Energy 45 (2012) 975e985

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energy and exergy analyses of a biomass trigeneration system using an organic

Rankine cycle
Fahad A. Al-Sulaiman a, c, *, Ibrahim Dincer b, Feridun Hamdullahpur c
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology Oshawa, ON, Canada
c
Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

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

Article history: In this study, energy and exergy analyses of a biomass trigeneration system using an organic Rankine
Received 12 January 2012 cycle (ORC) are presented. Four cases are considered for analysis: electrical-power, cooling-cogeneration,
Received in revised form heating-cogeneration and trigeneration cases. The results obtained reveal that the best performance of
15 May 2012
the trigeneration system considered can be obtained with the lowest ORC evaporator pinch temperature
Accepted 23 June 2012
Available online 3 August 2012
considered, Tpp ¼ 20 K, and the lowest ORC minimum temperature, T9 ¼ 345 K. In addition, this study
reveals that there is a significant improvement when trigeneration is used as compared to only electrical
power production. This study demonstrates that the fuel utilization efficiency increases, in average, from
Keywords:
Trigeneration
12% for electrical power to 88% for trigeneration. Moreover, the maximum exergy efficiency of the ORC is
Energy 13% and, when trigeneration is used, it increases to 28%. Furthermore, this study reveals that the elec-
Exergy trical to cooling ratio can be controlled through changing the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature
Efficiency and/or the pump inlet temperature. In addition, the study reveals that the biomass burner and the ORC
Biomass evaporator are the main two sources of exergy destruction. The biomass burner contributes to 55% of the
Organic Rankine cycle (ORC) total destructed exergy whereas the ORC evaporator contributes to 38% of the total destructed exergy.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One of the major concerns of the energy generation sector is to
design more efficient power generating plants that are specifically
based on renewable energy sources and emit fewer pollutants or no
pollutants to the environment. Biomass is one of the potential
renewable energy sources. Unlike fossil fuels, biomass are formed
from alive or recently died organisms.
The world energy demand is expected to increase by around 40%
between 2006 and 2030 [1]. On the other hand, there are concerns
with the depletion of fossil fuels and the increase in the green
house gas emissions. Therefore, developing more efficient and
effective systems is crucial to increase the ratio of energy produced
per unit fuel consumed. It is known that the thermal efficiency of
conventional power plants with a single prime mover is usually less
than 40%. That is, sixty percent or more of a plant’s energy is not
utilized by the prime mover of the plant. Alternatively, the overall
thermal efficiency of a conventional power plant that produces
* Corresponding author. Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail address: fahadas@kfupm.edu.sa (F.A. Al-Sulaiman).
electricity and heat separately becomes about 60% [2]. On the other
hand, the efficiency of a power plant where the waste heat from the
prime mover is utilized, could reach up to 80% [2,3]. Trigeneration
plants appear to be more efficient power plants utilizing the waste
heat from prime movers.
A trigeneration system is a thermal system that produces power,
heating, and cooling simultaneously from the same energy source.
In trigeneration systems, the waste heat from the plant’s prime
mover, such as a steam turbine, is used for cooling and heating. ORC
is a potential subsystem that can be used in trigeneration systems
for mechanical power production and, subsequently, electrical
power production through an electrical generator. ORC is usually
used when a low- or medium-temperature energy source available
while the steam Rankine cycle can be integrated more efficiently
when a high-temperature energy source is available. For ORC
applications, the range of the low-temperature energy source is
considered to be 55e150 C, medium temperature is 150e300 C
and high temperature above 300 C.
A detailed review of trigeneration systems based on prime
movers was conducted by Al-Sulaiman et al. [4]. They identified
that several studies of trigeneration systems had been carried out
using internal combustion engines as prime movers; whilst fewer
studies on gas turbines and micro-turbines as prime movers had

