On the other hand,
recuperative cycles are best suited for higher Tcrit fluids. As is the case
permutations of the optimization variables are investigated. Essentially, for regenerative cycles, the benefits occurring due to the addition of the
this means that all possible combinations of the optimization variables recuperator are strongly correlated with the “dryness”, (i.e. the slope of
(evaporation pressure, bleed pressure, bleed fraction) are tried and si- the vapor saturation line) of the working fluids, regardless of the con-
mulated using the model, and the energetic efficiency is calculated for figuration. In fact, the highest relative efficiency gains are again
each combination. In this way, a 1D (S-ORC), 2D (O-ORC) or 3D (CB-
ORC, CF-ORC) matrix is generated, containing all efficiency values Table 6
(each one corresponding to a different combination of the optimization Optimization variable absolute search range and step.

variables). The maximum efficiency is then located within this matrix,

Minimum Maximum Iterations
along with the values of the optimization variables.
The configurations in which at least one of the constraints presented pmax (bar) 2 40 20
in Table 2 is not satisfied are rejected. In Table 6, the absolute search pbleed (bar) 2 40 120
fbleed 0.05 0.5 80
bounds and number of iterations of the optimization variables are

359
 K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

25 Fig. 7. Maximum energetic efficiency for the optimized

configurations.
ST O CB CF
20
energetic efficiency (%)

n-rec rec
15

10

0
R1234yf butane n-pentane isohexane cyclopentane cyclohexane toluene

Table 7 determine the efficiency improvement potential are primarily the slope
Maximum energetic efficiency of optimized configurations. of the saturated vapor line (which is in this study expressed by the
isentropic factor fis) and, at a lesser extent, the critical temperature,
S-ORC O-ORC CB-ORC CF-ORC
with dry, high Tcrit fluids receiving the highest benefits.
nrec rec nrec rec nrec rec nrec rec As was previously stated, it is not possible to efficiently implement
recuperative S-ORCs for R1234yf and butane, due to the restricted
Toluene 16.54 21.13 18.90 22.18 18.58 21.34 19.33 22.45
maximum cycle temperature of these fluids. One the other hand, as can
Cyclohexane 17.02 22.85 19.46 24.04 19.31 22.96 20.39 24.50
Cyclopentane 18.02 21.00 20.53 22.69 19.94 21.63 20.90 22.95
be observed in Table 8, the efficiency increase achieved by non-re-
Isohexane 15.40 20.87 17.80 21.98 17.43 20.93 18.47 22.37 cuperative regenerative ORCs for these fluids is substantial. For ex-
n-pentane 14.68 18.12 16.86 19.30 16.27 18.36 17.18 19.56 ample, for the CF-ORC configuration, a relative efficiency increase of
Butane 11.90 – 13.48 – 12.86 – 13.54 – 10.26% and 13.78% can be achieved for R1234yf and butane, respec-
R1234yf 6.81 – 7.47 – 7.13 – 7.51 –
tively. Therefore, these regenerative cycles are very promising for low
Tcrit fluids, which are very commonly considered in low/mid tempera-
Table 8
ture and micro/small scale applications, and for which the integration
Relative energetic efficiency difference between optimized configurations and non-re- of the recuperator is not thermodynamically feasible or leads to min-
cuperative S-ORC (ηe,diff S(nrec)). iscule efficiency benefits.
Of course, the recuperative S-ORC is the simplest enhanced con-
S-ORC O-ORC CB-ORC CF-ORC
figuration examined in this study. In fact, it only involves the addition
rec nrec rec nrec rec nrec rec of one heat exchanger, contrary to the regenerative configurations,
which could require the installation of multiple expanders, steam ex-
Toluene 27.78 14.31 34.15 12.37 29.06 16.90 35.74 traction and flow control valves, secondary pumps, as well as sophis-
Cyclohexane 34.25 14.31 41.21 13.44 34.87 19.78 43.96
ticated control systems and more complex piping, and are thus expected
Cyclopentane 16.50 13.89 25.88 10.62 20.02 15.95 27.32
Isohexane 35.49 15.59 42.68 13.18 35.86 19.94 45.20 to lead to increased installation costs. As a result, it is useful to compare
n-pentane 23.44 14.87 31.52 10.83 25.06 17.06 33.26 the relative efficiency difference between the regenerative configura-
Butane – 13.32 – 8.09 – 13.78 – tions and the recuperative S-ORC in order to highlight the extent of the
R1234yf – 9.79 – 4.69 – 10.26 – performance improvement (if any) that can be attained by their im-
plementation, thus providing a first-order indication of their economic
competitiveness.
Table 9
Relative efficiency difference between optimized non-recuperative and recuperative cy- This relative energetic efficiency difference between each ith re-
cles (ηe,diffrec-nrec). generative cycle and the recuperative S-ORC is defined as:

S-ORC O-ORC CB-ORC CF-ORC ηei −ηeS (rec )

(rec )
ηeS,diff =
Toluene 27.78 17.36 14.85 16.12 ηeS (rec ) (17)
Cyclohexane 34.25 23.53 18.90 20.18
Cyclopentane 16.50 10.53 8.50 9.81 In Table 10, the relative efficiency difference values between the
Isohexane 35.49 23.44 20.03 21.07
optimized regenerative configurations and the recuperative S-ORC are
n-pentane 23.44 14.50 12.84 13.83
Butane – – – – presented.
R1234yf – – – –
Table 10
Relative energetic efficiency difference between optimized regenerative configurations
observed for isohexane and cyclohexane. Toluene has a higher isen- and optimized recuperative standard cycle (ηe,diff S(rec)).
tropic factor than n-pentane, but it exhibits a better performance im-
O-ORC CB-ORC CF-ORC
provement because of its significantly higher critical temperature. One
the other hand, cyclopentane has the lowest efficiency gains, even nrec rec nrec rec nrec rec
lower than that of n-pentane, despite its high critical temperature. The
increased beneficial effect of the recuperator on dry fluids is also the Toluene −10.55 4.98 −12.06 1.00 −8.52 6.22
Cyclohexane −14.85 5.18 −15.50 0.46 −10.77 7.23
reason why in all non-recuperative configurations, cyclopentane ex- Cyclopentane −2.25 8.05 −5.05 3.02 −0.48 9.29
hibits the highest efficiency, while, on the contrary, isohexane is the Isohexane −14.69 5.30 −16.47 0.27 −11.48 7.17
most efficient working fluid in all recuperative configurations. n-pentane −6.94 6.55 −10.21 1.31 −5.17 7.95
In conclusion, for both recuperative and regenerative cycles (in- Butane – – – – – –
R1234yf – – – – – –
dependently of the configuration), the most important parameters that

