International Journal of Research in Engineering and Innovation Vol-1, Issue-5 (2017), 7-20

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal of Research in Engineering and Innovation

(IJREI)
journal home page: http://www.ijrei.com
ISSN (Online): 2456-6934

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Thermodynamic performance analysis of claude cryogenic system

R. S. Mishra, Devendra Kumar
Department of Mechanical, Production & Industrial and Automobiles Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract
The present investigation is concern on Thermal (energy and exergy analyses) of various cryogenic system up to their sub component
level. A parametric study is conducted to investigate the effects of variation of various system input parameters such as pressure
ratio, expander mass flow ratio, compressor output temperature on different performance parameters like COP , work input
,liquefaction rate ,specific heat and exergy. The numerical computations have been carried out for Claude system are study with six
different gases for liquefaction like oxygen, argon, methane, fluorine, air and nitrogen respectively. Effect of different input gas also
studies carefully and behavior of different gases in different system is concluded i.e. first law efficiency (COP) and second law
efficiency (exergetic efficiency) of claude system decrease with increase in pressure ratio. For Methane gas COP decreases.
© 2017 ijrei.com. All rights reserved
Keywords: Claude Cryogenic system, Thermodynamic Analysis, Energy-Exergy Analysis, Irreversibility Optimization
_______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction

In the year 1920, Claude developed an air liquefaction system
and established Air Liquide. Claude system consists of
compressor, expander, three heat exchangers with throttle
valve and separator. The fluid which has to liquefy first fed to
compressor in its gaseous form at atmospheric pressure, it is
compressed isothermally in compressor after that the high
pressure gas is partially cooled by passing through the first heat
exchanger, at the exits of first heat exchanger a portion if air is
bled and called by expansion in expander ,the remaining
portion of air passes through the second and third heat
exchanger ,the gas from third heat exchanger is throttled
irreversibly at atmospheric pressure. The liquid gas is collected
in separator after throttling. The low temperature gas from
expander is mixed with the gaseous part from the separator,
producing an effect of increased mass flow rate at feed system.
In the Claude system, energy is removed from the gas stream
by allowing it to do some work in an expansion engine or
expander. An expansion valve is still necessary in the Claude
system because much liquid cannot be tolerated in the
expander in the actual system. The liquid has much
compressibility than the gas, therefore, if the liquid were
formed in the cylinder of an expansion engine (positive
displacement type), high momentary stress would result. Some
rotary turbine expanders (axial-flow type) have developed that
can tolerate as much as 15% liquid by weight without damage
to the turbine blade. In some Claude systems, the energy output
of the expander is used to help compress the gas to be liquefied.
In small scale system, the energy is dissipated in the brake or
in an external air blower. This energy is wasted or not it does
not affect the liquid yield; however, it increases the
compression work requirement when the expander work is not
used. A schematic diagram is shown in below figure.
Cryogenic process to liquefy air which is further extent to
extract various particular gas like oxygen, nitrogen, feron etc.
Always various analyses is done to identify the loop hole of
process and to rectify it to their upper level. electro caloric
cooling is a transiting to new cooling principle’s is critical and
one of the most promising alternatives may be [1].Various
particular part are taken under study to increase overall
performance of cryogenic system e.g. A good exergetic design
of a heat exchanger would allow for an increase in the global
efficiency of the process, by defining a thermodynamic cycle
in which the exergetic losses would be limited [2] apart from
this other parts like expander, mass ratio and input variables
are considered to improve cryo-systems.

Corresponding author: R.S. Mishra

Email Id:rsmishradtu@gmail.com 7
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

𝑠𝑓 𝑅$ 𝑥𝑓 𝑇𝑓
𝑇𝑓 𝑅$ 𝑥0 𝑃1
ℎ𝑓 𝑅$ 𝑥𝑓 𝑇𝑓
𝑇𝑔 𝑅$ 𝑥1 𝑃1
𝑠𝑔 𝑅$ 𝑥1 𝑇𝑔
ℎ𝑔 𝑅$ 𝑥1 𝑇𝑔
𝑠3 𝑅$ 𝑇3 𝑃2
ℎ3 𝑅$ 𝑇3 𝑃2
𝑠4 𝑅$ 𝑇4 𝑃2
ℎ4 𝑅$ 𝑇4 𝑃2
𝑠8 𝑅$ 𝑇8 𝑃1
ℎ8 𝑅$ 𝑇8 𝑃1
𝑠9 𝑅$ 𝑇9 𝑃1
ℎ9 𝑅$ 𝑇9 𝑃1
Figure 1(a): Schematic diagram of Claude system 𝑠10 𝑅$ 𝑇10 𝑃1
ℎ10 𝑅$ 𝑇10 𝑃1
𝑐𝑝(ℎ𝑓)𝐻𝑋1 𝑅$ 𝑇2 𝑃2
𝑐𝑝(𝑐𝑓)𝐻𝑋1 𝑅$ 𝑇8 𝑃1
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 - 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑡_𝐻𝑋1 𝐶𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑_𝐻𝑋1
𝑐𝑝(ℎ𝑓)𝐻𝑋2 𝑅$ 𝑇2 𝑃2
𝑐𝑝(𝑐𝑓)𝐻𝑋2 𝑅$ 𝑇8 𝑃1
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 - 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑡_𝐻𝑋2 𝐶𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑_𝐻𝑋2
𝑐𝑝(ℎ𝑓)𝐻𝑋3 𝑅$ 𝑇2 𝑃2
𝑐𝑝(𝑐𝑓)𝐻𝑋3 𝑅$ 𝑇𝑔 − 1 𝑃1
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 - 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑡_𝐻𝑋3 𝐶𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑_𝐻𝑋3
ℎ7 𝑅$ 𝑇7 𝑃1
𝑠7 𝑅$ 𝑇7 𝑃1
𝑋6 𝑅$ ℎ6 𝑃1
𝑠6 𝑅$ ℎ6 𝑃1
𝑠5 𝑅$ ℎ5 𝑃1
Figure 1(b): T-S diagram of Claude system ℎ5 𝑅$ 𝑇5 𝑃2