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.060
976 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985
been conducted. On the other hand, very few studies had been
conducted on the other three prime movers: steam turbines, fuel
cells, and Stirling engines. In terms of the modeling type, most of
the studies were performed using economical and energy analyses
whereas much less studies had considered environmental, exergy,
and thermoeconomic analyses of trigeneration systems.
Vaja and Gambarotta [5] examined the integration of the ORC as
a bottoming cycle of an internal combustion engine. It was shown
that there is 12% in overall efficiency when the interrogation of ORC
was used. Wang et al. [6] assessed the performance of integrated
organic Rankine cycle and vapor compression cycle for heat acti-
vated cooling. In their study, the cycle examined assuming a waste
heat is used to operate the ORC. The coefficient of performance was
0.48. In a different study, Wang et al. [7] studied the integrating the
ORC with a vapor compression cycle. The ORC was working based
on a waste heat from another source. Their study revealed that the
coefficient of performance reaches 0.66.
Carvalho et al. [8] carried out life cycle analysis of a trigeneration
system to be used in hospital in Spain. The main objective of their
study was to assess CO2 emissions and to minimize the annual cost.
In a different study, He et al. [9] recovered the waste heat from an
internal combustion engine through the integration of organic
Rankine cycle and Kalina cycle. They used Toyota 8A-FE gasoline
engine. A thermoeconomic analysis of four different thermal
systems operated by biomass was conducted by Bagdanavicius
et al. [10]. An energy and exergy based thermodynamic process
modeling study of a biomass integrated gasification combined cycle
plant with supplementary biomass firing was performed by Bhat-
tacharya et al. [11]. They identified some optimum operating
parameters for their simulations.
Huangfu et al. [12] carried out cost and exergy analyses of
a micro-scale trigeneration system using an internal combustion
engine. In their study, combined operation modes of cooling and
power, and heating and power was examined. Their studies
revealed that the primary energy ratio and exergy efficiency of the
combined mode were higher than the conventional power gener-
ation without cooling or heating (not as a combined mode). In
a different study, Ribarov and Liscinsky [13] examined an economic
potential of using trigeneration for a small-scale building with an
electric power output between 15 and 120 kW. The focus of the
study was to find out the smallest plant size that can be utilized
economically for a trigeneration plant in five selected cities in the
USA. In a different study, Tracy and Ordonez [14] conducted first
and second law thermodynamic analyses of a trigeneration system
based on an internal combustion engine. In their study, different
splitting ratios of the waste heat between the cooling and heating
subsystems on the performance of the plant were examined. Khaliq
and Kumar [15] studied the performance of a trigeneration system
using a gas turbine. The authors examined the effect of process heat
pressure and the pressure ratio of the compressor on the energy
efficiency, exergy efficiency, and electrical to thermal energy ratio.
A comparison of a trigeneration system using a fuel cell as
a prime mover with another three different plants powered by a gas
turbine was carried out by Kowalski and Zenouzi [16]. The refrig-
eration device was a vapor compression for the system based on the
fuel cell whereas the refrigeration devices for the systems based on
the gas turbine was a vapor compression cycle, an absorption cycle,
or a combined vapor compression/absorption cycle. In their study,
it was shown that for large refrigeration to total thermal load ratios,
the combined vapor compression/absorption refrigeration for the
trigeneration plant based on a gas turbine had the highest first law
utilization factors and the lowest carbon dioxide production rate.
By contrast, at high refrigeration load applications, the fuel cell
system had better performance as compared to the gas turbine
system. In a different study, Lian et al. [17] examined the
thermoeconomic potential of a steam-turbine thermal system for
trigeneration, using biomass. In their study, four different plant
configurations were examined through exergy destruction
percentage and overall production cost.
Only a few studies considered ORC as a prime mover of a tri-
generation plant e.g. [18e22]. Rentizelas et al. [18] studied the
potential economic benefits of two trigeneration systems, where
the first system is based on an ORC and the other system is based on
gasification. Verda [19] compared the electricity produced from
a thermal system consisting of an integrated solid oxide fuel cells
(SOFC) with a micro-turbine or an ORC. It was shown that the
integration of an SOFC with a micro-turbine or an ORC increases the
electrical energy of the thermal system by 30%. Nevertheless, his
study considered mainly the pinch analysis of the heat exchangers
and did not consider the cooling or heating load. In a different
study, Akkaya and Sahin [20] examined the energetic performance
of a system that combined an SOFC with an ORC without any
heating or cooling load. It was found that the efficiency of the
system increased by 14e25% for the system that combined the
SOFC and ORC as compared with the system that consists of SOFC
only.
The degree of improvement of a trigeneration system is sensi-
tive to the performance of each unit and the approach used to
integrate these units into the system, and the operating and system
parameters. Therefore, energy and exergy analyses of any proposed
system are important to assess its performance and to examine
possible degree of improvement in the system. The objective of this
study is to provide better understanding of the characteristics of
the trigeneration system proposed, including its true efficiencies
and exergy losses and, thereby, to help identifying possible
improvements. The assessment of the trigeneration system
proposed is conducted through energy efficiency, exergy efficiency,
electrical power, and electrical to heating and cooling ratios.
Furthermore, exergy destruction rate produced by each component
in the trigeneration system considered is identified.
2. Model development
In this study, the trigeneration system examined consists of
a biomass burner, an ORC, a heating process, and a single-effect
absorption chiller, as shown in Fig. 1. The waste heat from the
ORC is used for heating and cooling, using a heat exchanger and
a single-effect absorption chiller, respectively. To have an efficient
ORC, the working fluid in the ORC should have a high critical
temperature, so that the waste heat can be used more efficiently.
One of the typical organic fluid types used to operate the ORC is n-
octane, which has relatively a high critical temperature, 569 K [23].
Hence, it is selected in this study as the working fuel of the ORC. The
biomass type for the biomass burner is pine sawdust and its char-
acteristic are listed in Table 1. One of the most common waste wood
products is pine sawdust. Pine trees grow widely throughout the
world and, thus, they are widely used for wood-based products.
Pine sawdust is produced as a result of pine wood processing. This
wasted sawdust is commonly used as a biomass and, thus, this
biomass is selected in this study.
In the model development four cases are considered: electrical-
power, cooling-cogeneration, heating-cogeneration, and trigener-
ation. The electrical-power case consists of the ORC and the
biomass burner. The cooling-cogeneration case includes the single-
effect absorption chiller, as well as the ORC and the biomass burner.
The heating-cogeneration case includes the heating process, as well
as the ORC and the biomass burner. The trigeneration case consists
of the ORC, biomass burner, single-effect absorption chiller and
heat exchanger of the heating process. The model is developed
using energy and exergy analyses which are discussed in the
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985 977

