Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Dual-pressure vaporization Kalina cycle for cascade reclaiming heat

resource for power generation
Zhanwei Guo a, Zhi Zhang a, Yaping Chen a,⇑, Jiafeng Wu a, Cong Dong b
a
Key Laboratory of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control of Ministry of Education, School of Energy and Environment, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
b
School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To further improve the cycle efficiency with the heat transfer curves between higher than 350 °C heat
Received 4 May 2015 resource and the evaporating working medium of the Kalina cycle and to reduce the exhaust temperature
Accepted 29 September 2015 of heat resource, the dual-pressure vaporization Kalina cycle for cascade utilization of high-to-mid grade
Available online 23 October 2015
heat resource is proposed. The optimization was conducted for parameters in this modified Kalina
cycle such as concentrations of work solution and basic solution, evaporation dew point temperature.
Keywords: Under the conditions of inlet temperatures of heat resource and cooling water of respectively 400 °C
Kalina cycle
and 25 °C and the constraints of proper heat transfer pinch point temperature differences, the maximum
Dual-pressure vaporization
Power recovery efficiency
evaporation pressure not exceeds 20 MPa, the vapour quality at the turbine outlet is greater than 0.85
Cascade utilization and the exhaust temperature of heat resource is not lower than 90 °C, the optimum parameters are
Concentration of solution obtained that the work and basic concentrations are 0.45 and 0.272 respectively, the dew point temper-
ature of evaporation is 300 °C, and the corresponding power recovery efficiency of the dual-pressure
vaporization Kalina cycle reaches 27%, which is 17% higher than that of the Kalina cycle with optimum
parameters.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction [2,4,5] to variety areas. Bombarda et al. conducted thermodynamic

The emission to atmosphere of industrial flue gas not only
causes energy waste but also the haze on the environment, how-
ever, as to the power generation from waste heat resource, the tra-
ditional steam Rankine cycle is not well applicable, for the features
of low vapour pressure and large specific volume of steam at room
temperature. The alternative choices are the organic Rankine cycle
(ORC) [1] and the Kalina cycle. The latter with inexpensive ammo-
nia–water mixture as working fluid has been drawn the attentions
of many scholars and experts. The Kalina cycle with its variable
boiling temperature of non-azeotropic ammonia–water in evapo-
ration process and unique absorption condensation process can
match well simultaneously with the exothermic process of sensi-
ble heat resource and the endothermic process of cooling water,
thus the heat transfer irreversible losses can be reduced.
Since Kalina [2] proposed the Kalina cycle in 1984, many schol-
ars and experts have conducted investigation on this novel cycle
and variety modifications have been proposed which enriched
the Kalina cycle family [3]. The applications of Kalina cycle have
been extended from bottoming cycle of combined power cycle
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 (0)13851729402.
E-mail address: ypgchen@sina.com (Y. Chen).
comparison between Kalina cycle and ORC for heat recovery from
diesel engines [6]. Jonnson and Yan [7] compared the performance
of ammonia–water bottoming cycles for gas engines and gas diesel
engines as prime movers. Nguyen et al. [8] studied power genera-
tion from residual industrial heat. Peng et al. [9] and Sun et al. [10]
studied respectively different ways of implementing Kalina cycle
for power generation from solar energy. Mlcak [11] and DiPippo
[12] investigated respectively Kalina cycle concepts and second
law assessment of binary plants for power generation from the
geothermal energy. Guzovic et al. [13] presented a possibility study
on electricity generation with Kalina cycle from geothermal energy
in the republic of Croatia. Arslan [14] and Coskun et al. [15] per-
formed respectively thermodynamic and economic analysis and
optimization of the Kalina cycle for power generation from med-
ium temperature geothermal resources. Singh and Kaushik [16]
conducted energy and exergy analysis on Kalina cycle for a coal
fired steam power plant and Sirko [17] performed a case study of
integrate Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant. Zhang
et al. [18] presented an integrated system of ammonia–water
Kalina–Rankine cycle that using Kalina cycle with high thermal
efficiency for power generation in non-heating seasons and the
ammonia–water Rankine cycle with large temperature difference
during condensation as well as evaporation for generating both