360
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

Compared to the recuperative S-ORC, less dry fluids show a higher
improvement; cyclopentane, followed by n-pentane exhibit the highest
gains. This is because, for these fluids, the energy benefits achieved by
the recuperative S-ORC are significantly reduced compared to dry
fluids, as can be viewed in Table 9.
In all cases, the recuperative S-ORC exhibits higher efficiency than
the non-recuperative regenerative cycles. In order to provide a more
general insight into the efficiency gains between regenerative and re-
cuperative standard ORCs, the relative efficiency difference between
optimized regenerative ORCs and the recuperative S-ORC is plotted for
the whole range of the evaporator pressures examined in Fig. 8.
From the left side diagrams of Fig. 8 it can be observed that all non-
recuperative regenerative configurations have universally inferior per-
formance compared to that of the recuperative S-ORC, regardless of the
evaporation pressure. Moreover, the relative performance deteriorates
as the evaporator pressure increases. Naturally, preheating the working
fluid via the recuperator is in principle more beneficial than via the
regenerative preheater, since it occurs without any loss of power
output. Therefore, it is clear that the installation of non-recuperative
regenerative ORCs is pointless from a thermodynamic and definitely
from an economic perspective, since the simpler recuperative S-ORC
can lead to better performance at a lower investment cost.
On the right side diagrams of Fig. 8, the relative efficiency between
the recuperative regenerative ORCs and the recuperative S-ORC is
plotted. It can be seen that in general all regenerative cycles actually
exhibit an efficiency improvement. The improvement is maximized for
CF-ORC, while CB-ORCs exhibit the lowest improvement potential.
One notable difference between the CB-ORC and the other

O-ORC(nrec) vs S-ORC(rec) O-ORC(rec) vs S-ORC(rec)

10 8
relative efficiency difference (%)

relative efficiency difference (%)

5

0
6
-5

-10

-15 n-pentane
4
isohexane
-20
n-pentane isohexane cyclopentane
-25 cyclopentane cyclohexane cyclohexane
toluene toluene
-30 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)

CB-ORC(nrec) vs S-ORC(rec) CB-ORC(rec) vs S-ORC(rec)

0 5
relative efficiency difference (%)

relative efficiency difference (%)

-5

-10

-15 0

-20 n-pentane n-pentane

isohexane isohexane
cyclopentane cyclopentane
-25
cyclohexane cyclohexane
toluene toluene
-30 -5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)

CF-ORC(nrec) vs S-ORC(rec) CF-ORC(rec) vs S-ORC(rec)

5 10
relative efficiency difference (%)
relative efficiency difference (%)

0 8

-5 6

-10 4
n-pentane
isohexane
-15 n-pentane isohexane 2 cyclopentane
cyclopentane cyclohexane cyclohexane
toluene toluene
-20 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)

Fig. 8. Relative efficiency between optimized non recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) regenerative ORCs and recuperative S-ORC as a function of the evaporator
pressure.

361
 K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

configurations regards the variation of the relative efficiency im-
provement as a function of the evaporator pressure. In the CB-ORC, it is
approximately fixed, exhibiting a very slight decrease as the evaporator
pressure increases. For most of the working fluids it ranges between 0
and 2.5%. For isohexane it mostly oscillates closely to 0%, while for
cyclopentane it attains the highest values, which are nonetheless only
around 3%.
The situation is different in O-ORCs and CF-ORCs, in which the
relative efficiency improvement increases as the evaporator pressure
increases. Its overall values and increase rate are lower in the case of O-
ORCs. More specifically, above a specific evaporator pressure value for
each working fluid, the relative improvement grows very slowly. The
relative improvement is maximized in the case of cyclopentane,
reaching values around 8% for higher pressures. Meanwhile, in CF-
ORCs the relative efficiency improvement increases more steeply as the
evaporator pressure increases, reaching values of roughly up to 9% for
cyclopentane and n-pentane. In all regenerative configurations, the
relative efficiency improvement exhibits a “bump” after the transition
to supercritical pressures.
The above results indicate that there is actual potential for im-
proving the thermodynamic performance of recuperative S-ORCs by
applying regenerative cycles, especially for wet fluids. On one hand, the
efficiency improvement achieved by the CB-ORC is very low, and it is
far from certain that it its application can actually generate economic
benefits, although it is the simplest among the regenerative configura-
tions. On the other hand, although both the O-ORC and CF-ORC exhibit
higher improvement potential, their design is more complex. As a re-
sult, detailed technoeconomic analyses need to be carried out in order
to accurately estimate their cost competitiveness compared to the CB-
ORC and the S-ORC, taking into account the increased costs that are
expected for their application.
In the charts presented in Fig. 9, the optimal evaporator pressure,
bleed pressure and bleed fraction for the different configurations are
plotted. It is reminded that for the O-ORC, the bleed fraction is not an

ST O CB CF n-rec rec Fig. 9. Optimal evaporator pressure bleed pres-

sure and bleed fraction for the optimized config-
40 urations.
evaporator pressure (bar)

30

20

10

0
R1234yf butane n-pentane isohexane cyclopentane cyclohexane toluene

O CB CF n-rec rec
25

20
bleed pressure (bar)

15

10

0
R1234yf butane n-pentane isohexane cyclopentane cyclohexane toluene

O CB CF n-rec rec
0,5

0,4
bleed fraction

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
R1234yf butane n-pentane isohexane cyclopentane cyclohexane toluene

362
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

S-ORC(nrec) S-ORC(rec)
30 30
R1234yf butane
energetic efficiency (%) 25 n-pentane isohexane 25

energetic efficiency (%)

cyclopentane cyclohexane
toluene
20 20

15 15

10 10
n-pentane isohexane
5 5 cyclopentane cyclohexane
toluene
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)
Fig. 10. Energetic efficiency as a function of the evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) S-ORC.