Fig. 1. Trigeneration plant configuration.

following subsections. A commercially available software, Engi- respectively. Here, h denotes efficiency. The net electrical efficiency
neering Equation Solver (EES) [24], was used for solution of the of the system is defined as
equations. The input data used in the analysis are listed in Table 2.
Several assumptions are made to carry out the energy and _ net =Q_
hel ¼ W (2)
i
exergy analyses of the trigeneration system considered. This system
where Q_ i is the total heat rate input produced from the biomass
is assumed to work at steady state. In addition, it is assumed that
burner and defined as
the pressure change is neglected except in the pumps, valves, and
ORC turbine. Furthermore, combustion in the biomass burner is
Q_ i ¼ m
_ f ,LHVf (3)
assumed complete.
The modeling of the single-effect absorption chiller is similar to where m_ f is the fuel mass rate and LHVf is the lower heating value
that used by Herlod et al. [25]. The result of the single-effect and defined as [26]
absorption chiller analysis is validated with the data from Herlod
et al. [25].
Table 2
2.1. Energy analysis Input data.

ORC
In this subsection, energy analysis of the system considered is Organic cycle pump isentropic efficiency 80%
presented. The net electrical power of the system is defined as Organic cycle turbine isentropic efficiency 80%
Effectiveness of the organic cycle evaporator 80%
_ ot  W
_ net ¼ h ,W _ op =h _
motor  W sp =hmotor
W (1) Mass flow rate 7 kg/s
g
Baseline pinch point temperature of the ORC evaporator 40 K
where W_ is the power, and the subscripts g, op, sp, and, ot indicate Baseline turbine inlet pressure 2000 kPa
Baseline pump inlet temperature 365 K
generator, ORC pump, solution pump, and ORC turbine,
Electrical motor efficiency 95%
Electrical generator efficiency 95%

Table 1
Chilling cycle
Characteristics of pine sawdust.
Overall heat transfer coefficient of the absorber 75 kW/K
Biomass type Pine sawdust Overall heat transfer coefficient of the condenser 80 kW/K
Moisture content in the fuel (% wt) 10% Overall heat transfer coefficient of the generator 70 kW/K
Ultimate analysis (% wt dry basis) Overall heat transfer coefficient of the evaporator 95 kW/K
wc 50.54% Effectiveness of solution heat exchanger 70%
wh 7.08%
wo 41.11% Ambient condition
ws 0.57% Ambient pressure 101.3 kPa
Ambient temperature 298.15 K
Source: [36].
978 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985

LHVf ¼ HHVf  226:04,wh  25:82$Mw (4) Mw ,MCHO

u¼ (14)
where Mw is the moisture content in the biomass and HHVf is the
1  Mw ,MH2 O
higher heating value and defined, using Dulong’s and Perit formula where Mw is the moisture content in the biomass. The molar flow
[27], as rate of the biomass is defined as

HHVf ¼ 338:3,wc þ 1443,ðwh  wo=8Þ þ 94:2,ws (5) n_ CHO ¼ m

_ biomass =MCHO ,1000ðmole=sÞ (15)

where wc, wo, wh, and ws are the dry-biomass weight percentages where, MCHO , is the molecular weight of the biomass. To find the
of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulphur, respectively; and their coefficients of the right hand side of Equation (13), elements
values are listed in Table 1. The efficiency of the heating cogene- balances are carried out as shown below:
ration is defined as
a1 ¼ wc (16)
_ net þ Q_
W
hcog;h ¼ h
(6)
Q_ i wh þ u
a2 ¼ (17)
2
where Q_ h is the heating power and the subscript cog, h indicates
the heating cogeneration. The heating power is defined as
a3 ¼ 79=21,l (18)


Q_ h ¼ m
_ hp , hhp;2  hhp;1 (7)
2,a1 þ a2  u  wo
g¼ (19)
where m _ hp is the mass flow rate for the heating process, and hhp;1 2
and hhp;2 are the specific enthalpies of the water at the inlet and To find the flame temperature of the burner, we need to carry
exit of the heating-process heat exchanger, respectively. The effi- out the enthalpy balance between the burner inlets and exit. The
ciency of the cooling cogeneration is defined as enthalpy balance equation is