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.073
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
558 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565
Nomenclature
Latin letters
f circulation multiple
G mass flow, mass flow in turbine (kg s
1)
h specific enthalpy (kJ kg
1)
p pressure (MPa)
Q heat (kJ kg
1)
R1 relative transferring heat in evaporator E1
T, t temperature (K, °C)
W power output (kW)
x ammonia concentration (kg kg
1)
Y quality (dryness) of vapour
Greek letters
D difference
g0 power recovery efficiency
power and heating-water in winter. Padilla et al. [19] studied so
called ‘‘Goswami cycle” for power and cooling cogeneration using
ammonia–water mixture. Sadhukhan et al. [20] analyzed thermo-
dynamic properties of ammonia–water mixture of power and
refrigeration cycles. Hua et al. [21] presented a power and chilling
cycle that generating chilling output with some work concentra-
tion solution from mid-p-absorber to partially evaporate at low
pressure and the results showed that the total thermal efficiency
of the proposed cogeneration cycle at chilling fraction 0.5 is
24.2% higher than that of the power cycle under the same condi-
tion. Jing and Zheng [22] proposed and investigated a new power
and cooling cogeneration cycle with coupling-configuration on
energy cascade utilization.
The Kalina cycle is quite complicated and the parameter opti-
mization is always a hot issue. Energy and/or exergy analysis on
the Kalina cycle were performed in many literatures. Ogriseck
[23] conducted a case study to generate electricity with integration
of the Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant for
improvement of efficiency. Anish and Fredrik [24] analyzed four
Kalina cycle layouts and obtained 30% thermal efficiency of the
cycle with the turbine inlet temperature of 500 °C. Hettiarachchi
et al. [25] investigated the performance of the Kalina cycle system
with low temperature heat resources and found that the Kalina
cycle has better overall performance at moderate pressures than
that of the ORC. Nasruddin et al. [26] performed energy and exergy
analysis on the Kalina cycles for utilization of geothermal brine
water. Nag and Gupta [27] studied the effect of key parameters
on the cycle performance and found that the mixture concentra-
tion at turbine inlet has an optimum value with respect to second
law efficiency. Philippe et al. [28], Marston [29] and Wang et al.
[30] performed respectively thermodynamic and parametric anal-
ysis of the Kalina cycle. Chen [31] and Hua et al. [32] conducted
respectively thermodynamic analysis on a modified Kalina cycle
for better cyclic performance. Zare et al. [33] applied exergoeco-
nomic concept to compare the performance of the combined GT–
MHR (Gas Turbine–Modular Helium Reactor)/Kalina cycle plant
for power generation. The results indicate that the efficiency and
total product unit cost of the combined cycle is 8.2% higher and
8.8% lower than the corresponding values for the GT–MHR. Wal-
raven et al. [34] compared the performances of different types of
organic Rankine cycles and the Kalina cycle for low-temperature
geothermal heat sources and constructed a multi-pressure level
evaporation ORC for higher plant efficiencies.
There are mainly two categories of Kalina cycle: triple-pressure
[2,4] and dual-pressure [3,4]. The high and low pressures are
gth thermal efficiency
gwh waste heat recovery ratio
Subscripts
number status point in Fig. 1
b basic (concentration)
d dilute (concentration)
h heat resource
P pump
T turbine
w work (concentration)
separately for heat input from heat resource and discharge to cool-
ing water and to ensure turbine enthalpy drop for producing
power, while the mid pressure is for desorption process to repro-
duce work concentration solution. The triple-pressure Kalina cycle
needs two working medium pumps while the dual-pressure Kalina
cycle consolidates the high and mid pressures and needs only one
working medium pump.
The most studied dual-pressure Kalina cycle is the one with
separator after the evaporator [5,11–16], in which the enriched
vapour from the separator goes to the turbine while the dilute liq-
uid solution goes back the low-p-absorber after cooled in a recu-
perative heat exchanger and throttled with an expansion valve.
However, as the heat acquisition of the work medium covers only
minority of phase change section, the temperature increase of the
work medium in evaporator of this cycle is not significant, thus it is
mostly applied on geothermal heat resource or as the bottoming
cycle of steam Rankine cycle [5,17]. The drawback of this cycle lies
in that the heat recuperation of the high temperature dilute solu-
tion from the separator to the basic solution will squeeze heat
release of both heat resource and turbine exhaust. The other
dual-pressure Kalina cycle is the one with separator before the
evaporator [35,36] in which the temperature of dilute solution is
much lower with smaller heat loss. Since the high pressure of this
cycle loop is restricted by the desorption process in recuperator, in
which the basic solution should be heated to two-phase state by
turbine exhaust, this cycle is suitable for even lower temperature
heat resource (below 120 °C).
The heat absorbing process in the triple-pressure Kalina cycle
usually comprises of three variable temperature sections of sub-
cold liquid heating, evaporation and vapour super heating, which
can match well with great temperature difference of sensible heat
resource and acquire more heat from the heat resource. Also, its
high pressure can be freely adjusted to fit the inlet temperature
of the heat resource, thus it is the most recommended or applied
form of the Kalina cycle.
From the knowledge of thermodynamics it is apparent that the
efficiency of a power generating cycle depends mainly on the tem-
perature of the heat resource and the higher temperature heat
resource usually has higher thermal efficiency as well as economic
benefit than that of the lower one. Thus the high/mid-grade heat
resource should be placed in the priority position in utilization
and exploration.
The Kalina cycle has high thermal efficiency mainly due to
lower thermal irreversibility in the heat absorbing process, partic-
ularly between the heat resource and the evaporating working
 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565 559

fluid with the variable evaporation temperature feature of non- heat source
azeotropic binary mixture. The irreversibility in heat discharging h1 V1
process can also be decreased with reduced temperature drop in 15
14 h2
the absorption condenser, as the turbine exhaust vapour releasing T
E1 4"
part of heat for desorption in a recuperator before entering the h3
13
condenser. However, for the higher than 350 °C heat resource the
12 16
temperature variation in phase change process of the working h4 S 4
medium in the Kalina cycle seems not enough, as simply raising
the superheat or pressure in heat absorbing process of work solu- 4' R
tion results in higher exhaust temperature of the heat resource or PH1 3
17
unmatched heat transfer curves between heat resource and work- 6 7
ing medium. 18
V2
To this issue the dual-pressure vaporization Kalina cycle (DPV- 9 8 V3
KC) is proposed. The cycle has a second evaporator in which some
work solution evaporates at a lower pressure for reclaiming the A2 cooling cooling
A1
water water
exhaust heat of the heat resource from the first evaporator, and
P2
the generated steam goes into the lower pressure section of tur- P1
bine to expand and produce power. Thus the heat resource is suf-
11 10 2 1
ficiently utilized and the power recovery efficiency of the cycle can
be improved. (a)