In non ideal gas any variable can be defined by two other

dependent variables on them: 𝑅$ =′ 𝐺𝑎𝑠 ′
𝑚 𝑚𝑒
𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝑓𝑥(𝑏, 𝑐) 𝑚2 = 1, 𝑚 = 𝑚2 , 𝑓 = 𝑦, = 𝑟, 𝑟 = 0.2, 𝑇0 = 298,
𝑚 𝑚
Following study is carried out to study the behavior of various 𝑘𝑗
𝑇1 = 300, 𝑇2 = 𝑇1 , 𝑃1 = 1, 𝑃2 = 40, 𝑐𝑝𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 = 1.004 [ ]
considered gases in Claude liquefaction system. Exergy 𝑘𝑔𝐾
analysis help in determining the optimum working parameters 𝑘𝑗
𝑐𝑣𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 = 0.718 [ ]
of system with different gases. 𝑘𝑔𝐾

Table 1: Variable Table Analysis of Compressor

Variable Gas Variable Variable
(a) (b) (c ) 𝑊𝑐 = (𝑚2 ∗ ((ℎ2 − ℎ1 )) − 𝑇2 ∗ (𝑠2 − 𝑠1 )),
ℎ0 𝑅$ 𝑇0 𝑃1 𝑄𝑐 = 𝑚2 ∗ (ℎ2 − ℎ1 )
ℎ1 𝑅$ 𝑇1 𝑃1 𝑇0
𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 = (𝑚2 ∗ 𝑇1 ∗ (𝑠1 − 𝑠2 ) − (𝑄𝑐 ∗ ( )))
ℎ2 𝑅$ 𝑇2 𝑃2 𝑇1
𝑠0 𝑅$ 𝑇0 𝑃1 (ℎ1 −ℎ𝑓 )
𝑠1 𝑅$ 𝑇1 𝑃1 𝐶𝑂𝑃 =
𝑊𝑐 +𝑊𝑒
𝑠2 𝑅$ ℎ2 𝑃2 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = (𝑊𝑐 + 𝑊𝑒 )
𝑇𝑒 𝑅$ ℎ𝑒 𝑃1 𝑚𝑓 ∗((ℎ𝑓 −ℎ1 )−𝑇0 ∗(𝑠𝑓 −𝑠1 ))
𝐸𝑡𝑎2𝑛𝑑% = ( ) ∗ 100
ℎ𝑒 𝑅$ 𝑠3 𝑃1 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
𝑠𝑒 𝑅$ ℎ𝑒 𝑃1

8
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

Expander 𝑁𝑡𝑢𝐻𝑋3 = 𝐻𝑋(𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋3$ , 𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋3 , 𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋3 , 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋3 , ′𝑁𝑡𝑢′ )

𝑁𝑡𝑢_𝐻𝑋3 = (𝐺_𝐻𝑋3)/𝐶 min
𝐻𝑋3
𝑊𝑒 = 𝑚𝑒 ∗ ((ℎ3 − ℎ𝑒 ) − 𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠3 − 𝑠𝑒 ))
"Heat Exchanger HX1" 𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋3 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 ) ∗ ((ℎ4 − ℎ5 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠4 − 𝑠5 )))
𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋1$ =′ 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ′ 𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋3 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ ((ℎ𝑔 − ℎ7 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠𝑔 − 𝑠7 )))
𝑚ℎ = 𝑚, 𝑚𝑐 = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓
𝐶ℎ = 𝑚ℎ ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝐻𝑋1 , 𝐶𝑐 = 𝑚𝑐 ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋3 = ((𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋3 ) − (𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋3 ))
𝐻𝑋1
𝑞 = 𝐶ℎ ∗ (𝑇2 − 𝑇3 )
𝑞 = 𝐶𝑐 ∗ (𝑇10 − 𝑇9 ) Analysis of Valve
𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶min ∗ (𝑇2 − 𝑇9 )
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛 = 𝑞/𝑞_𝑚𝑎𝑥 ℎ5 = ℎ6
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛 = 0.85 𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑉𝑎𝑙 = (ℎ5 − ℎ0 ) − 𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠5 − 𝑠0 )
𝑁𝑡𝑢_𝐻𝑋1 = 𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙 = (ℎ6 − ℎ0 ) − 𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠6 − 𝑠0 )
𝐻𝑋(𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋1$, 𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛, 𝐶_𝑑𝑜𝑡_ℎ, 𝐶_𝑑𝑜𝑡_𝑐, ′𝑁𝑡𝑢′) 𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙 = 𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑉𝑎𝑙 − 𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙
𝑁𝑡𝑢_𝐻𝑋1 = (𝐺_𝐻𝑋1)/𝐶_𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋1 = 𝑚 ∗ ((ℎ2 − ℎ3 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠2 − 𝑠3 ))) Analysis of seperator
𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋1 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ ((ℎ9 − ℎ10 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠9 − 𝑠10 )))
(𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 ) ∗ ℎ6 = ((𝑚𝑓 ∗ ℎ𝑓 ) + (𝑚𝑔 ∗ ℎ𝑔 ))
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1 = ((𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋1 ) − (𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋1 ))
𝑚𝑔 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 − 𝑚𝑓 )