_ net þ Q_
W hCHO;1 þ u,hH2 O;1 þ g,hO2 ;2 þ 79=21,g,hN2 ;2
hcog;c ¼ ev
(8)
Q_ i ¼ a1 ,hCO2 ;3 þ a2 ,hH2 O;3 þ 79=21,g,hN2 ;3 (20)
where the subscripts cog, c and ev indicate the cooling cogenera- Here hCHO;1 is unknown. It can be found from this equation:
tion and cooling energy produced by the chilling subsystem
through the evaporator. The cooling load of the evaporator is hCHO;1 ¼ wc,hCO2 ;1 þ wh=2,hH2 O;1;l þ HHVbiomass ,MCHO (21)
defined as
  The total enthalpy at state 3 can be found from this equation:
Q_ ev ¼ m
_ 8 ,ðh9  h8 Þ ¼ m
_ ev , hev;1  hev;2 (9)

where hev;1 and hev;2 are the specific enthalpies of the water at the H_ 3 ¼ n_ CO2 ;3 ,hCO2 ;3 þ n_ H2 O;3 ,hH2 O;3 þ n_ N2 ;3 ,hN2 ;3 (22)
inlet and exit of the cooling evaporator, respectively. The efficiency
of trigeneration is defined as Similarly, the total enthalpy at state 4 can be found from this
equation:
_ net þ Q_ þ Q_
W
htri ¼ H_ 4 ¼ n_ CO2 ;4 ,hCO2 ;4 þ n_ H2 O;4 ,hH2 O;4 þ n_ N2 ;4 ,hN2 ;4
ev h
(10) (23)
Q_ i
The pinch point temperature of the evaporator is defined as [28]:
The electrical to heating ratio is defined as
Tpp ¼ T4  T5 (24)
_ net =Q_
rel;h ¼ W (11)
h

The electrical to cooling ratio is defined as 2.2. Exergy analysis

_ net =Q_
rel;c ¼ W (12) Exergy destruction is an important parameter in exergy analysis.
ev
It is defined as the potential work lost due to irreversibility. The
exergy destruction rate of a control volume at a steady state is
defined as
2.1.1. Biomass burner
!
Since the biomass burner is a main component in the trigener- X T0 _ X X
_ _ cy þ _ i exi  _ e exe
ation system considered that requires details modeling, its Exd ¼ 1 Qj  W m m (25)
j
Tj e
modeling is presented next. The chemical equation of the biomass i
combustion with air assuming complete combustion is _
where T, ex, and Ex d are, temperature, exergy per mass flow rate,
and rate of exergy destruction, respectively. The subscript j is the
Cwc Hwh Owo þ uH2 Oliq þ gO2 þ79=21N2 /a1 CO2 þ a2 H2 O
property value at state j and the subscript 0 is the value of a prop-
þ a3 N2 (13) erty at the surrounding. The subscripts i and e indicate inlet and
exit, respectively. The total exergy rate is defined as
where wh, wc, wo, and ws refer to hydrogen, carbo, oxygen and
sulphur, respectively; and their dry-biomass weight percentage
extotal ¼ exPH þ exCH (26)
values are listed in Table 1. Here u is the moisture content factor
in the biomass in the chemical reaction. u can be shown to be where exPH is the physical exergy per mass flow rate at a given state
equal to and defined as
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985 979

   
V 2  V02 exN2 ;3 ¼ hN2 ;3 hN2 ;0 T0 , sN2 ;3 Rm,ln xN2 ;3 sN2 ;0 (37)
exPH ¼ ðh  h0 Þ  T0 ðs  s0 Þ þ þ gðz  z0 Þ (27)
2
The physical exergy at state 4 can be calculated similarly as state
where h, s, V, z, and g are enthalpy per unit mass, entropy per unit 3. To find the chemical exergy of the species at the inlets and exit of
mass, velocity, elevation, and gravity, respectively. In this study, the the burner, we need to know the standard chemical exergies of
velocity and elevation effects are neglected. The chemical exergy of these species. The standard chemical exergies of the species at the
an ideal gas for a species j is defined as [29] inlets and exit, except for the biomass, are shown in Table 3. The

  standard chemical exergy of the biomass was defined above.
exCH
j ¼ Mj  xj ,exCH
j þ R,T0 ,xj ,ln xj (28)
exbiomass ¼ b,LHVbiomass (38)
where Mj is the molecular weight of species j and exCH j is the
standard chemical exergy value of species j. The values of standard
chemical-exergy species related to the analysis of the system 3. Results and discussion
considered are listed in Table 2. The variables x and R are the molar
concentration and universal gas constant, respectively. The net The performance of the trigeneration system is examined
electrical exergy efficiency is defined as through different parameters, namely, energy efficiency, exergy
efficiency, power, and electrical to heating and cooling ratios, as
_ net =Ex
hex;el ¼ W _ (29)
f well as exergy destruction analysis. These parameters are examined
_ is the fuel (biomass) chemical exergy and defined as through changing the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature,
where Exf
pump inlet temperature, and turbine inlet pressure. The range of
_ _ CHO ,b,LHVf ,MCHO =1000 ORC evaporator pinch point temperature [28], pump inlet
Exf ¼ n (30)
temperature [25,31] and turbine inlet pressure [32e34] considered
where b is the chemical-exergy coefficient,which is defined for here are taken from the literature. The baseline values of the ORC
solid hydrocarbons fuel (for O=C < 2) as [30]: evaporator pinch point temperature, pump inlet temperature, and