2. Methods
heat source 24 V4
h1 15
2.1. Schematic of DPV-KC system
14 h2 V1
E1 T2
The schematic diagrams of the Kalina cycle (KC) and the 13 h3
DPV-KC systems are shown in Fig. 1. The main difference of the h4 12 4" T1
h5 23
DPV-KC compared with the KC is the second evaporation branch. E2
h6 22 16
It starts at the outlet of the mid-p-absorber A2, and a certain per- S 4
h7
centage of work solution is boosted to the second high pressure by 21
the mid-p-pump P3 and then enters the second evaporator E2 via 4' R
PH2 PH1 3
the second preheater PH2. The vapour from the second evaporator 17
5 6 7
expands in the lower section of the turbine T2.
V2 18
The typical Kalina cycle as shown in Fig. 1a includes three circu- 9 8 V3 c1
lation sections, the high, low and mid pressure sections, while the c4
DPV-KC as shown in Fig. 1b includes four circulation sections, the A2 c3 cooling
A1
cooling water
high, low, mid and the second high pressure sections. water
P2 c1
Low pressure section: the exhaust vapour from turbine T (T1 11 10
+ T2) (point 16) is cooled in recuperator R (point 17), mixed with P3 2 P1 1
dilute solution (point 7) and then enters into the low-p-absorber 20
A1 (point 18), forming the basic solution (point 1) after releasing (b)
absorption heat to the cooling water.
Mid pressure section: the basic solution (point 1) is boosted to Fig. 1. Schematics of the Kalina cycle (KC) and dual-pressure evaporation Kalina
cycle (DPV-KC). (a) KC and (b) DPV-KC.
medium pressure (point 2) by the low-p-pump P1, and then split into
two ways. The minority (point 8) goes directly into the mid-p-
absorber A2, while the majority (point 3) goes into the recuperator
work in the turbine T1. The state points 13 and 14 are respectively
R and it is heated to a two-phase state (point 4) by the turbine
the bubble and dew points in the high pressure evaporation, while
exhaust vapour before entering a separator S. The liquid dilute solu-
h3 and h2 are respectively corresponding points at the heat
tion (point 40 ) releases some heat to preheat high pressure work
resource side.
solution in the first preheater PH1 and then degrades pressure in
Second high pressure section: the minority work solution from
an expansion valve V2 before mixing with the work solution from
the mid-p-absorber is pumped to the second high pressure (point
recuperator and enters the low-p-absorber; while the enriched
20) by the mid-p-pump P3, and it is then preheated (point 21) by
vapour (point 4”) enters the mid-p-absorber A2 after releasing heat
the rich vapour solution (point 4”) from the separator in the second
to the second high pressure work solution in the second preheater
preheater PH2 before entering the evaporator E2. The produced
PH2 and mixing with the minority basic solution (point 8), with
work solution vapour (point 24) from the E2 generates work in
the absorption heat taken away by cooling water, the work solution
the lower section of the turbine T2. The state points 22 and 23
(point 10) is reproduced at the outlet of the mid-p-absorber A2.
are respectively the bubble and dew points in the second high
High pressure section: the work solution split to two ways, the
pressure evaporation, while h6 and h5 are respectively corre-
majority is pumped to the high-pressure (point 11) by the
sponding points at the heat resource side.
high-p-pump P2, and then it is preheated (point 12) by the dilute
solution from the separator before entering the evaporator E1.
The evaporator comprises liquid-heating, evaporation, and 2.2. Model for DPV-KC
vapour-superheating sections, in which the work solution flows
in countercurrent direction and once-through pattern with the In the following discussion the inlet and outlet parameters of
heat resource. The high temperature/pressure work solution each component of the Kalina cycle and DPV-KC are labeled sub-
vapour (point 15) from the evaporator expands and generates scripts consistent to the state points in Fig. 1. The DPV-KC model
560 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565

Table 1
Mathematic model for DPV-KC.

Equipment Item Calculation formula No.

Key parameters Basic solution p1 ðor h1 ; s1 Þ ¼ f ðt1 ; xb Þ (1)
Work solution p2 ðor h10 ; s10 Þ ¼ f ðt10 ; xw Þ (2)
Saturate vapour t14 ðor h14 ; t13 ; h13 Þ ¼ f ðxw ; p15 Þ (3)
Super heating vapour h15 ðor s15 Þ ¼ f ðt 15 ; xw ; p15 Þ (4)
Saturate vapour t23 ðor h23 ; t 22 ; h22 Þ ¼ f ðxw ; p24 Þ (5)
Super heating vapour h24 ðor s24 Þ ¼ f ðt 24 ; xw ; p24 Þ (6)
Circulation multiple f f ¼ ðxw
xd Þ=ðxb
xd Þ (7)
f ¼ G1 =G16 ¼ G1 =ðG11 þ G20 Þ
Evaporator E1 Transferring heat Q h1 ¼ Gh cph ðt h1
th4 Þ ¼ G11 ðh15
h12 Þ (8)
Evaporator E2 Transferring heat Q h2 ¼ Gh cph ðt h4
th7 Þ ¼ G20 ðh24
h21 Þ (9)
Evaporator E1 Relative transferring heat R1 R1 ¼ Q h1 =Q h ¼ Q h1 =ðQ h1 þ Q h2 Þ (10)
Turbine T Isentropic T1 outlet h16s0 ¼ f ðp1 ; xw ; s15 Þ (11)
Isentropic T2 outlet h16s00 ¼ f ðp1 ; xw ; s24 Þ (12)
Actual turbine outlet h16 ¼ ðG11 h160 þ G20 h1600 Þ=G (13)
Turbine work W T ¼ W T1 þ W T2 ¼ G11 wT1 þ G20 wT2 (14)
¼ ½G11 ðh15
h160 s Þ þ G20 ðh24
h1600 s ÞgT
¼ G11 ðh15
h160 Þ þ G20 ðh24
h1600 Þ
Recuperator R Heat transfer h16
h17 ¼ ðh4
h2 ÞG3 =G ¼ G3 ðh4
h2 Þ (15)
Low-p-absorber A1 Mixing h18 ¼ ½h17 þ ðf
1Þh7 =f (16)
Transferring heat Gc1 cpc ðtc2
t c1 Þ ¼ f Gðh18
h1 Þ (17)
Separator S Parameters xd ðor x400 ; h40 ; h400 Þ ¼ f ðp2 ; t4 Þ (18)
Preheater PH1 Transferring heat G40 ðh6
h40 Þ ¼ G11 ðh12
h11 Þ (19)
Preheater PH2 Transferring heat G400 ðh5
h400 Þ ¼ G20 ðh21
h20 Þ (20)
Valve V2 Enthalpy h7 ¼ h6 (21)
Mid-p-absorber A2 Mixing h9 ¼ G400 h5 þ ðf
G3 Þh2 (22)
Transferring heat Gc3 cpc ðtc4
t c3 Þ ¼ Gðh9
h10 Þ (23)
Pump Load W P ¼ W P1 þ W P2 þ W P3 ¼ ½G1 ðh2s
h1 Þ þ G11 ðh11s
h10 Þ (24)
þG20 ðh20s
h10 Þ=gp ¼ G1 ðh2
h1 Þ þ G11 ðh11
h10 Þ þ G20 ðh20
h10 Þ
Cycle Net work output Wnet W net ¼ W T
W P (25)