Heat Exchanger HX2 (𝑚𝑔 ∗ 𝑠𝑔 − (𝑚𝑔 + 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ 𝑠6 ) +

𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝 = (𝑇0 ∗ ( 𝑚𝑔 ∗ℎ𝑔 −𝑚𝑓 ∗ℎ𝑓 ))
( )
′ ′ 𝑇0
𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋2$ = 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋2 = 0.85 𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝% = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐸𝑑𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑒
𝑚ℎ𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 , 𝑚𝑐𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1% = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑚ℎ𝐻𝑋2 ∗ 𝑐𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐸𝑑𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑒
𝐻𝑋2 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋3
𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑚𝑐𝐻𝑋2 ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋3% = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐻𝑋2 𝐸𝑑𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑒
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2
𝑞𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋2 ∗ (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2% = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐸𝑑𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑒
𝑞𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋2 ∗ (𝑇9 − 𝑇8 ) 𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙
𝐶_min _𝐻𝑋2 = min(𝐶_ℎ_𝐻𝑋2, 𝐶_𝑐_𝐻𝑋2) 𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙% = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐸𝑑𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑒
𝑞max = 𝐶min ∗ (𝑇3 − 𝑇8 ) 𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝
𝐻𝑋2 𝐻𝑋2
𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝% = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐸𝑑𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑒
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛_𝐻𝑋2 = 𝑞_𝐻𝑋2/𝑞 max_𝐻𝑋2 (47)𝑁𝑡𝑢𝐻𝑋2 = 𝐸𝑑𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑒 = 𝐸𝑑𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 + 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋1 + 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2 +
𝐻𝑋 (𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋2$ , 𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋2 , 𝐶𝑑𝑜𝑡ℎ , 𝐶𝑑𝑜𝑡𝑐 , ′𝑁𝑡𝑢′ ) 𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋3 + 𝐸𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙 + 𝐸𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝
𝐻𝑋2 𝐻𝑋2
𝑁𝑡𝑢_𝐻𝑋2 = (𝐺_𝐻𝑋2)/𝐶 min_𝐻𝑋2
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋2 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 ) ∗ ((ℎ3 − ℎ4 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠3 − 𝑠4 ))) 2. Result and Discussion

𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋2 = (𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 ) ∗ ((ℎ8 − ℎ9 ) − (𝑇0 ∗ (𝑠8 − 𝑠9 ))) Fig.2 show the COP and second law efficiency variation with
different pressure ratio from analysis, it is noticed that in
𝐸𝑑𝐻𝑋2 = ((𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑛𝐻𝑋2 ) − (𝐸𝑥𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐻𝑋2 ))
Claude liquefaction system COP and second law efficiency
decrease with increase in pressure ratio. Methane gas COP
Heat Exchanger HX3 decreases from 1.35 to 0.95 for the PR range of 40- 220. While
other gases like fluorine, oxygen, air, nitrogen and argon COP
𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒𝐻𝑋3$ =′ 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ′ decreases from 1.15 to 0.75. For all gases 40 bar PR is
𝑇7 = 𝑇8 optimum pressure point. Second law efficiency of system is
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛𝐻𝑋3 = 0.85 highest for fluorine gas i.e. 85% followed by nitrogen, air
𝑚ℎ𝐻𝑋3 = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑒 , 𝑚𝑐𝐻𝑋3 = 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓 oxygen respectively which has 80-83% second law efficiency.
𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋3 = 𝑚ℎ𝐻𝑋3 ∗ 𝑐𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 Methane gas show least second law efficiency 67% which
𝐻𝑋3
𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋3 = 𝑚𝑐𝐻𝑋3 ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 continuously decreases from 67% to 45 % for PR range 40 -
𝐻𝑋3 220. Liquefaction rate of different gases at different pressure
𝑞𝐻𝑋3 = 𝐶ℎ𝐻𝑋3 ∗ (𝑇4 − 𝑇5 ) ratio is shown in fig.3. Gases such as argon, oxygen and
𝑞𝐻𝑋3 = 𝐶𝑐𝐻𝑋3 ∗ (𝑇7 − 𝑇𝑔 ) methane show sharp decrease in liquefaction rate with increase
𝑞_max _𝐻𝑋3 = 𝐶_min _𝐻𝑋3 ∗ (𝑇_4 − 𝑇_𝑔) in PR while gases fluorine, nitrogen and air show slight
𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑛_𝐻𝑋3 = 𝑞_𝐻𝑋3/𝑞_max _𝐻𝑋3 decrease as compared to above gases with increase in PR .The