1:044 þ 0:016,ðwh=wcÞ  0:3493,ðwo=wcÞ,ð1 þ 0:0531,wh=wcÞ

b¼ (31)
1  0:4124,wo=wc

The exergy efficiency of the cooling cogeneration is defined as turbine inlet pressure are 40 K, 365 K and 2000 kPa, respectively.
   The thermodynamic properties of the states in the biomass-
_ net þ 1  T0
W ,Q_ ev trigeneration system under baseline conditions, as in Table 2, are
Tev
hex;cog;c ¼
_
(32) listed in Table 4 below.
Ex f

The heating-cogeneration exergy efficiency is defined as 3.1. Effect of the pinch point temperature of the ORC evaporator
!!
T0
_ net þ
W 1 ,Q_ h The effect of the pinch point temperature of the ORC evaporator
Thp
hex;cog;h ¼ _
(33) is examined under the baseline pump inlet temperature, 365 K, and
Exf baseline turbine inlet pressure, 2000 kPa. The effects of pinch point
where the subscript hp indicates the heating-process heat temperature variation are examined in Figs. 2e5.
exchanger. The trigeneration exergy efficiency is defined as Fig. 2 presents the effects of the pinch point temperature on the
energy efficiencies. This figure shows the efficiencies of electrical
!!    power, cooling-cogeneration, heating-cogeneration, and trigener-
T0 T0
_ net þ
W 1 ,Q_ h þ 1  ,Q_ ev ation cases. This figure demonstrates that as the pinch point
Thp Tev
hex;tri ¼ _
(34) temperature increases, the efficiencies of the electrical, heating-
Ex f cogeneration, and trigeneration cases decrease; however, the effi-
ciency of the cooling-cogeneration is almost constant. These results
where the subscript tri indicates trigeneration.
are explained as follows. As the pinch point temperature increases,
Because the burner involves chemical reaction, we need to
the amount of the heat input to the ORC evaporator decreases.
calculate both the physical and chemical exergies at the inlets and
Therefore, T6 decreases. As T6 decreases, the electrical power
exit of the burner. The physical exergy at the inlets of the burner is
produced through the use of the turbine decreases and, thus, the
zero because the fuel and air enter at surrounding conditions. The
electrical efficiency decreases. In addition, as T6 decreases, the
physical exergies at the exit of the burner, state 3, assuming
amount of the total heat available at state 4 decreases and, hence,
complete combustion are
   
exCO2 ;3 ¼hCO2 ;3 hCO2 ;0 T0 , sCO2 ;3 Rm,ln xCO2 ;3 sCO2 ;0
Table 3
(35) Standard chemical exergy.

exCH
H2 O 9.5 kJ/mol
exCH
O2 3.97 kJ/mol
    exCH
N2 0.72 kJ/mol
exH2 O;3 ¼ hH2 O;3 hH2 O;0 T0 , sH2 O;3 Rm,ln xH2 O;3 sH2 O;0 exCH 19.87 kJ/mol
CO2
(36) Source: [30].
980 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985

Table 4
Thermodynamic properties of the stations.

state m (kg/s) T (K) P (kPa) h (kJ/kg) ex (kJ/kg)

1 259 298.15 101.3 9442 18.43
2 1471 298.15 101.3 0 0.003
3 1730 2077.51 101.3 65.4 1.433
4 1730 405 101.3 203.5 0.051
5 7.0 365.9 2000 161.3 18.8
6 7.0 549 2000 708.4 209.2
7 7.0 432.85 35.7 625 111.2
8 7.0 365 35.7 186 20.8
9 7.0 365 35.7 157.5 15.6
10 0.067 336.46 5.4 2618 78.27
11 0.067 307.52 5.4 144 0.508
12 0.067 278.16 0.87 144 6
13 0.067 278.15 0.87 2510 176
14 0.34 303.4 0.87 67.3 11.1
15 0.34 303.41 5.4 67.3 11.1
16 0.34 332.21 5.4 128.3 71.81
17 0.273 365 5.4 244.5 117.3
18 0.273 321.88 5.4 168.5 41.64
19 0.273 329 0.87 168.5 41.6