Where, f () stands for function; G and G stand for the flow rate and the relative flow rate to the total turbine flow rate, G without subscript is the total turbine flow rate; the
subscript h and c stand for heat resource and cooling water respectively; the subscript number stands for the state point shown in Fig. 1. gT and gp are respectively the
isentropic efficiencies of turbine and pumps, taken values of 0.85 and 0.75 respectively; and the subscript s stands for the isentropic process of turbine or pump.

as shown in Table 1 is established with the principal of energy and
mass conservation laws neglecting the pressure and heat dissipa-
tion losses in each component as well as pipes. The engineering
calculation software EES was adopted to calculate each state point
of the cycle.
2.3. Evaluation criteria
The thermal efficiency gth is the ratio of the net power gener-
ated in the turbine over the heat absorbed in the evaporators:
gth ¼ W net =Q h ¼ W net =ðQ h1 þ Q h2 Þ
For waste heat recovery system, the thermal efficiency is not a
complete criterion indicator, because high thermal efficiency
sometimes does not mean more power generation capacity if the
outlet temperature of the heat resource is also high and less heat
is utilized. To remediate this drawback, the power recovery effi-
ciency g0 is introduced as the ultimate evaluation criterion in con-
sideration of the correction of waste heat recovery ratio gwh [32]:
W net W net t h1
th7
g0 ¼ ¼ ¼ gth gwh
Gh cph ðt h1
th0 Þ Gh cph ðt h1
th7 Þ th1
t h0
gwh ¼ ðth1
th7 Þ=ðth1
th0 Þ
where th1 and th7 are inlet and outlet temperatures of the heat
resource, th0 is the lowest possible waste heat utilization tempera-
ture and in this paper it is set as 90 °C, for below this temperature
the flue gas might corrode heat transfer surface material. Thus the
power recovery efficiency g0 is the product of thermal efficiency
gth and waste heat recovery ratio gwh.
3. Results and discussion
In the following discussion the calculation conditions and con-
straints are set as: the inlet temperatures of both heat resource and
cooling water are 400 °C and 25 °C respectively; the pinch temper-
ature difference in evaporators is 20 K while in other heat exchang-
ers is 5 K; the maximum evaporation pressure does not exceed
20 MPa, the exhaust temperature of heat resource is not lower than
90 °C and the quality (dryness) of vapour at outlet of turbine is
higher than 85%.
Several parameter factors might influence the performances of
the DPV-KC. The circulation multiple f is defined as the flow rate
ð26Þ ratio of the basic solution over work solution, and as Hua et al.
[32] indicated that the circulation multiple is of little significance
on the performance of KC when it is greater than 3, thus in this
paper the circulation multiple f is set as 5.
3.1. Concentrations
The relationship between the basic concentration and the work
concentration is tied in the desorption process of the media in both
sides of the recuperator to ensure a greater pressure drop in tur-
ð27Þ bine while the heat transfer pinch point difference is still greater
than the required value. The concentrations of work solution xw
were taken relatively small values of 0.3, 0.35, 0.4 and 0.45 for
ð28Þ decreasing the turbine inlet pressure.
Fig. 2 shows the influences of the basic and work concentrations
of solution on the performances of the DPV-KC. Fig. 2a shows that
with the fixed work concentration the pinch temperature differ-
ence increases with the increase of the basic concentration;
Fig. 2b shows that the low-pressure p1 of the cycle increases while
the mid-pressure p2 is not affected by the increase of the basic con-
centration with fixed work concentration, since the low-pressure
 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565 561

16 basic concentration with a given work concentration corresponds

xw xw
to the intersect point with the dash line corresponding to the low-
0.3 0.35
0.4 0.45 est pinch temperature difference in recuperator. When the concen-
tration of work solution is 0.3, 0.35, 0.4 or 0.45, the corresponding
Pintch temperature Δ t 16-4 /K

12
optimum concentration of basic solution is 0.177, 0.209, 0.240 or
0.272 respectively.