9
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20
liquefaction decrement rate of air is lowest i.e. 45% to 42.5%
for entire PR range in among all six gases while argon show
highest liquefaction rate of 48% which decreases with increase
in PR from 48% to 42.5%. Again 40 PR is the ideal pressure
for highest liquefaction rate for all gases.Fig.4 show variation
in work requirement for gases at different pressure ratio of
Claude system. All gases work requirementincreases with
increase in pressure ratio of system. Methane gas show highest
work requirement 725 kJ/kg to 950 kJ/kg for PR range while
Argon show lowest work requirement 275 kJ/kg which
increases up to 350 kJ/kg on highest PR 220 in gases. Specific
heat of gas in very important factor while energy is transferred
between cold and hot fluid. Specific heat of gas is very much
influenced by the temperature change during heat exchange in
heat exchanger. Fig. 5 show change in specific heat of gases
during first heat exchanger with variation in PR. It notice that
specific heat for all gases increases during heat exchange with
increases in PR of compressor. Methane gas show large change
in specific heat 2.4 kJ/kg-K to 3.6 kJ/kg-K compare to other
gases with increase in PR 40 to 220. Other gases such as
nitrogen, air, and oxygen of first heat exchanger (HX1) show
very slight change in specific heat 1.1 kJ/kg-K to 1.3 kJ/kg-K.
Fluorine show lowest specific heat 0.8 kJ/kg-K at 40 PR.
Change in NTU of first heat exchanger for considered gases
with variation in PR as shown in fig.6. At 40 PR, nitrogen and
air show equal value of NTU 2.75 but as the pressure ratio
increases nitrogen NTU value vary from 2.75 to 2.62 whereas
air in same PR range vary from 2.75 to 2.51. Methane gas show
lowest value of NTU 2.6 to 2.37 at PR range (40-220). Other
gases NTU value decrease with increase in pressure ratio.As
the temperature decreases the trend of decrease in NTU for
gases also get change. NTU variation with PR in second heat
exchanger shown in fig.7. The highest NTU value for air and
nitrogen are 5.6 and 5.5 at 80 and 100 PR respectively. The
trend of NTU for air and nitrogen with PR show that NTU
value first increasesup to said PR then they start decreasing
again. Gases like oxygen, fluorine argon and methane show
decreasing trend with increasing PR. Methane has lowest NTU
value which varies from 4.6 to 3.4 for PR range. In third heat
exchanger of claude system the NTU variation with respect to
pressure ratio is shown in fig.8. In this Methane gas show
highest value of NTU among all gases and it varies from 3.2 to
4.1. From analysis, it is noticed that after 180 PR the change
in NTU of methane get constant and show very less variation.
All other gases NTU varies from 2.2 to 3 in which argon gas
shows least NTU value. Fig.9 shows variation in exergy
destruction rate in compressor with increasing pressure ratio.
The highest destruction rate is notice for methane gas which
ranges from 600 kJ/kg to 1150 kJ/kg for PR range while other
gases also show increase in exergy destruction rate with
increase in PR. Argon and Fluorine show almost same trend of
exergy destruction ranging from 250 kJ/kg to 325 kJ/kg.
Exergy destruction in first, second and third heat exchanger is
shown in figs [10-12]. In first and second heat exchanger, there
is decrease in exergy destruction with increase in PR while in
third heat exchanger this variation is reverse, in the low
temperature heat exchanger exergy destruction rate increases
with increases in PR. In first heat exchanger gas nitrogen and
air show sharp variation in exergy destruction rate up to 80 PR
but after this PR the slope of decrement of two gases reduces.
Fluorine gas exergy destruction variation over PR is very less
as compared to other gases, it vary from 1.8 to 1.6 over entire
PR range. Argon show least exergy destruction rate among all
six gases. In third heat exchanger the rate of exergy destruction
of gases air and nitrogen show unusual behavior, in both gas
there is slight dip in exergy destruction rate up to 80 PR then it
rise up again up to 160 PR and then become almost constant
up to 220 PR. The range of variation in exergy destruction in
both gas are 119 to 121 which almost constant. Fig.13 show
variation in exergy rate in valve with pressure ratio. The slope
of increasing exergy destruction rate for methane and nitrogen
is high as compared to other gases. Nitrogen gas destruction
rate varies from 30 kJ/kg to 140 kJ/kg between PR of (40-220).
In valve, air has least exergy destruction rate and almost
constant for considered PR range. Fig.14 show exergy
destruction trend for gases with pressure ratio. Oxygen, argon,
air, nitrogen exergy destruction range is 675 kJ/kg to 600
kJ/kg, 500 kJ/kg to 450 kJ/kg and 350 kJ/kg to 325 kJ/kg
respectively. Outlet temperature of expander also get affected
by the PR. Fig.15 show variation in outlet temperature of
expander with increasing PR with all six gases. Gases outlet
temperature decrease in the range of 65-80 PR from 100 K to
88 k (fluorine), 95K -92 K (oxygen), 94K - 83 K(air) and 95K-
76 K(nitrogen) respectively. Argon and Nitrogen show almost
constant value of outlet temperature that 87 K and 113 K
respectively on entire PR range. Fig.16 show the variation in
COP and second law efficiency keeping constant optimum PR
40 with variation in expander mass flow ratio or ratio of
compressor flow through expander (r ). For all gases except
methane second law efficiency decreases from 80 % to 40 %
when flow ratio through expander increases from 0.5 to 0.8.In
methane gas case the system show lowest efficiency range 70
% to 15% over expander flow ratio range. Moreover, COP of
system first decreases marginally up to 0.6 PR then it start
increasing with increase in flow ratio of expander. The highest
COP is exhibit by methane 1.25 followed by other gases.
Argon gas show least COP 1 and it is almost entire flow ratio
range. Fig.17 show effect on liquefaction rate when there is
increase in flow ratio of expander .From graph it is concluded
that the liquefaction rate drop from 0.45 kg/s to 0.2 kg/s an
average for all gases over increasing flow ratio. Net Work done
also affected by expander flow ratio. Fig.18 show methane
require 750 kW energy when the expander flow ratio is 0.5 and
it almost same up to 0.8. Other gases follow the same trend of
decrement over expander flow ratio range from 0.5-0.8.
Compressor outlet temperature effect the performance of
system. In fig.19, the variation in COP and second law
efficiency of system is measured with the increase in
compressor outlet temperature of all considered gas as a
working fluid. Highest COP of system show at 280 K for all
six gases which start decreasing gradually over increase in
compressor temperature. The argon gas show lowest COP 1.02
and methane show highest. Same decreasing trend is followed
by second law efficiency also and have highest second law
10
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