the heating-cogeneration efficiency decreases. Also, depending on
the operating condition of the turbine, the pressure changes. What
controls the cooling power is the values of the properties of the
fluid at states 5 and 1. The only possible change for state 5 at the
current condition is the pressure. Note that state 8 always has the
same temperature, pressure, and mass flow rate as state 9, but state
8 is saturated vapor and state 9 is saturated liquid. Therefore, what
controls the cooling power as the pinch point temperature varies is
the pressure change at state 5. Since the change in the pressure is
small under this condition, the change in the cooling-cogeneration
efficiency is almost constant. It can be observed that when tri-
generation is used, the energy efficiency increases significantly. It
increases from around 12% for electrical power to around 89% when
trigeneration is used. In addition, this figure shows that the effi-
ciencies of the trigeneration and heating cogeneration drop 5% as
the pinch point temperature increases from 20 to 60 K while the
electrical efficiency is less sensitive to the pinch temperature. Its
electrical efficiency drops by about 3% as the pinch point temper-
ature increases. In contrast, for cooling cogeneration the efficiency
Fig. 3. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the electrical power at
P6 ¼ 2000 kPa, T1 ¼ 365 K.
is insensitive to the pinch point temperature change and its effi-
ciency is around 16%.
Fig. 3 illustrates the net electrical power variation with the pinch
point temperature of the ORC evaporator. It can be observed that as
the pinch point temperature of the ORC evaporator increases, the
net electrical power decreases. It decreases from 600 kW at 20 K to
almost 450 kW at 60 K. This decrease is attributed to the decrease in
the amount of heat input to the ORC evaporator as the pinch point
temperature of the ORC evaporator increases.
Fig. 4 presents the electrical to heating ratio and electrical to
cooling ratio variation with the change in the pinch point
temperature of the ORC evaporator. It can be noticed that the
electrical to cooling ratio is sensitive to the change in the ORC
evaporator pinch point temperature. This sensitivity is attributed to
the size of the single-effect absorption chiller, which has smaller
cooling power capacity compared to the electrical power. This ratio
decreases from 5.0 at 20 K to 2.3 at 60 K. The electrical to heating