8 3.2. Vaporization parameters

For power recovery from a sensible waste heat resource with

4 certain inlet temperature, the evaporation pressure has great
impact on the heat transfer curves and consequently on the effi-
ciency of the cycle. For feasibility, the dew point temperature t14
is taken as the variable to show such impact.
0
0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 Fig. 3 shows the evaporation pressure p14 and the exhaust tem-
Basic concentration x b perature of the heat resource th7 versus the dew point temperature
(a) t14 at different work concentrations xw. It can be seen that the
evaporation pressure increases with the increase of either the
0.28 dew point temperature or work concentration. The restriction of
xw xw high pressure of 20 MPa is also plotted on the figure. The points
0.24 0.3 0.35 with high pressure higher than 20 MPa should not be selected.
0.4 0.45 The figure shows also that the exhaust temperature of the heat
0.2 resource increases with the increase of the dew point temperature
Pressure p /MPa

or decrease of the work concentration. The restriction of the lowest

0.16 p2 exhaust temperature of 90 °C of heat resource is also plotted on the
figure. The points with exhaust temperature lower than 90 °C
0.12 should also not be selected.
Fig. 4 shows the change curves of thermal efficiency gth, power
0.08 recovery efficiency g0 and waste heat recovery ratio gwh versus the
p1 dew point temperature at different work concentrations. The ther-
0.04
mal efficiency gth increases with the increase of the dew point tem-
perature or the decrease of work concentration. Nevertheless, the
0
0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 power recovery efficiency g0 increases at first and then levels or
Basic concentration x b even drops with the increase of dew point temperature at fixed
(b) work solution, and its curve is much flatter indicating that the
impact of the dew point temperature on the power recovery effi-
0.34 1 ciency is not remarkable. The waste heat recovery ratio decreases
xw xw
0.3 0.35 with the increase of the dew point temperature or the decrease
0.4 0.45 0.95 of the work concentration. Opposite to the trend of the thermal
Waste heat recovery ratio η wh

0.32
efficiency, the power recovery efficiency increases with the
η wh increase of work concentration at fixed dew point temperature,
Efficiency η th , η 0

0.9
which is mainly due to the higher waste heat recovery ratio at
0.3
richer work concentration. By adding the dashed lines of the
η th 0.85 restrictions shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the applicable range of the
0.28 dew point temperature at work concentration of 0.45 and 0.4 are
respectively just within the restriction dashed lines. Obviously,
0.8

0.26
η0 0.75 32
140

0.24 28
t h7
Evaporation pressure p 14 /MPa

0.7 120
0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3
Exhaust temperature t h7 /°C

Basic concentration x b
(c)
24 t h7,min=90°C 100
80
Fig. 2. Influences of basic solution on the performances of the DPV-KC (th1 = 400 °C, 20
p max=20MPa
t14 = 310 °C). (a) Pinch temperature difference of recuperator, (b) low pressure p1 60
and mid pressure p2 and (c) thermal efficiency gth, power recovery efficiency g0 and
waste heat recovery ratio gwh.
16 p 14
40

12 xw xw
0.3 0.35 20
and the mid-pressure are determined by the saturation pressures 0.4 0.45
of basic and work concentrations respectively at the condensation 8 0
280 290 300 310 320 330
temperature. Fig. 2c shows that the thermal efficiency and the
Evaporation dew temperature t 14 /°C
power recovery efficiency decrease with the increase of the basic
concentration at fixed work concentration, even though the waste Fig. 3. Evaporation pressure and outlet temperature of the heat resource versus
heat recovery ratio increases. Therefore, the optimum value of the evaporation dew point and work concentration (th1 = 400 °C).
562 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565

1200 1
0.32 1
0.9

Waste heat recovery ratio η wh

xw η wh
1000
0.8
0.3 0.9
Efficiency η th , η 0

0.3

Vapour qualityY 16
0.35 0.7 800 Y 16=0.85

Work W / kW
0.4 η th 0.6 W T1
0.45 600 W T2 0.8
0.28 0.5
W net
0.4
400 Wp
0.3
0.26 η0 Y 16 0.7
0.2 200
0.1
0.24 0 0 0.6
290 300 310 320
280 290 300 310 320 330
Evaporation dew temperature t 14 /°C Evaporation dew temperature t 14 /°C
(a)
Fig. 4. Thermal efficiency gth, power recovery efficiency g0 and waste heat recovery
ratio gwh versus evaporation dew point and work concentration (th1 = 400 °C). 200
0.75