efficiency of methane 90 % to 75% over compressor 1.3 95

temperature range while argon show lowest second law
COP oxygen h2nd,%oxygen
efficiency among all gases which range from 55% to 15% over
increasing temperature of compressor. Rest of four gases show COP argon h2nd,%Argon 90
1.2
same decreasing trend for COP and second law efficiency. COP methane h2nd,% Methane
Fig.20 shows the effect of compressor temperature variation 85
COP Fluorine h2nd,%Fluorine
over outlet temperature of expander. In this graph study, it
analyses that the for methane gas the variation in outlet 1.1 COP Air h2nd,%Air 80
temperature (110K) is constantup to 300 K then it start COP Nitrogen h2nd,%Nitrogen
increasing with increase in temperature of compressor. All 75

h2nd,%
other gases except argon show increasing trend in outlet 1

COP
temperature with increase in compressor temperature. Argon 70
has the least outlet temperature and remain constant over the
compressor temperature range of 280 K to 420K.After 420 K 0.9 65
there is small increase in outlet temperature of expander. Fig.
21-23 show variation in specific heat of first, second and third 60
heat exchanger with respect to outlet temperature of 0.8
compressor. In all three graph same trend of variation in
specific heat of gases is notice. The methane gas show highest
55
specific heat ranging from 2.5 kJ/kg-K to 2.9 kJ/kg-K for
compressor temperature range 280 K -460 K, while other gases 0.7 50
show average specific heat of nitrogen, air, oxygen, fluorine
and argon 1.1 kJ/kg-K,1.12 kJ/kg-K, 1 kJ/kg-K, 0.9 kJ/kg-K 45
and 0.6 kJ/kg-K respectively at 280 K. The variation in gases
except methane is not notice much and almost seem constant 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
over increasing outlet temperature of compressor. Fig.24 show Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
effect of compressor outlet temperature on liquefaction rate of Figure 2: Variations in COP and second law efficiency with respect
gases .it observed that argon have highest liquefaction rate to cycle pressure ratio
0.474 kg/s and air is least 0.455 kg/s at 280 K. All gases have
same liquefaction rate 0.4 kg/s at temperature 280K. All gases 0.48
liquefaction rate is decreasing with increase in compressor mf(Oxygen)
outlet temperature. Variation in work requirement of system
with increases in outlet temperature of compressor is shown in 0.47 mf(Fluorine)
fig.25 .The methane gas show highest requirement of work 700
kW at 280 K and argon required least 250 kW at 280K .The mf(Argon)
trend of gases work requirement is progressing with increase 0.46 mf(Nitrogen)
mf(Liq mass)(kg)

in compressor temperature. .Exergy destruction rate in

compressor is also showing same trend of increasing in nature mf(Methane)
for all gases shown fig.26.The methane range of exergy 0.45
mf(Air)
destruction is 600 kJ/kg -900kJ/kg whereas other gases such as
nitrogen, air, oxygen, fluorine and argon range from 320 kJ/kg-
500kJ/g, 310kJ/kg- 480 kJ/kg, 290 kJ/kg - 440kJ/kg, 230
0.44
kJ/kg-370kJ/kg and 210kJ/kg - 350 kJ/kg respectively. The
exergy destruction rate in first heat exchanger is very low at 0.43
low temperature. Most of the gases first show decreases in
exergy destruction up to 320 K and then start increasing at very
fast rate if compressor temperature is further increased. 0.42
Methane gas show highest destruction rate ranging from 8
kJ/kg to 42 kJ/kg. The trend of exergy destruction is shown in
fig.27. In second heat exchanger the variation in exergy 0.41
destruction rate of methane and fluorine gas is first increases
up to 300 K then start decreasing on increasing compressor
temperature. Gases such as oxygen, air and argon are not much 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
affected up to 340 K but beyond this compressor temperature
exergy destruction rate start decreasing. Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 3: variations in the mass liquefaction rate with respect to
cycle pressure ratio