Fig. 2. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the efficiency at Fig. 4. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the electrical to
P6 ¼ 2000 kPa, T1 ¼ 365 K. heating and cooling ratios at P6 ¼ 2000 kPa, T1 ¼ 365 K.
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985
Fig. 5. Effect of the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature on the exergy efficiency
at P6 ¼ 2000 kPa, T1 ¼ 365 K.
ratio is insensitive to the change in the ORC evaporator pinch point
temperature. The main reason is the large size of the heating power
as compared with the electrical power produced by the system.
Fig. 5 shows the exergy efficiency variation with the change in
the pinch point temperature of the ORC evaporator. This figure
demonstrates that the exergy efficiencies of all four cases decrease
as the pinch point temperature increases. This reason of this
behaviour is explained next. The numerators of the exergy effi-
ciencies of the four efficiencies of the cases considered are function
of the electrical power. Thus, decrease of the electrical power as the
pinch point temperature increases reduces the exergy efficiencies.
Meanwhile the exergy efficiency of the heating-cogeneration is
function of the heat power and the heat exchanger temperature of
the heating process. The increment in the pinch point temperature
results in a reduction in T6 and, thus, T7 reduces. Therefore, both the
heating power and the temperature of the heat exchanger of the
Fig. 6. Effect of pump inlet temperature on the efficiency at P6 ¼ 2000 kPa, Tpp ¼ 40 K.
981
Fig. 7. Effect of pump inlet temperature on the electrical power at P6 ¼ 2000 kPa,
Tpp ¼ 40 K.
heating process decreases. Hence, the exergy efficiency of the
heating-cogeneration decreases. Likewise, as the pinch point
temperature increases, the cooling power decreases and, therefore,
the efficiency of the cooling-cogeneration drops. It can be observed
that the exergy efficiency increases considerably when the trigen-
eration is used, as compared with the electrical-power case. The
exergy efficiency increases from around 11% for the electrical-
power case to 27% for the trigeneration case. In addition, it can be
observed that the electrical and cooling-cogeneration exergy effi-
ciencies are more sensitive to the change in the pinch point
temperature as compared with trigeneration and heating-
cogeneration exergy efficiencies. The electrical exergy efficiency
decreases from 12% at 20 K to 10% at 60 K. Conversely, the trigen-
eration and heating-cogeneration exergy efficiencies remain
almost constant at 28% and 27%, respectively.
Fig. 8. Effect of pump inlet temperature on the electrical to heating and cooling ratios
at P6 ¼ 2000 kPa, Tpp ¼ 40 K.
982 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985
Fig. 9. Effect of pump inlet temperature on the exergy efficiency at P6 ¼ 2000 kPa,
Tpp ¼ 40 K.
3.2. Effect of the inlet temperature of the ORC pump
In this study, the inlet temperature of the pump is examined
from 345 to 380 K, which represents the operating temperature of
an ideal single-effect absorption chiller in practise. The effect of
pump inlet temperature is examined under the baseline turbine
inlet pressure, 2000 kPa, and baseline pinch point temperature of
the ORC evaporator, 40 K.
Fig. 6 shows the electrical efficiency, cooling-cogeneration effi-
ciency, heating-cogeneration efficiency, and trigeneration effi-
ciency versus pump inlet temperature. It can be observed that the
electrical efficiency decreases from 14% at 345 K to 11% at 380 K. On
the other hand, with the use of cooling cogeneration, the efficiency
increases from 16% at 345 K to 17% at 380 K. This small gain in
cooling-cogeneration efficiency, as compared with electrical
Fig. 10. Effect of turbine inlet pressure on the efficiency at T9 ¼ 365 K, Tpp ¼ 40 K.
Fig. 11. Effect of turbine inlet pressure on the electrical power at T9 ¼ 365 K,
Tpp ¼ 40 K.
efficiency, is associated with the size of the single effect-absorption
chiller that was selected based on what is available in the industry
[31] for cooling-cogeneration applications. On the other hand, since
only a small portion of the waste heat was used for cooling, the gain
in the heating-cogeneration efficiency is high. The heating-
cogeneration efficiency decreases from 87% at 345 K to reach 80%
at 380 K. Alternatively, the trigeneration efficiency decreases from
89% at 345 K to 87% at 380 K.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of the pump inlet temperature on elec-
trical power. It can be observed that electrical power decreases
from 510 kW at 345 K to 350 kW at 380 K. The decrease in the
power with the increase in the pump inlet temperature is attrib-
uted to the decrease in the temperature difference between the
maximum temperature in the ORC, T6 , and minimum temperature
in the ORC, T9 . The reduction in the temperature difference results
in a reduction in the electrical efficiency and, therefore, the elec-
trical power decreases.
Fig. 12. Effect of turbine inlet pressure on the electrical to heating and cooling ratios at
T9 ¼ 365 K, Tpp ¼ 40 K.
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985
Fig. 13. Effect of turbine inlet pressure on the exergy efficiency at T9 ¼ 365 K,
Tpp ¼ 40 K.
Fig. 8 illustrates the effect of the electrical to heating and cooling
ratios. It can be noticed that the electrical to cooling ratio is
sensitive to the change in the pump inlet temperature. This sensi-
tivity is attributed to the size of the single-effect absorption chiller,
which has smaller cooling power capacity compared with the
electrical power. This ratio decreases from 5.3 at 345 K to 1.8 at
380 K. Therefore, when further cooling energy is needed, the
recommendation is to run the system at a higher pump inlet
temperature. The electrical to heating ratio is insensitive to the
variation in the pump inlet temperature. The main reason for this is
the large amount of the heating power as compared to the electrical
power produced by the system. The electrical to heating ratio
decreases from 0.2 at 345 K to 0.15 at 380 K.
Fig. 9 shows the exergy efficiency versus the ORC pump inlet
temperature. This figure shows that the exergy efficiency of the
electrical case decreases as this temperature increases. This
decrement is attributed to the decrease in electrical power as this
Fig. 14. Overall exergy destruction percentages (P6 ¼ 2000 kPa, T9 ¼ 365 K, and Tpp ¼ 40 K).
983
temperature increases. Also, the exergy efficiency of the cooling-
cogeneration case decreases as this temperature increases. The
cause of this decrement is explained in the following text. The
numerator of the cooling-cogeneration exergy efficiency consists of
both electrical power and cooling power. The electrical power
decreases as this temperature increases, as previously discussed,
while the cooling power increases. Since the electrical power is
larger than cooling power, which is shown in Fig. 8, the exergy
efficiency of the cooling cogeneration decreases as this tempera-
ture increases. The electrical exergy efficiency is 13% at 345 K, and it
decreases as the turbine inlet temperature increases to reach 10% at
380 K. When cooling cogeneration is considered, the exergy effi-
ciency increases by 0.5%. Alternatively, when heating cogeneration
or trigeneration is used, the heating-cogeneration exergy efficiency
and trigeneration-exergy efficiency increase considerably by
around 27% and 28%, respectively.
3.3. Effect of the inlet pressure of the turbine
Figs. 10e13 show the effects of the turbine inlet pressure on the
performance of the trigeneration system. The baseline pump inlet
temperature is 365 K and the baseline pinch point temperature of
the ORC evaporator is 40 K. It can be observed that the effect of the
pressure change is insignificant on the performance of the system.
This result is important since it indicates that the ORC can be
operated under low pressure, and this results in cost savings.
Fig. 10 presents the effect of the turbine inlet pressure on the
efficiency. This figure shows that, as the pressure increases, the
efficiencies of all the cases decrease by less than 0.5%. The small
decrement is attributed to the range of the pressure that was
selected, a selection that was based on the literature [32e35]. This
figure illustrates that the electrical efficiency is 12.5% at 2000 kPa
and, as the pressure increases, it reaches 12% at 6000 kPa. Alter-
natively, when cooling cogeneration is considered, the cooling-
cogeneration efficiency increases, on average, by 4% compared
with the electrical power efficiency. On the other hand, when
heating cogeneration is considered, the heating-cogeneration effi-
ciency increases to around 84%. Alternatively, when trigeneration is
used, the efficiency increases to around 88%.
Fig. 11 presents the net electrical power versus the turbine inlet
pressure. The net power decreases from 530 kW at 2000 kPa to
480 kW at 6000 kPa. It can be observed that there is only a small
984 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985