O-ORC(nrec) O-ORC(rec)
30 30
R1234yf butane
n-pentane isohexane
25 25
energetic efficiency (%)

cyclopentane cyclohexane

energetic efficiency (%)

toluene
20 20

15 15

10 n-pentane
10 isohexane
cyclopentane
5 5 cyclohexane
toluene
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)
Fig. 11. Optimized efficiency as a function of the evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) O-ORCs.

T 20

pmax
energetic efficiency (%)

ǻhreg,h1<ǻhreg,h2 pbleed1 hbleed1

15
ǻhreg,h1
hbleed2
evaporator pressure (bar)
pbleed2 hL1 4 6
8 10
10
12 14
ǻhreg,h2 18 22
26 30
38
pcond hL2 5
0 5 10 15
s bleed pressure (bar)

Fig. 12. Variation between bleed pressure (pbleed) and enthalpy drop of bleed vapor in Fig. 13. Energetic efficiency as a function of the bleed pressure for different evaporator
regenerative preheater (Δhreg,h) for a fixed evaporator pressure (pmax). pressures (O-ORC(nrec), cyclohexane).

optimization variable, but it is calculated based on the estimated op- 3.2. Parametric analysis and discussion
timal bleed pressure. When the optimal bleed fraction is zero, the re-
generative cycles are essentially transformed into standard ones. 3.2.1. S-ORC
A detailed analysis on the effect of these variables on system per- The energetic optimization of standard ORCs has already been ex-
formance and their optimal selection for each configuration is included tensively investigated in numerous literatures studies, therefore a short
in the following section of the study. analysis of the results is included in the present study for the sake of
completeness.
In Fig. 10, the maximum energetic efficiency as a function of the
evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative
(right side) S-ORCs is plotted.

363
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

O-ORC(nrec) O-ORC(rec)
25 25
R1234yf n-pentane
butane isohexane
20 n-pentane 20 Cyclopentane

bleed pressure (bar)

bleed pressure (bar)
isohexane Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane Toluene
15 15
Cyclohexane
Toluene
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)

Fig. 14. Optimal bleed pressure as a function of the evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) O-ORC.

CB-ORC(nrec) CB-ORC(rec)
30 30
R1234yf butane
25 n-pentane isohexane 25

energetic efficiency (%)

energetic efficiency (%)

cyclopentane cyclohexane
toluene
20 20

15 15

10 10 n-pentane
isohexane
cyclopentane
5 5 cyclohexane
toluene
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)
Fig. 15. Optimized efficiency as a function of the evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) CB-ORC.

It is well known that initially increasing the evaporation pressure
leads to an increase of the energetic efficiency, due to the increasing
enthalpy drop in the expander. Nevertheless, the energetic efficiency
reaches a plateau when the evaporation pressure approaches or sur-
passes the critical pressure of the working fluids. This happens because
for higher evaporator pressures, unless sufficient superheating is ap-
plied, the enthalpy of the superheated vapor at the evaporator outlet
(and hence the enthalpy drop in the expander) increases more slowly or
even begins to decline (at supercritical pressures), while the pump work
consumption keeps increasing at a steady rate.
The same pattern is also observed for recuperative cycles. However,
in this case, the operation under supercritical pressures has clearly a
negative impact on the energetic efficiency. This is because the afore-
mentioned decreasing enthalpy at the expander inlet leads to a sub-
sequent decrease of the enthalpy of the vapor at the recuperator inlet,
and therefore to a reduction of the heat that can be recovered by the
subcooled liquid stream. In order to ensure the improvement of the
efficiency of recuperative cycles at supercritical pressures, a significant
amount of superheating is necessary, which is nevertheless associated
with increased required heat exchanger area. This is a general char-
acteristic of supercritical recuperative cycles and can also be observed
in all different regenerative cycles that are examined in the present
study.
3.2.2. O-ORC
In Fig. 11, the maximum energetic efficiency as a function of the
evaporator pressure for optimized non-recuperative (left side) and re-
cuperative (right side) O-ORCs is plotted. As expected, higher effi-
ciencies are attainable as pmax increases, similarly to the case of the S-
ORC. Meanwhile, it can be seen that as in the S-ORC, the recuperative
cycles lead to reduced efficiencies for supercritical pressures, for the
same reasons that were previously discussed. A detailed discussion on
the optimization of O-ORCs follows.
By combining Eq. (14) with Table 5, the energetic efficiency of the
cycle can be expressed as:
Δhpump,HP + (1 − fbleed )Δhpump,LP
ηm ηG (Δhexp,HP + (1−fbleed )Δhexp,LP )− ηM
heO − ORC =
Δh wf ,ev
(18)
By substituting Δhwf,ev with its constituent enthalpy differences and
assuming that the specific work of the pump is negligible, the equation
can be written as:
ηm ηG (Δhexp,t −fbleed Δhexp,LP )
ηeO − ORC =
Δh wf ,t −Δhreg,c−Δhrec,h (19)
The only difference between non-recuperative and recuperative
cycles pertains to the term Δhrec,h, which is the enthalpy drop of the
vapor in the recuperator. For the sake of simplicity, the analysis that
follows is based on a non-recuperative cycle (Δhrec,h = 0), but is also
valid for recuperative cycles.
Before proceeding further, a crucial aspect that must be first clar-
ified and which is important for the analysis of all regenerative ORCs is
the relation between the bleed pressure pbleed and the enthalpy drop of
the extracted vapor in the regenerative preheater (Δhrec,h). As it is de-
picted in the qualitative diagram of Fig. 12, for a fixed evaporator
pressure, as the bleed pressure increases, the difference between hbleed
and hL(p = pbleed), which is equal to Δhreg,h, decreases. In fact, as the

364
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

20 pressure is high because the reduction of the power output of the

low pbleed cycle outbalances the reduction of the external heat input to the
cycle.
energetic efficiency (%)