Exhaust temperature t h4, t h7 /°C

Relative transfer heat in E1 R 1

180
the schemes with work concentration of 0.45 possess better power t h4 0.74
recovery efficiency than other schemes. t h7
Fig. 5a shows the work output of two turbine sections, net work 160
R1 0.73
output and pump consumed work vary with the dew point tem-
perature ranging from 290 °C to 320 °C, with the work and basic 140
0.72
concentrations of solution are 0.45 and 0.272 respectively. The first
turbine work output decreases while both the second turbine work 120 0.71
output and the pump consumption work increase, and the net
work of the system increases slightly with the increase of the 100 0.7
dew point temperature. Fig. 5a shows also the curve of the quality
of the mixed point of turbine exhaust vapour Y16 versus the dew
80 0.69
point temperature. The quality of the mixed point of turbine 290 300 310 320
exhaust vapour decreases with the increase of the dew point tem- Evaporation dew temperature t 14 /°C
perature or the decrease of superheat of the vapour at turbine inlet. (b)
Fig. 5b shows that the exhaust temperatures of heat resource from
the first and second evaporators increase while the relative trans- Fig. 5. Work outputs, vapour quality and exhaust temperatures of heat resource
ferring heat in first evaporator R1 decreases with the increase of the versus evaporation dew point temperature (xw = 0.45, xb = 0.272, th1 = 400 °C). (a)
Work output and vapour quality and (b) exhaust temperatures of heat resource in
dew point temperature. It means that the second high pressure
evaporators and relative transferring heat in E1.
section produces more work when the high pressure is higher.
Figs. 3 and 4 show that the two schemes with the dew point
temperature 300 °C and 310 °C respectively and work and basic circulation multiple of 5. For the convenience of comparison with
concentrations of solution of 0.45 and 0.272 have better perfor- the Kalina cycle, the flow rate of work solution in the first turbine
mance, and Fig. 5a shows that of these two schemes the one with is set as unit value of 1 kg s
1.
dew point temperature 310 °C could not meet the constraint con-
dition of vapour quality greater than 0.85 at the turbine outlet,
thus, the scheme with the dew point temperature of 300 °C and 3.4. Optimization of KC
work and basic concentrations of solution of 0.45 and 0.272 is
selected as the optimum of the DPV-KC, with the power recovery For the fair comparison, the operation parameters of Kalina
efficiency g0 is about 27% under the calculation conditions. cycle also need be optimized. As the Kalina cycle has only one
It should be recognized that the high pressure of the selected evaporator, richer work concentration can be taken. The optimum
optimum scheme of the DPV-KC is still quite high; and from criterion is also the power recovery efficiency.
Fig. 3 it can be seen that the high pressure p15 is higher when With the analysis similar to Fig. 2c, for work concentration 0.45,
the work concentration of solution xw is greater, while Fig. 4 shows 0.5, 0.55 or 0.6, the corresponding optimum basic concentration is
that the power recovery efficiency g0 decreases when the work 0.272, 0.315, 0.355 or 0.385 respectively. Fig. 6 shows the influence
concentration of solution is smaller at same evaporation dew tem- of the dew point temperature on the thermal efficiency, power
perature t14. Considering the harsh environment due to the pres- recovery efficiency and waste heat recovery ratio respectively
ence of the ammonia–water solution, in practical application under the calculation conditions and circulation multiple of 5.
selecting somewhat lower pressure for safety might be a compro- The thermal efficiency increases with the increase of the dew point
mised decision. temperature when the work concentration is fixed and the
decrease of the work concentration when the dew point tempera-
ture is fixed. The waste heat recovery decreases with the increase
3.3. Status point parameters of DPV-KC of dew point temperature when the work concentration is fixed
and the increase of the work concentration when the dew point
Table 2 demonstrates the parameters of status points of the temperature is fixed. As the consequence of these two opposite
optimum scheme of DPV-KC under inlet temperatures of heat trends of thermal efficiency and waste heat recovery ratio,
resource and cooling water of 400 °C and 25 °C respectively and the power recovery efficiency has optimum value of dew point
 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565 563

Table 2 Table 3
Parameters of status points of DPV-KC. Comparison of the performance of DPV-KC and KC (th1 = 400 °C, tc1 = 25 °C).

Point Temperature Pressure Enthalpy Concentration Flow rate Itemncycle Unit DPV-KC KC
(°C) (MPa) (kJ kg
1) (kg kg
1) (kg s
1)
1
Work concentration xw kg kg 0.45 0.55
1 30 0.0836
47.92 0.272 7.352 Basic concentration xb kg kg
1 0.272 0.355
2 30 0.277
47.62 0.272 7.352 Inlet pressure of turbine p15 MPa 16.6 10.5
3 30 0.277
47.62 0.272 6.296 Dew point temperature in evaporation t14 °C 300 260
4 72.65 0.277 250.7 0.272 6.296 Inlet temperature of first turbine t15 °C 380 380
40 72.65 0.277 158.6 0.228 5.882 Inlet temperature of second turbine t24 °C 161.25 –
400 72.65 0.277 1559.4 0.903 0.415 Enthalpy drop of first turbine Dh15–160 kJ kg
1 771 710
5 38.55 0.277 1382.3 0.903 0.415 Enthalpy drop of second turbine Dh24–160 kJ kg
1 460 –
6 66.85 0.277 133.3 0.228 5.882 Relative transferring heat in E1 R1 – 0.708 –
7 45.35 0.0836 133.3 0.228 5.882 Exhaust temperature of heat resource th7 °C 91.3 143.2
8 30 0.277
47.62 0.272 1.056 Thermal efficiency gth % 27.1 27.9
9 59.25 0.277 356.03 0.45 1.47 Waste heat recovery ratio gwh % 99.6 82.8
10 30 0.277
103.8 0.45 1.47 Power recovery efficiency g0 % 27.0 23.1
11 32.95 16.6
71.39 0.45 1 Ratio of power recovery efficiency – 1.17 1
12 67.65 16.6 77.41 0.45 1
13 262.15 16.6 1157 0.45 1
14 310 16.6 2223 0.45 1
15 380 16.6 2552 0.45 1
160 76.35 0.0836 1730 0.45 1 400
1600 77.95 0.0836 1891 0.45 0.47
16 76.85 0.0836 1781 0.45 1.47 350
17 45.45 0.0836 503.6 0.45 1.47
18 45.35 0.0836 207.5 0.272 7.352
300
heat resource
20 33.55 0.986
89.2 0.45 0.47
21 67.65 0.986 66.98 0.45 0.47
250
22 79.15 0.986 86.39 0.45 0.47

t /°C
23 163.25 0.986 2229 0.45 0.47 work solution in
200
24 168.25 0.986 2241 0.45 0.47
evaporator E1
150

100
0.3 0.95
50 work solution in
0.29 evaporator E2
0.9
Waste heat recovery ratio η wh

0
0.28 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.85 Q ·Q 0-1
Efficiency η th, η 0