11
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

1000 2.8
950 NTU(Oxygen)
2.75 NTU(Argon)
900 NTU(Air)
850 W net(Oxygen) W net(Fluorine) NTU(Methane)
2.7
Wnet (Net.work)(KJ/Kg)

800 Wnet(Argon) W net(Air) NTU(Fluorine)

750 W net(Methane) NTU(Nitrogen)
W net(Nitrogen) 2.65
700

NTUHX1
650 2.6
600
2.55
550
500 2.5
450
400 2.45
350
2.4
300

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 4: Variations in net work done with respect to cycle pressure Figure 6: Variations in NTU in HX1 with respect to cycle pressure
ratio ratio

3.6 NTU(Oxygen) NTU(Methane)

5.8 NTU(Argon) NTU(Fluorine)
3.3 5.6 NTU(Air) NTU(Nitrogen)
cphot,fluid,HX1(Oxygen)
3 5.4
cphot,fluid,HX1(Argon)
5.2
cphf(HX1)(Kj/Kg-K)

2.7 cphot,fluid,HX1(Methane)
5
cphot,fluid,HX1(Fluorine)
4.8
NTUHX2

2.4
cphot,fluid,HX1(Air) 4.6
2.1
cphot,fluid,HX1(Nitrogen) 4.4
1.8 4.2
1.5 4
3.8
1.2 3.6
0.9 3.4

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 5: Variations in specific heat of hot fluid in HX1 with cycle Figure 7: Variations in NTU in HX2 with cycle pressure ratio
pressure ratio

12
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

4.2 5.5
NTU(Oxygen) NTU(Methane) EdHX1(Air)
4.1 EdHX1(Oxygen) EdHX1(Methane)
NTU(Argon) NTU(Fluorine) 5
4 NTU(Nitrogen) EdHX1(Argon) EdHX1(Fluorine) EdHX1(Nitrogen)
NTU(Air)
3.9 4.5
3.8
3.7 4
3.6

EdHX1 (KJ/Kg)
3.5
3.5
NTUHX3

3.4 3
3.3
3.2 2.5
3.1
2
3
2.9 1.5
2.8
2.7 1
2.6
0.5
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 8: Variations in NTU in HX3 with the cycle pressure Figure 10: Variations in exergy destruction in HX1with respect to
cycle pressure ratio
1200 200
Edcomp(Oxygen) Edcomp(Fluorine) EdHX2(Oxygen) EdHX2(Methane) EdHX2(Air)
1100 Edcomp(Argon) Edcomp(Air)
Edcomp(Nitrogen)
180 EdHX2(Argon) EdHX2(Fluorine) EdHX2(Nitrogen)
Edcomp(Methane)
1000
160
900
140
EdHX2 (KJ/Kg)
Edcomp (KJ/Kg)

800

700 120

600 100
500
80
400
60
300
40
200
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 9: Variations in exergy destruction of compressor with cycle
Figure 11: Variations in exergy destruction in HX2 with Cycle
pressure ratio
pressure ratio

13
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

800
240 Edsep(Oxygen)
750 Edsep(Methane)
220 700 Edsep(Argon) Edsep(Air)
EdHX3(Oxygen) EdHX3(Methane) EdHX3(Air) 650 Edsep(Fluorine) Edsep(Nitrogen)
200 EdHX3(Argon) 600
EdHX3(Fluorine) EdHX3(Nitrogen)
180 550

Edsep (KJ/Kg)
EdHX3 (KJ/Kg)

500
160 450
400
140
350
120 300
250
100 200
150
80
100
60 50
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
P2 (Compressor pressure ratio)(bar) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 12: Variations in exergy destruction in HX3 with cycle Figure 14: Variations in exergy destruction in separator with
pressure ratio respect to cycle pressure ratio

160 115
Edval(Oxygen) Edval(Methane
Temperature at the outlet of EXP (T e)

140 Edval(Argon) Edval(Fluorine) 110

Texp oxygen
Edval(Air) Edval(Nitrogen) Texp Argon
120 105 Texp Methane
Texp Fluorine
100 100 Texp Air
Edval (KJ/Kg)

Texp Nitrogen
80 95

60 90

40 85

20 80

0 75
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi ) Cycle Pressure Ratio (Po /Pi )
Figure 13: Variations in exergy destruction in valve with cycle Figure 15: Variations in temperature at the outlet of expander with
pressure ratio respect to cycle pressure ratio

14
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

1.55 750
COP oxygen COP argon COP methane 180
1.5 COP Nitrogen COP Air COP Fluorine 700
1.45 160 Wnet(Oxygen) W net(Fluorine)
h2nd,%oxygen h2nd,% Methane 650

Wnet (Net work done)(KJ/Kg)