15 The result is the existence of an optimal bleed pressure for each

high pbleed evaporator pressure, under which the energetic efficiency of the O-ORC
is maximized. The above is depicted in Fig. 13, in which the variation of
bleed pressure (bar) the energetic efficiency as a function of the bleed pressure for different
10 1 2 3 evaporator pressures is plotted.
4 5 6
It can be noticed that there is a positive correlation between the
7 10 14
18 22 26 optimal bleed pressure and the evaporator pressure. This is because
34 higher evaporator pressures (up to pcrit) lead to an increase of the
5 overall power output in the expander, and thus higher bleed pressures
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
can be reached before the decrease in the LP expander power starts to
bleed fraction negatively affect the energetic efficiency of the cycle.
This can be verified by observing the increasing trend of the optimal
20
bleed pressure for O-ORCs as a function of the evaporator pressure in
Fig. 14.
energetic efficiency (%)

The same pattern is also observed for recuperative cycles. However,

15
bleed fraction
0.05
10
0.0725
0.14
0.23
0.32
0.41
5 In Fig. 15, the maximum energetic efficiency as a function of the
0 5 10
bleed pressure (bar)
Fig. 16. Energetic efficiency as a function of the bleed fraction (up) and the bleed pres-
sure (down) for a fixed evaporator pressure (CB-ORC(nrec), cyclohexane, pmax = 38 bar).
bleed pressure increases from pbleed2 to pbleed1, the distance between the
isenthalpic lines corresponding to hbleed and hL decreases. This is true
for all regenerative ORCs, including O-ORCs, CB-ORCs and CF-ORCs.
In O-ORCs, the enthalpy increase of the working fluid in the re-
generative preheater is given by the equation:
Δhreg,c = hL (p = pbleed )−h3
For a fixed evaporator pressure, increasing the bleed fraction leads
to an increase of Δhreg,c and Δhreg,h which in turn lead to an increase of
fbleed (Eq. (2)). Essentially, as the bleed pressure increases, more vapour
must be extracted to produce saturated liquid at the exit of the re-
generative preheater. As a result, increasing the bleed pressure leads to
simultaneous drop of the produced power due to the reduced mass flow
rate of the working fluid in the LP expander stage and a decrease of the
external heat input to the cycle, since more preheating is applied to the
working fluid in the regenerative preheater.
For lower pbleed values, both fbleed and Δhexp,LP have initially low
values, the former being very close to zero. Consequently, starting from
low bleed pressures, as pbleed increases, the heat input to the cycle de-
creases faster than the produced work, and thus the overall energetic
efficiency is increased. On the other hand, for higher pbleed values, both
fbleed and Δhexp,LP adopt higher values, while Δhreg,c increases more
slowly. Thus, the decrease of the produced work is more significant
than the decrease of the heat input to the cycle, and the energetic ef-
ficiency drops.
To sum up, increasing the bleed pressure for a fixed evaporator
pressure:
the optimal bleed pressures are comparatively higher compared to the
non-recuperative ones. This is because the external heat input to the
ORC is generally lower (due to the effect of the recuperation), and thus
higher bleed pressures can be reached before the decrease of the power
0.0725 output occurring due to the described increase of the bleed fraction
0.095
0.185 leads to a decline of the cycle efficiency.
0.275
0.365
0.455 3.2.3. CB-ORC
15 20 25 30 35
evaporator pressure for optimized non-recuperative (left side) and re-
cuperative (right side) CB-ORCs is plotted.
The CB-ORC is partly similar to the O-ORC. However, the optimi-
zation of CB-ORCs includes one additional variable, the bleed fraction,
which is in this case independent, adding one more degree of freedom
for optimizing the performance of the system. More specifically, while
in the case of O-ORCs the bleed fraction is determined by the fact that
the cold steam exiting the regenerative preheater is at saturated liquid
state, this is not the case for CB-ORCs, in which it can also be subcooled.
The energetic efficiency of CB-ORCs is given by the equation:
Δhpump
(20) ηm ηG (Δhexp,HP + (1−fbleed )Δhexp,LP )− ηM
heCB − ORC =
Δh wf ,ev (21)
By following the same steps as in the previous section, the energetic
efficiency can be rewritten as:
ηm ηG (Δhexp,t −fbleed Δhexp,LP )
ηeCB − ORC = f
Δh wf ,t − 1 −bleed Δhreg,h−(1−fbleed )Δhrec,h
f
bleed (22)
The analysis that follows is again carried out for non-recuperative
cycles, assuming that Δhrec,h = 0. A discussion of recuperative cycles if
subsequently included.
For a fixed evaporator and bleed pressure, increasing the bleed
fraction leads to a decrease of both the power output and the heat input
to the cycle. As a result, the effect of fbleed variation on the overall ef-
ficiency is not straightforward, since it depends on the bleed pressure,
which determines the values of Δhexp,LP and Δhreg,h and hence the re-
lative significance of the two concurrent phenomena. The combined
effect of these interdependencies can be discussed with the help of
Fig. 16, in which the energetic efficiency for different bleed fractions
and bleed pressures for the non-recuperative CB-ORC considering a
fixed evaporator pressure is depicted.

• leads to an increase of the energetic efficiency when the bleed To begin with, it can be observed that the variation of the energetic
efficiency as fbleed increases is monotonous. However, the correlation
pressure is low because the reduction of the external heat input to
can be either positive or negative, depending on pbleed. For higher bleed
the cycle outbalances the reduction of the power output of the cycle,
• leads to a decrease of the energetic efficiency when the bleed
pressures, increasing the bleed fraction leads to a drop of the energetic
efficiency. In this case, the CB-ORC is essentially less efficient than the

365
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

CB-ORC(nrec) CB-ORC(rec)
25 25
R1234yf n-pentane
butane isohexane
bleed pressure (bar) 20 n-pentane 20 cyclopentane

bleed pressure (bar)

isohexane cyclohexane
cyclopentane toluene
15 15
cyclohexane
toluene
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)

CB-ORC(nrec) CB-ORC(rec)
0.6 0.6
R1234yf butane n-pentane
n-pentane isohexane isohexane
0.5 0.5
cyclopentane cyclohexane cyclopentane
toluene cyclohexane
0.4 0.4

bleed fraction
bleed fraction

toluene

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)
Fig. 17. Optimal bleed pressures (up) and bleed fractions (down) as a function of the evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) CB-ORC.