0.27
0.8 (a)
0.26
xw
0.45 η wh 0.75
0.25 η th 0.5
400

0.55 0.7 350

0.24 0.6
η0 heat resource
0.23 0.65 300

0.22 0.6 250

t /°C

220 230 240 250 260 270 280

Evaporation dew temperature t 14 /°C 200

Fig. 6. Thermal efficiency gth, power recovery efficiency g0 and waste heat recovery 150
work solution
ratio gwh of the KC versus the evaporation dew point temperature.
100 in evaporator

50
temperature around 240–260 °C at certain work concentration.
The power recovery efficiency also increases with the increase of 0
the work concentration except that the power recovery efficiency 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
curves of the work concentration 0.55 and 0.6 almost coincide. Q ·Q 0-1
Considering greater work concentration results in higher turbine
(b)
pressure, the optimum scheme is selected with work and basic
concentrations of 0.55 and 0.355, the dew point temperature of Fig. 7. Heat transfer curves of the evaporation of DPV-KC and KC. (a) DPV-KC
260 °C for the Kalina cycle. (xw = 0.45, xb = 0.272) and (b) KC (xw = 0.55, xb = 0.355).

KC has power recovery efficiency of 27.0%, which is 17% higher

3.5. Comparison of DPV-KC and KC than that of the Kalina cycle, and the increment is mainly due to
the higher waste recovery ratio of 99.6% of DPV-KC over 82.8% of
Table 3 shows the performance comparison of the two cycles KC.
under the same initial condition that the temperatures of heat In order to more clearly explain the cycle characteristics of the
resource and cooling water are 400 °C and 25 °C respectively, the DPV-KC and KC, the heat transfer curves in the evaporators of DPV-
concentrations and the dew point temperature of evaporation all KC and KC are shown respectively in Fig. 7a and b. The Q0 in the
take the optimized value. The selected optimum scheme of DPV- abscissa stands for the maximum available heat from the heat
564 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565
0.28
0.27
0.26
Efficiency η th, η 0
0.25
0.24 DPV-KC KC
η th η th
0.23 η0 η0
η wh η wh
0.22
0.21
0.2
350 360 370 380 390 400
Heat source temperature t h1/°C
Fig. 8. Comparison of thermal efficiency gth, power recovery efficiency g0 and
waste heat recovery ratio gwh versus heat resource temperature of DPV-KC and KC.
resource. Because the exhaust temperatures of the heat resource
are about 91 °C with DPV-KC and 143 °C with KC respectively,
the heat input to the cycle of the former is obviously greater than
that of the latter.
Fig. 8 shows the curves of the thermal efficiency gth, power
recovery efficiency g0 and the waste heat recovery ratio gwh of
DPV-KC and KC vary with different inlet temperature of heat
resource ranging from 350 °C to 400 °C. The two cycles all take
the optimized value to make the comparison fairer, the concentra-
tions of work and basic solutions of DPV-KC and KC are respec-
tively 0.45, 0.272 and 0.55, 0.355. Their evaporation dew point
temperatures are also taken optimum values varying in the inlet
temperature of heat resource. It shows that the power recovery
efficiency g0 of the DPV-KC is about 17.9–17.1% higher than that
of the KC, and the average increment is 17.6%.
4. Conclusions
(1) The DPV-KC is a modified Kalina cycle that set the second
evaporation branch for cascade utilization of the heat
resource. The DPV-KC system can significantly reduce the
exhaust temperature of the heat resource and increase the
capacity of the power output or power recovery efficiency.
(2) The optimizing relationship between basic concentration
and work concentration of solution and the optimizing evap-
oration dew point temperature in DPV-KC were studied. The
principles are to set as low as possible turbine backpressure
while still meet the pinch temperature difference require-
ment in recuperator and to set an evaporation curve with
least irreversibility matching well with the heat resource
and with proper pressure and vapour quality in turbine.
Under the conditions that the inlet temperatures of heat
resource and cooling water are 400 °C and 25 °C, the opti-
mum work and basic concentrations are 0.45 and 0.272
respectively, and the optimum dew point temperature is
300 °C.
(3) The power recovery efficiency is selected as the criterion to
evaluate the work capacity of a waste heat recovery system,
which is the product of thermal efficiency and waste heat
recovery ratio of the cycle. Under the condition that the inlet
temperatures of heat resource and cooling water are 400 °C
and 25 °C, the selected optimum scheme of DPV-KC has
power recovery efficiency of 27%, which is 17% higher than
that of the Kalina cycle with optimized parameters, and
the increment is mainly due to the higher waste recovery
1 ratio of 99.6% of DPV-KC over 82.8% of KC. For the inlet tem-
perature of heat resource ranging from 350 °C to 400 °C, the
0.95
power recovery efficiency g0 of the DPV-KC is about 17.9–
Waste heat recovery ratio η wh
0.9
17.1% higher than that of the KC.
0.85
0.8 Acknowledgement
0.75 This work is supported by the National Nature Science Founda-
tion Programs of China (Nos. 51276035, 51206022).
0.7
0.65
References
0.6
[1] Saleh B, Koglbauer G, Wendland M, et al. Working fluids for low-temperature
organic Rankine cycle. Energy 2007;32(7):1210–21.
[2] Kalina AI. Combine-cycle system with novel bottoming cycle. J Eng Gas Turbin
Power 1984;106(4):737–42.