1.4 h2nd,%Argon h2nd,%Fluorine W net(Argon) W net(Air)
140
600 Wnet(Methane)
h2nd,%Nitrogen h2nd,%Air W net(Nitrogen)
1.35 120 550

h2nd, %
1.3
100 500
1.25
COP

1.2 80 450

1.15 60 400
1.1 350
40
1.05 300
20
1 250
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Ratio of Compressor Flow Through Expander (r) Ratio of Compressor Flow Through Expander (r)
Figure 16: Variations in COP and second law efficiency with Figure 18: Variations in net work done with respect to the ratio of
respect to ratio of compressor flow through expander compressor flow through expander

mf(Oxygen) 1.2 90
0.6
mf(Fluorine) 1.16 80
0.55 mf(Argon) 1.12
70
mf(Liquefaction rate)(kg/s)

mf(Nitrogen)
0.5 1.08
mf(Methane) 60
0.45 mf(Air) 1.04
1 50
COP

0.4
0.96 40
0.35
0.92 30
0.3 0.88 COP oxygen
COP Fluorine

COP argon COP Air 20

0.25 0.84 COP methane COP Nitrogen
h2nd,%Air h2nd,% Methane h2nd,%Argon 10
0.8
0.2 h2nd,%Nitrogen h2nd,%Fluorine h2nd,%oxygen
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Ratio of Compressor Flow Through Expander (r) T2(Compressor.Temp)(K)
Figure 17: Variations in mass liquefaction rate with respect to ratio Figure 19: Variations in COP with respect to compressor
of compressor flow through expander temperature

15
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

1.2 90 2.8
2.7
1.16 80 2.6
2.5 cphot,fluid,HX2(Oxygen)
1.12 2.4
70 2.3 cphot,fluid,HX2(Argon)
1.08 2.2
2.1 cphot,fluid,HX2(Methane)

cphf(HX2)(Kj/Kg-K)
60 2
1.04 1.9 cphot,fluid,HX2(Fluorine)

h2nd, %
50 1.8
1 1.7
COP

1.6 cphot,fluid,HX2(Air)
0.96 40 1.5
1.4 cphot,fluid,HX2(Nitrogen)
0.92 1.3
30 1.2
COP oxygen COP Fluorine 1.1
0.88 1
COP argon COP Air 20 0.9
0.84 COP methane COP Nitrogen 0.8
h2nd,% Methane h2nd,%Argon 10 0.7
0.8 h2nd,%Air 0.6
h2nd,%Nitrogen h2nd,%Fluorine h2nd,%oxygen 0.5
0 0.4
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) T2(Compressor.Temp)(K)
Figure 20: Variations in COP with respect to compressor Figure 22: Variations in specific heat in HX2 with respect to
temperature compressor temperature

2.9 2.85
2.8 2.75
2.7 2.65
2.6 2.55
2.5 cphot,fluid,HX1(Oxygen) 2.45 cphot,fluid,HX3(Oxygen)
2.4 2.35 cphot,fluid,HX3(Argon)
2.3 cphot,fluid,HX1(Argon) 2.25
2.2 cphot,fluid,HX1(Methane) 2.15 cphot,fluid,HX3(Methane)
cphf(HX1)(Kj/Kg-K)

2.1 2.05
cphf(HX3)(Kj/Kg-K)

2 1.95 cphot,fluid,HX3(Fluorine)
1.9 cphot,fluid,HX1(Fluorine) 1.85
1.8 1.75
1.7 cphot,fluid,HX1(Air) 1.65 cphot,fluid,HX3(Air)
1.6 1.55
1.5 cphot,fluid,HX1(Nitrogen) 1.45 cphot,fluid,HX3(Nitrogen)
1.4 1.35
1.3 1.25
1.2 1.15
1.1 1.05
1 0.95
0.9 0.85
0.8 0.75
0.7 0.65
0.6 0.55
0.5 0.45
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) T2(Compressor.Temp)(K)
Figure 21: Variations in specific heat in HX1 with respect to Figure 23: Variations in specific heat in HX3 with respect to
compressor temperature compressor temperature

16
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

0.48 900 Edcomp(Oxygen) Edcomp(Fluorine)

850 Edcomp(Argon) Edcomp(Air)
0.47 800 Edcomp(Methane) Edcomp(Nitrogen)
750
0.46 700
mf(Liq mass)(kg/s)

650

Edcomp(kj/kg)
0.45 600
550
mf(Oxygen)
0.44 500
mf(Argon)
450
mf(Methane) 400
0.43 mf(Fluorine) 350
mf(Air) 300
0.42 mf(Nitrogen)
250

280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) T2(Compressor.Temp)(K)
Figure 24: Variations in liquefaction mass flow rate with respect Figure 26: Variations in exergy destruction in Compressor with
to compressor temperature respect to compressor Temperature

1200 42
W net(Oxygen) Wnet(Fluorine) 40 EdHX1(Oxygen) EdHX1(Methane) EdHX1(Air)
1100 Wnet(Argon)
38 EdHX1(Argon) EdHX1(Fluorine) EdHX1(Nitrogen)
Wnet(Air) 36
1000 W net(Methane) 34
Wnet(Nitrogen)
32
Wnet(Net.work)(KJ/Kg)

900 30
28
26
EdHX1 (kj/kg)

800 24
22
700 20
18
600 16
14
500 12
10
400 8
6
300 4
2
0
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) T2(Compressor.Temp)(K)
Figure 25: Variations in net work done with respect to compressor Figure 27: Variations in exergy destruction in HX1 with respect to
temperature compressor temperature

17
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

330
1300
EdHX3(Oxygen) EdHX3(Methane) EdHX3(Air)
300 1200
EdHX3(Argon) EdHX3(Fluorine)
270 1100
Edsep(Oxygen)
240 1000 Edsep(Argon)
Edsep(Fluorine)
EdHX3(kj/kg)