CF-ORC(nrec) CF-ORC(rec)
30 30
R1234yf butane
n-pentane isohexane
25 25
energetic efficiency (%)
energetic efficiency (%)

cyclopentane cyclohexane
toluene
20 20

15 15

n-pentane
10 10
isohexane
cyclopentane
5 5 cyclohexane
toluene
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)
Fig. 18. Optimized efficiency as a function of the evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) CF-ORCs.

S-ORC and the optimization converges towards the lowest bleed frac-
tion values, under which the CB-ORC essentially resembles an S-ORC. In
terms of Eq. (22), for higher bleed pressures, Δhexp,LP is higher while
Δhreg,h is lower. Therefore, when increasing the bleed fraction, the de-
crease rate of the power output is more significant than the decrease
rate of the heat input to the cycle.
For lower bleed pressures, the gradient of the efficiency decrease
increases (decreases in absolute terms). Thus, below a specific bleed
pressure value, the effect of increasing the bleed fraction on the en-
ergetic efficiency becomes positive. The maximum possible fbleed values
are in this case optimal, and the CB-ORC has a better efficiency than the
S-ORC. In terms of Eq. (22), for lower bleed pressures Δhexp,LP is lower
while Δhreg,h is higher. Therefore, as fbleed increases, the decrease rate of
the power output of the cycle is less significant than the decrease rate of
the external heat input to the cycle. The above can also be observed in
Fig. 16, in which it can be seen that there is a specific bleed pressure for
which the energetic efficiency is the same for all bleed fractions and all
lines intersect. The value of the bleed pressure around which the cor-
relation changes from negative to positive is influenced by the eva-
porator pressure. As in O-ORCs, higher evaporator pressures lead to an
overall increase of the total power output, and thus even higher bleed
pressures may be reached before the decreasing expansion work (as the
bleed fraction increases) outbalances the decreasing external heat input
to the cycle.
To sum up:

366
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

22 initially increase as the evaporator pressure increases and finally be-

bleed pressure (bar)
1 2
come fixed. This occurs because as the evaporator pressure increases,
the overall work output of the cycle increases, and it is thus possible to
energetic efficiency (%)

3 4
5 6 reach higher bleed fractions and ensure sufficient preheating of the
20 8 10
15 22
working fluid without limiting the overall energetic efficiency due to
32 the limitation of the LP expander power. Of course, as was previously
low pbleed discussed, the maximum fbleed is also constrained by the pinch point
limitation in the regenerative preheater. This is why its value even-
18 tually reaches a plateau as the evaporator pressure further increases. It
can also be observed that higher bleed fraction values are selected for
the most dry fluids (isohexane, cyclohexane) and fluids with high Tcrit.
high pbleed For these fluids, the ratio between the sensible and the latent heat that
16 can be recovered from the bleed vapor is higher. Thus, higher mass
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
flowrates can be attained without leading to pinch point violation in the
bleed fraction regenerative preheater. This is why the performance of these fluids is
comparatively better, as was previously discussed.
22
Recuperative CB-ORCs have inferior efficiency than recuperative S-
bleed fraction
0.05
ORCs, as it was shown in Fig. 8. Therefore, the optimization tends to
21
energetic efficiency (%)

20
19
18
17
16
0 5 10 15 20 25
bleed pressure (bar)
Fig. 19. Energetic efficiency as a function of the bleed fraction (up) and bleed pressure
(down) for a fixed evaporator pressure (CF-ORC(nrec), cyclohexane, pmax = 38 bar).
• for high bleed pressures, increasing the bleed fraction leads to an
decrease of the energetic efficiency because the reduction of the
power output of the cycle outbalances the reduction of the external
heat input to the cycle,
• for low bleed pressures, increasing the bleed fraction leads to an
increase of the energetic efficiency because the reduction of the
external heat input to the cycle outbalances the decrease of the
power output of the cycle,
• for higher evaporator pressures, higher bleed pressures can be
reached before the effect of the increasing bleed fraction on the
cycle efficiency shifts from positive to negative, due to the overall
higher power output of the cycle.
It should be noted that for each bleed pressure, there is a maximum
possible bleed fraction that can lead to the design of feasible cycles, due
to the pinch point constraint of the regenerative preheater (Table 2).
Excessively high fbleed values may lead to temperature crossovers, if at
any point within the regenerative preheater the temperature of the
subcooled working fluid surpasses that of the extracted vapor. As a
result, although the lowest bleed pressures are in principle more fa-
vorable, the efficiency is maximized at relatively higher (but still low)
bleed pressures which allow higher bleed fraction values without any
pinch point violation, as is the case in Fig. 16.
The optimal bleed pressures and corresponding bleed fractions for
non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) CB-ORCs as a
function of the evaporator pressure are depicted in Fig. 17.
For non-recuperative cycles, it can be observed that in accordance
with the previous discussion, the optimal bleed pressures are close to
their lowest bounds, approximating the condensation pressures of the
working fluids, exhibiting only a slight increase throughout a wide
range of evaporator pressures. Meanwhile, the optimal fbleed values
0.1175 converge towards very low fbleed and pbleed values, under which the re-
0.1625 cuperative CB-ORC is degenerated into a recuperative S-ORC. In re-
0.2075
0.2525
cuperative CB-ORCs, the bleed fraction determines the contribution of
0.2975 the regenerative preheater and the recuperator into the internal pre-
0.3425 heating (i.e. without utilizing energy from the external heat source) of
0.3875
0.4325 the working fluid. Higher bleed fractions result in more working fluid
0.4775 passing through the regenerative preheater and less fluid passing
through the LP expander and the recuperator. However, as it was pre-
viously discussed, it is more beneficial to maximize internal heat re-
covery via the recuperator, which occurs without any loss of power
30 35 output, contrary to the case of the regenerative preheater. Conse-
quently, the lowest possible bleed fraction values (ranging from 0.05 to
0.10) are selected in recuperative CB-ORCs in order to maximize the
heat duty of the recuperator and minimize that of the regenerative
preheater (this can also be seen in Fig. 9). Meanwhile, in recuperative
CB-ORCs the working fluid is already partially preheated in the re-
cuperator and thus enters the regenerative preheater at a higher tem-
perature and enthalpy. Therefore, the amount of heat that can be ex-
changed in the regenerative preheater given the pinch point constraint
is limited. Hence, for the same evaporator pressure, slightly higher
bleed pressures (corresponding to lower Δhreg,h values) are necessarily
selected to prevent pinch point violation, compared to the non-re-
cuperative cycle, as can be seen in Fig. 17.
3.2.4. CF-ORC
In Fig. 18, the maximum energetic efficiency as a function of the
evaporator pressure for optimized non-recuperative (left side) and re-
cuperative (right side) CF-ORCs is plotted.
The main difference between the CF-ORC and the CB-ORC is the
recirculation of the bleed stream back into the evaporator after exiting
the regenerative preheater that occurs in the former. In this way, the
heat content of the bleed vapor is preserved and not rejected in the
condenser.
The energetic efficiency of CF-ORCs is given by the equation:
ηeCF − ORC
ηm ηG (Δhexp,HP + (1−fbleed )Δhexp,LP )−
fbleed Δhpump,HP + (1 − fbleed )Δhpump,LP
ηM
=
Δh wf ,ev
(23)
And in accordance with the previous cases, it can be rewritten as:
ηm ηG (Δhexp,t −fbleed Δhexp,LP )
heCF − ORC =
Δh wf ,t −fbleed (hbleed−h2)−(1−fbleed )Δhrec,h (24)
Again, the analysis that follows is initially carried out by con-
sidering a non-recuperative cycle (Δhrec,h = 0). Similarly to the CB-
ORC, for a fixed evaporator and bleed pressure, as the bleed fraction