[3] Zhang XX, He MG, Zhang Y. A review of research on the Kalina cycle. Renew
Sust Energ Rev 2012;16(7):5309–18.
[4] Kalina AI, Tribus M. The Kalina power cycles, a progress report. Proc Am Power
Conf 1989:5–21.
[5] Singh OK, Kaushik SC. Thermoeconomic evaluation and optimization of a
Brayton–Rankine–Kalina combined triple power cycle. Energ Convers Manage
2013;71:32–42.
[6] Bombarda P, Invernizzi CM, Pietra C. Heat recovery from diesel engines: a
thermodynamic comparison between Kalina and ORC cycles. Appl Therm Eng
2010;30:212–9.
[7] Jonnson M, Yan J. Ammonia–water bottoming cycles: a comparison between
gas engines and gas diesel engines as prime movers. Energy 2001;26(1):31–44.
[8] Nguyen TQ, Slawnwhite JD, Goni BK. Power generation from residual industrial
heat. Energ Convers Manage 2010;51:2220–9.
[9] Peng S, Hong H, Jin H, Wang ZF. An integrated solar thermal power system
using intercooled gas turbine and Kalina cycle. Energy 2012;44:732–40.
[10] Sun F, Ikegami Y, Jia BJ. A study on Kalina solar system with an auxiliary
superheater. Renew Energ 2012;41:210–9.
[11] Mlcak HA. Kalina cycle concepts for low temperature geothermal. Geoth Res
Counc Trans 2002;6(26):22–5.
[12] DiPippo R. Second law assessment of binary plants generating power from
low-temperature geothermal fluids. Geothermics 2004;33(5):565–86.
[13] Guzovic Z, Loncar D, Ferdelji N. Possibilities of electricity generation in the
republic of Croatia by means of geothermal energy. Energy 2010;35
(8):3429–40.
[14] Arslan O. Power generation from medium temperature geothermal resources:
ANN-based optimization of Kalina cycle system-34. Energy 2011;36
(2):2528–34.
[15] Coskun A, Bolatturk A, Kanoglu M. Thermodynamic and economic analysis and
optimization of power cycles for a medium temperature geothermal resource.
Energ Convers Manage 2014;78:39–49.
[16] Singh OK, Kaushik SC. Energy and exergy analysis and optimization of Kalina
cycle coupled with a coal fired steam power plant. Appl Therm Eng
2013;51:787–800.
[17] Sirko O. Integration of Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant, a case
study. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2843–8.
[18] Zhang Z, Guo ZW, Chen YP, Wu JF, Hua JY. Power generation and heating
performances of integrated system of ammonia–water Kalina–Rankine cycle.
Energ Convers Manage 2015;92(1):517–22.
[19] Padilla RV, Demirkaga C, Goswami DY, Stefanakos E, Rahman MM. Analysis of
power and cooling cogeneration using ammonia–water mixture. Energy
2010;35(12):4649–57.
[20] Sadhukhan K, Chowdhuri AK, Mandal BK. Computer based thermodynamic
properties of ammonia–water mixture for the analysis of power and
refrigeration cycles. Int J Thermodyn 2012;15:133–9.
[21] Hua JY, Chen YP, Wang YD, Roskilly AP. Thermodynamic analysis of ammonia–
water power/chilling cogeneration cycle with low-grade waster heat. Appl
Therm Eng 2014;64(1–2):483–90.
[22] Jing XY, Zheng DX. Effect of cycle coupling-configuration on energy cascade
utilization for a new power and cooling cogeneration cycle. Energ Convers
Manage 2014;78:58–64.
[23] Ogriseck S. Integration of Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant, a
case study. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2843–8.
[24] Anish M, Fredrik H. Thermodynamic optimisation and analysis of four Kalina
cycle layouts for high temperature application. Appl Therm Eng 2015;76:
196–205.
[25] Hettiarachchi MHD, Golubovic M, Worek WM, et al. The performance of the
Kalina cycle system 11 (KCS-11) with low-temperature heat sources. Trans
ASME, J Energ Res Technol 2007;129(6):243–7.
[26] Nasruddin, Usvika R, Rifaldi M, Noor A. Energy and exergy analysis of Kalina
cycle system (KCS) 34 with mass fraction ammonia–water mixture variation. J
Mech Sci Tech 2009;23:1871–6.
[27] Nag PK, Gupta AVSSKS. Exergy analysis of the Kalina cycle. Appl Therm Eng
1998;18(6):427–39.
 Z. Guo et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 557–565
[28] Philippe R, Martin D, Nicolas G. Thermodynamic analysis of a power cycle
using a low-temperature source and a binary NH3–H2O mixture as working
fluid. Int J Therm Sci 2010;49:48–58.
[29] Marston CH. Parametric analysis of the Kalina cycle. J Eng Gas Turb Power
1990;112(1):107–16.
[30] Wang JF, Yan ZQ, Zhou EM, Dai YP. Parametric analysis and optimization of a
Kalina cycle driven by solar energy. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50:408–15.
[31] Chen YP. Thermodynamic analysis of a modified Kalina cycle. J Southeast Univ
1989;19(4):52–8 (in Chinese).
[32] Hua JY, Chen YP, Wu JF. Thermal performance of a modified ammonia–water
power cycle for reclaiming mid/low-grade waste heat. Energ Convers Manage
2014;85:453–9.
565
[33] Zare V, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M. On the exergoeconomic assessment of
employing Kalina cycle for GT–MHR waste heat utilization. Energ Convers
Manage 2015;90:364–74.
[34] Walraven D, Laenen B, D’Haeseleer W. Comparison of thermodynamic cycles
for power production from low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Energ
Convers Manage 2013;66:2–14.
[35] Chen YP. Thermodynamic analysis of a simplified Kalina cycle. Therm Power
Gen 1997;47(4):20–3 (in Chinese).
[36] Hua JY, Chen YP, Liu HJ, Wu JF. Thermodynamic analysis of simplified dual-
pressure ammonia–water absorption power cycle. J Cent South Univ 2012;19
(3):797–802.