210 900

Edsep(kj/kg)
Edsep(Methane)
180 800 Edsep(Air)
700 Edsep(Nitrogen)
150

120 600

90 500
400
60
300
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 250 300 350 400 450
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) T2(Compressor.Temp)(K)
Figure 28: Variations in exergy destruction in HX2 with respect to Figure 30: Variations in exergy destruction in compressor with
compressor temperature compressor temperature

44 2.88
Edval(Oxygen) Edval(Methane NTUHX1(Fluorine)
42 NTUHX1(Oxygen) NTUHX1(Air)
40 Edval(Argon) Edval(Fluorine) 2.85 NTUHX1(Argon) NTUHX1(Methane)
38 2.82 NTUHX1(Nitrogen)
36 Edval(Air) Edval(Nitrogen)
34 2.79
32
30 2.76
Edval (KJ/Kg)

28
26 2.73
NTUHX1

24
22 2.7
20 2.67
18
16 2.64
14
12 2.61
10
8 2.58
6
4 2.55

280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) T2(Compressor.Temp)(K)
Figure 29: Variations in exergy destruction in HX3 with compressor Figure 31: Variations in NTU in HX1 with compressor temperature
temperature

18
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

5.7 Figure 29 show exergy destruction rate in third heat exchanger

NTUHX2(Oxygen) NTUHX2(Air) NTUHX2(Fluorine) with respect to compressor outlet temperature. In third heat
5.6 NTUHX2(Argon) exchanger the methane and fluorine gas show same trend of
NTUHX2(Methane) NTUHX2(Nitrogen) exergy destruction, both gas exergy destruction rate first
5.5 decreases and then start increasing up to 460 K. Other
5.4 remaining four gases shows increase in exergy destruction rate
with increases in outlet compressor temperature. Exergy
5.3 destruction rate in valve with respect to compressor outlet
temperature is explained in fig.31. At 280 K, methane show 28
5.2 kJ/kg exergy destruction which increases up to 42 kJ/kg at 460
K. Gases like nitrogen show almost pressure range 280 K - 460
NTUHX2

5.1 K. In fig.32, all gases exergy destruction rate in separator

5 decreases with increase in compressor temperature. Fig.33
shows the variations in NTU in HX3 with compressor
4.9 temperature.
4.8 3. Conclusions and Recommendations
4.7
(1) COP and second law efficiency decrease with increase in
4.6 pressure ratio. For Methane gas COP decreases.
(2) Second law efficiency of system is highest for fluorine
4.5 gas followed by nitrogen, air oxygen respectively which
has 80-83% and methane gas shows lowest second law
4.4 efficiency is which continuously decreases.
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 (3) Gases such as argon, oxygen and methane show sharp
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) decrease in liquefaction rate with increase in PR while
Figure 32: Variations in NTU in HX2 with compressor temperature gases fluorine, nitrogen and air show slight decrease as
compared to above gases with increase in pressure ratio
(PR) .The liquefaction decrement rate of air is lowest.
3.3 (4) The methane gas show highest requirement of work and
3.25 argon required lowest. The trend of gases work
requirement is progressing with increase in compressor
3.2 NTUHX2(Oxygen) temperature.
3.15 NTUHX2(Argon) (5) Specific heat for all gases increases during heat exchange
3.1 NTUHX2(Air) with increases in pressure ratio (PR) of compressor.
Methane gas show large change in specific heat 2 as
3.05 NTUHX2(Methane) compare to other gases with increase in PR. Other gases
3 NTUHX2(Fluorine) such as nitrogen, air, and oxygen of first heat exchanger
NTUHX3

2.95 (HX1) show very slight change in specific heat while the
NTUHX2(Nitrogen) fluorine show lowest specific heat.
2.9 (6) Methane gas show highest value of NTU among all gases
2.85 and it varies with pressure ratio.
2.8 (7) The exergy destruction rate in first heat exchanger is very
low at low temperature. Most of the gases first show
2.75 decreases in exergy destruction up to 320 K and then start
2.7 increasing at very fast rate if compressor temperature is
further increased. Methane gas show highest destruction
2.65 rate.
2.6 (8) In third heat exchanger the methane and fluorine gas
2.55 show same trend of exergy destruction, both gas exergy
destruction rate first decreases and then start increasing.
2.5 (9) For all gases exergy destruction rate in separator
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 decreases with increase in compressor temperature.
T2(Compressor.Temp)(K) (10) In second heat exchanger the variation in exergy
Figure 33: Variations in NTU in HX3 with compressor temperature
destruction rate of methane and fluorine gas is first
increases up to 300 K and then start decreasing on
increasing compressor temperature. Gases such as

19
 R.S. Mishra et al/ International journal of research in engineering and innovation (IJREI), vol 1, issue 5 (2017), 7-20

oxygen, air and argon are not much affected

References

[1] Yu. V. Sinyavskii, Electrocaloric refrigerators: A promising

alternative to current low-temperatureApparatus, Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering, 31(6), 1995, 295-306
[2] R. Agrawal, D. W. Woodward, Efficient cryogenic nitrogen
generators: An exergy analysis, Gas Separation & Purification,
5(3), 1991, 139-150.

20