367
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370

CF-ORC(nrec) CF-ORC(rec)
25 25
R1234yf n-pentane
butane isohexane
20 n-pentane 20 cyclopentane
bleed pressure (bar)

bleed pressure (bar)

isohexane cyclohexane
cyclopentane toluene
15 15
cyclohexane
toluene
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)

CF-ORC(nrec) CF-ORC(rec)
0.7 0.7
R1234yf butane n-pentane
0.6 n-pentane isohexane 0.6 isohexane
cyclopentane cyclohexane cyclopentane
0.5 toluene 0.5 cyclohexane
bleed fraction

bleed fraction
toluene
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
evaporator pressure (bar) evaporator pressure (bar)
Fig. 20. Optimal bleed pressures and bleed fractions as a function of the evaporator pressure for non-recuperative (left side) and recuperative (right side) CF-ORCs.

increases, both the power output of the cycle and the external heat
input to the cycle decrease. Therefore, as it can also be derived from Eq.
(24), the overall effect of the bleed fraction variation on the efficiency
depends on the values of Δhexp,LP and (hbleed − h2).
The combined impact of fbleed and pbleed on the energetic efficiency of
the CF-ORC at a fixed pmax can be discussed with the help of the dia-
grams of Fig. 19.
Firstly, it can be seen from Fig. 19 that contrary to the CB-ORC, in
the case of the CF-ORC, increasing the bleed fraction always leads to an
increase of the efficiency, regardless of the bleed pressure. For higher
bleed pressures, the efficiency increase rate is insignificant, close to
zero. On the other hand, as the bleed pressure decreases, the energetic
efficiency increases very steeply along with the bleed fraction.
This positive correlation between the energetic efficiency and the
bleed fraction occurs because in CF-ORCs, the decrease of the external
heat input to the cycle always outbalances the decrease of the power
output that occurs when the bleed fraction increases, because
hbleed − h2 is substantially higher than Δhexp,LP. When the bleed pressure
is low, (hbleed – h2) is much higher than Δhexp,LP. As a result, the power
output of the cycle tends to decrease more slowly than the heat input to
the cycle when the bleed fraction is increased, and thus the rate of
increase of the energetic efficiency is higher. Obviously, when the bleed
pressure is high, the opposite happens.
As can be derived from Eq. (22) and Eq. (24), the power output of
the CB-ORC and the CF-ORC is approximately the same. However, as
the bleed fraction increases, the required external heat input decreases
faster in the case of the CF-ORC. This occurs because the extracted
vapor is not conveyed to the condenser (via throttling), but recirculates
into the evaporator, thus its energy content is re-utilized and not re-
jected from the system. Therefore, the integration of the regenerative
preheater is more efficient in the case of the CF-ORC, allowing for a
relatively diminished heat requirement from the external heat source,
leading to improved efficiencies.
Τhe energetic efficiency of CF-ORCs tends to be maximized for in-
termediate bleed pressures that allow for sufficiently high bleed frac-
tion values without violation of the pinch point constraint in the re-
generative preheater. This is because, as in CB-ORCs, if the bleed
pressure is too low, the enthalpy drop of the bleed stream in the re-
generative preheater may become too high and lead to limited bleed
fraction values due to the pinch point constraint. The above can be
clearly observed in Fig. 19. More specifically, although the lowest bleed
pressures could lead to higher efficiencies, the maximum possible value
of the bleed fraction for these pressures that ensures no temperature
crossovers in the regenerative preheater is much lower. Therefore,
slightly higher bleed pressures are optimal, corresponding to inter-
mediate values of the bleed fraction.
The same patterns are also observed in recuperative cycles.
However, the external heat input to the cycle for increasing bleed
fraction values tends to decrease more slowly, due to the preheating of
the working fluid which occurs in the recuperator. The result is an
overall lower increase rate of the energetic efficiency when the bleed
fraction is increased.
In Fig. 20 the optimal bleed pressure and bleed fraction values for
the non-recuperative (left side) and the recuperative (right side) CF-
ORC are plotted as a function of the evaporator pressure.
For the non-recuperative cycle, relatively low to medium bleed
pressures are selected as optimal, along with intermediate bleed frac-
tion values. Notably, the optimal bleed pressures are higher than those
in CB-ORCs. This is because the remaining energy content of the ex-
tracted vapor after the regenerative preheater is not wasted (as is the
case in the CB-ORC) but reutilized. Thus even for higher bleed pres-
sures, sufficient preheating is applied and less external heat input is

368
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas
required by the working fluid. Both optimal pbleed and fbleed tend to in-
crease as the evaporator pressure increases for the same reason that was
described in the previous sections (increased expansion power output).
Accordingly, higher bleed fractions are selected for dry and high Tcrit
fluids.
As far as recuperative cycles are concerned, slightly higher optimal
bleed pressures along with lower bleed fractions are necessarily se-
lected (to avoid temperature crossovers in the regenerative preheater)
compared to the non-recuperative cycle. In general, though, for both
non-recuperative and recuperative CF-ORCs, it is possible to properly
select the bleed pressure bleed fraction and produce an optimal dis-
tribution of the heat duties of the recuperator and the regenerative
preheater, leading to the highest energetic efficiency improvement
among all configurations.
4. Conclusions
In the present study, three regenerative ORC configurations, the O-
ORC, the CB-ORC and the CF-ORC, were investigated, optimized and
compared to the standard cycle, with and without the inclusion of a
recuperator. The highest efficiency improvement was achieved by the
CF-ORC, followed by the O-ORC and lastly the CB-ORC. The maximum
efficiencies for the non-recuperative systems were equal to 18.02% (S-
ORC), 20.53% (O-ORC), 19.94% (CB-ORC) and 20.90% (CF-ORC). The
maximum efficiencies for the recuperative systems were equal to
22.85% (S-ORC), 24.04% (O-ORC), 22.96% (CB-ORC) and 24.50% (CF-
ORC). Both recuperative and regenerative ORCs perform significantly
better for drier fluids, while the critical temperature is an additional
positively influential factor, due to the increased amount of recoverable
sensible heat. On the other hand, for low Tcrit and wet fluids the benefits
are substantially decreased.
The recuperative S-ORC always performs better than the non-re-
cuperative regenerative cycles. As a result, non-recuperative re-
generative configurations are not generally recommended, since they
lead to lower efficiency at an increased cost, due to the increased
equipment components and construction complexity. However, they
could constitute a cost-efficient strategy when the implementation of
standard recuperative ORCs is not possible, which is the case for low
Tcrit fluids, commonly used in small scale, low temperature applications.
On the other hand, recuperative regenerative cycles have a better
efficiency than the recuperative S-ORC. Compared to the recuperative
S-ORC, the most significant relative efficiency benefits are observed in
the case of the CF-ORC (from 6.22% to 9.29%), followed by the O-ORC
(from 4.98% to 8.05%), and are higher for less dry fluids. In the case of
the CB-ORC, the relative efficiency improvement is insignificant,
reaching a maximum of 3.02%. Moreover, its performance is in many
instances inferior to that of the recuperative S-ORC. As a result, it is
rather unlikely that the CB-ORC can lead to improved techno-economic
results compared to the other configurations, despite its slightly lower
complexity. At any case, detailed techno-economic investigations are
required to accurately determine if recuperative CB-ORC and CF-ORC
systems constitute an economically viable option compared to re-
cuperative standard cycles.
Regarding the optimization of the regenerative systems, for O-ORCs
there is an optimal bleed pressure that leads to a maximization of the
energetic efficiency. For non-recuperative CB-ORCs and CF-ORCs, low
bleed pressures, slightly higher than the condensation pressure are fa-
vored, combined with intermediate bleed fraction values. However,
recuperative CB-ORCs are mostly degenerated towards recuperative S-
ORCs, due to the increased losses in the condenser which make the
operation of the regenerative preheater unfavorable. On the other hand,
recuperative CF-ORCs allow to optimally adjust the heat load of the
recuperator and the regenerative preheater, leading to the maximum
energetic efficiency improvement.
369
Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370
References
[1] Braimakis K, Thimo A, Karellas S. Technoeconomic analysis and comparison of a
solar-based biomass ORC-VCC system and a PV heat pump for domestic trigenera-
tion. J Energy Eng 2017;143(2).
[2] Drescher U, Brüggemann D. Fluid selection for the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) in
biomass power and heat plants. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27(1):223–8.
[3] Karellas S, Braimakis K. Energy–exergy analysis and economic investigation of a
cogeneration and trigeneration ORC–VCC hybrid system utilizing biomass fuel and
solar power Energy Conversion and Management. (In Press, Corrected Proof
Available online 9 July 2015).
[4] Quoilin S, Broek MVD, Declaye S, Dewallef P, Lemort V. Techno-economic survey of
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:168–86.
[5] Quoilin S. Sustainable energy conversion through the use of organic Rankine cycles
for waste heat recovery and solar applications. Belgium: University of Liège; 2011.
[6] Rayegan R, Tao YX. A procedure to select working fluids for Solar Organic Rankine
Cycles (ORCs). Renewable Energy 2011;36(2):659–70.
[7] Astolfi M, Romano MC, Bombarda P, Macchi E. Binary ORC (Organic Rankine
Cycles) power plants for the exploitation of medium–low temperature geothermal
sources – Part B: techno-economic optimization. Energy 2014;66:435–46.
[8] Heberle F, Brüggemann D. Exergy based fluid selection for a geothermal Organic
Rankine Cycle for combined heat and power generation. Appl Therm Eng
2010;30(11–12):1326–32.
[9] Shokati N, Ranjbar F, Yari M. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of basic,
dual-pressure and dual-fluid ORCs and Kalina geothermal power plants: a com-
parative study. Renewable Energy 2015;83:527–42.
[10] Braimakis K, Preißinger M, Brüggemann D, Karellas S, Panopoulos K. Low grade
waste heat recovery with subcritical and supercritical Organic Rankine Cycle based
on natural refrigerants and their binary mixtures. Energy 2015;88:80–92.
[11] Quoilin S, Declaye S, Tchanche BF, Lemort V. Thermo-economic optimization of
waste heat recovery Organic Rankine Cycles. Appl Therm Eng
2011;31(14):2885–93.
[12] Hung TC, Shai TY, Wang SK. A review of organic rankine cycles (ORCs) for the
recovery of low-grade waste heat. Energy 1997;22(7):661–7.
[13] Bao J, Zhao L. A review of working fluid and expander selections for organic
Rankine cycle. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:325–42.
[14] Tchanche BF, Lambrinos G, Frangoudakis A, Papadakis G. Low-grade heat con-
version into power using organic Rankine cycles – a review of various applications.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(8):3963–79.
[15] Lecompte S, Huisseune H, van den Broek M, Vanslambrouck B, De Paepe M. Review
of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) architectures for waste heat recovery. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:448–61.
[16] Lecompte S, Huisseune H, van den Broek M, Vanslambrouck B, De Paepe M. Review
of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) architectures for waste heat recovery. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47(Supplement C):448–61.
[17] Maraver D, Royo J, Lemort V, Quoilin S. Systematic optimization of subcritical and
transcritical organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) constrained by technical parameters in
multiple applications. Appl Energy 2014;117:11–29.
[18] Aljundi IH. Effect of dry hydrocarbons and critical point temperature on the effi-
ciencies of organic Rankine cycle. Renewable Energy 2011;36(4):1196–202.
[19] Hung TC, Wang SK, Kuo CH, Pei BS, Tsai KF. A study of organic working fluids on
system efficiency of an ORC using low-grade energy sources. Energy
2010;35(3):1403–11.
[20] Meinel D, Wieland C, Spliethoff H. Effect and comparison of different working fluids
on a two-stage organic rankine cycle (ORC) concept. Appl Therm Eng
2014;63(1):246–53.
[21] Gnutek Z, Bryszewska-Mazurek A. The thermodynamic analysis of multicycle ORC
engine. Energy 2001;26(12):1075–82.
[22] Ayachi F, Boulawz Ksayer E, Zoughaib A, Neveu P. ORC optimization for medium
grade heat recovery. Energy 2014;68:47–56.
[23] Zhang HG, Wang EH, Fan BY. A performance analysis of a novel system of a dual
loop bottoming organic Rankine cycle (ORC) with a light-duty diesel engine. Appl
Energy 2013;102:1504–13.
[24] Zhang C, Shu G, Tian H, Wei H, Liang X. Comparative study of alternative ORC-
based combined power systems to exploit high temperature waste heat. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;89:541–54.
[25] Mosaffa AH, Mokarram NH, Farshi LG. Thermo-economic analysis of combined
different ORCs geothermal power plants and LNG cold energy. Geothermics
2017;65:113–25.
[26] Choi I-H, Lee S, Seo Y, Chang D. Analysis and optimization of cascade Rankine cycle
for liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery. Energy 2013;61:179–95.
[27] Soffiato M, Frangopoulos CA, Manente G, Rech S, Lazzaretto A. Design optimization
of ORC systems for waste heat recovery on board a LNG carrier. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;92(Supplement C):523–34.
[28] Yang F, Dong X, Zhang H, Wang Z, Yang K, Zhang J, et al. Performance analysis of
waste heat recovery with a dual loop organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system for diesel
engine under various operating conditions. Energy Convers Manage
2014;80(Supplement C):243–55.
[29] Sciubba E, Tocci L, Toro C. Thermodynamic analysis of a Rankine dual loop waste
thermal energy recovery system. Energy Convers Manage 2016;122(Supplement
C):109–18.
[30] Mosaffa AH, Mokarram NH, Farshi LG. Thermo-economic analysis of combined
different ORCs geothermal power plants and LNG cold energy. Geothermics
2017;65(Supplement C):113–25.
[31] Mehrpooya M, Ashouri M, Mohammadi A. Thermoeconomic analysis and
K. Braimakis, S. Karellas
optimization of a regenerative two-stage organic Rankine cycle coupled with li-
quefied natural gas and solar energy. Energy 2017;126(Supplement C):899–914.
[32] Mago PJ, Chamra LM, Srinivasan K, Somayaji C. An examination of regenerative
organic Rankine cycles using dry fluids. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28(8):998–1007.
[33] Desai NB, Bandyopadhyay S. Process integration of organic Rankine cycle. Energy
2009;34(10):1674–86.
[34] Pei G, Li J, Ji J. Analysis of low temperature solar thermal electric generation using
regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30(8):998–1004.
[35] Yari M. Exergetic analysis of various types of geothermal power plants. Renewable
Energy 2010;35(1):112–21.
[36] Rashidi MM, Galanis N, Nazari F, Basiri Parsa A, Shamekhi L. Parametric analysis
and optimization of regenerative Clausius and organic Rankine cycles with two
feedwater heaters using artificial bees colony and artificial neural network. Energy
2011;36(9):5728–40.
[37] Xi H, Li M-J, Xu C, He Y-L. Parametric optimization of regenerative organic Rankine
cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery using genetic algorithm. Energy
2013;58(Supplement C):473–82.
[38] Liu X, Wei M, Yang L, Wang X. Thermo-economic analysis and optimization se-
lection of ORC system configurations for low temperature binary-cycle geothermal
plant. Appl Therm Eng 2017;125(Supplement C):153–64.
[39] Imran M, Park BS, Kim HJ, Lee DH, Usman M, Heo M. Thermo-economic optimi-
zation of Regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle for waste heat recovery applications.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;87(Supplement C):107–18.
[40] Zare V. A comparative exergoeconomic analysis of different ORC configurations for
binary geothermal power plants. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105(Supplement
C):127–38.
370
Energy Conversion and Management 159 (2018) 353–370
[41] Safarian S, Aramoun F. Energy and exergy assessments of modified Organic Rankine
Cycles (ORCs). Energy Rep 2015;1(Supplement C):1–7.
[42] Mohammadzadeh Bina S, Jalilinasrabady S, Fujii H. Thermo-economic evaluation
of various bottoming ORCs for geothermal power plant, determination of optimum
cycle for Sabalan power plant exhaust. Geothermics 2017;70(Supplement
C):181–91.
[43] Bell IH, Wronski J, Quoilin S, Lemort V. Pure and pseudo-pure fluid thermophysical
property evaluation and the open-source thermophysical property library cool prop.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2014;53(6):2498–508.
[44] Braimakis K, Karellas S. Integrated thermoeconomic optimization of standard and
regenerative ORC for different heat source types and capacities. Energy
2017;121:570–98.
[45] Grover VI. Kyoto Protocol. Encyclopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change.
SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
[46] Grover VI. Montreal Protocol. Encyclopedia of Global Warming and Climate
Change. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
[47] The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. REGULATION
(EC) No 842/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17
May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases. In: Union E, editor.
[48] The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. REGULATION
(EU) No 517/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16
April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/
2006. In: Union E, editor.
[49] American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants; 2013.