drop in the power with the increase in the turbine inlet pressure. maximum cooling exergy efficiency is 13.5%, maximum heating
This small drop is attributed to the small drop in the efficiency as exergy efficiency is 27%, and maximum trigeneration exergy
this pressure increases. efficiency is 28%.
Fig. 12 shows the electrical to heating and cooling ratios versus  The performance of the trigeneration system is insensitive to
the turbine inlet pressure. It can be observed that the turbine inlet the variation of the turbine inlet pressure. Therefore, it is rec-
pressure is less sensitive to the electrical to cooling ratio as ommended to operate the ORC on low pressure since this will
compared with the change in the ORC pump inlet temperature. This result in cost savings.
ratio is less sensitive since the electrical power and cooling power  The electrical to cooling ratio is sensitive to the variation in the
are less sensitive to the change in the pressure as compared to the ORC evaporator pinch point temperature and pump inlet
ORC pump inlet temperature changes. The electrical to cooling ratio temperature. Therefore, when further cooling energy is
is 3.3 at 2000 kPa and decreases as the pressure increases to reach 3 needed, it is recommended to run the system at higher ORC
at 6000 kPa. On the other hand, the electrical to heating ratio is evaporator pinch point temperature and/or higher pump inlet
around 0.2. temperature.
Fig. 13 illustrates the exergy efficiency versus turbine inlet  The two main sources of the exergy destruction are the
pressure. This figure reveals that the exergy efficiency decreases biomass burner (w55%) and the ORC evaporator (w38%).
marginally as the pressure increases. This figure also shows that the Therefore, when designing a similarly trigeneration system as
electrical exergy efficiency decreases from 11% at 2000 kPa to 10% at in this study, the most important components that need
6000 kPa. As an alternative, when cooling cogeneration is consid- considerable care in their design and selection are the
ered, the cooling exergy efficiency increases by 0.5%. Alternatively, biomass burner and ORC evaporator. Moreover, lower exergy
when heating cogeneration or trigeneration is used, the exergy destruction of the trigeneration system considered could be
efficiency increases to 26% or 27%, respectively. obtained at higher exergy efficiency of the trigeneration
system.
3.4. Overall exergy destruction
Acknowledgement
The exergy destruction analysis of different components of the
system at the baseline input data is presented in Fig. 14. It should be The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by
noted that the figure presents the exergy destruction percentage in King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran,
the system and not the available exergy in the system. The exergy Saudi Arabia and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
destruction analysis shows that the biomass burner and ORC Council of Canada.
evaporator destroy most of the exergy in the system. The figure
shows the destructed exergy by the biomass burner is 55% of the Nomenclature
total destructed exergy and the destructed exergy by the ORC
evaporator is 38% of the total destructed exergy. The other ex Exergy per unit mass, kJ/kg
components of the system destroy considerably less exergy. The _
Ex Exergy rate of the fuel, kW
f
heat-exchanger of the heating process and turbine, each one of h Enthalpy per unit mass, kJ/kg
them destroys 3% while all the other remaining components of the HHVf Higher heating value of the biomass, kJ/kg
system destroy only 1%. The study shows that when designing LHVf Lower heating value of the biomass, kJ/kg
a similarly trigeneration system as in this study, the most important Mw Moisture content of water in the biomass, %
components that need considerable care in their design and m _ Mass flow rate, kg/s
selection are the biomass burner and ORC evaporator. ORC Organic Rankine cycle
p Pressure, kPa
3.5. Concluding remarks Q_ Heat rate, kW
R Universal gas constant
Energy and exergy analyses of a biomass trigeneration system rel;h Electrical to heating energy ratio
using an ORC are conducted. The performance of the system is rel;c Electrical to cooling energy ratio
examined under the variation of the ORC evaporator pinch point s Entropy per unit mass, kJ/(kg K)
temperature, pump inlet temperature, and turbine inlet pressure. T Temperature, K
Moreover, exergy destruction analysis is conducted under selected Tpp Pinch point temperature
baseline performance values that produce high trigeneration W Dry-biomass weight percentage, %
performance. The main concluding remarks from this study are as W _ Power, kW
follow:
Greek letters
 The best performace of the trigeneration system is obtained at h Efficiency
Tpp ¼ 20 K, T9 ¼ 345 K, and P6 ¼ 2000 kPa. l Air fuel ratio
 When trigeneration is used as compared with only electrical u Moisture content factor
power, the efficiency of the system increases from around 13%
to around 88%. That is, there is, on average, 75% gain in effi- Subscripts
ciency when trigeneration is used. In addition, the maximum 0 Atmospheric conditions
electrical power efficiency is 14%, maximum cooling- ab Absorber
cogeneration efficiency is 17%, maximum heating- Co Condenser
cogeneration efficiency is 87%, and maximum trigeneration cog, c Cooling cogeneration
efficiency is 89%. cog, h Heating cogeneration
 There is, on average, 17% gain in exergy efficiency when tri- cy Control volume
generation is used as compared with electrical power exergy d Destruction
efficiency. The maximum electrical exergy efficiency is 13%, e Exit
 F.A. Al-Sulaiman et al. / Energy 45 (2012) 975e985 985

el Electrical power [13] Ribarov LA, Liscinsky DS. Microgrid viability for small-scale cooling, heating,
and power. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Transactions of the ASME
ev Evaporator
2007;129(1):71e8.
ex Exergy [14] Tracy T, Ordonez J, Vargas J. First and second law thermodynamic analysis of
f Fuel a domestic scale trigeneration system. In: Proceedings of the energy
g Generator sustainability conference 2007. Long Beach, CA, United States: ASME; 2007.
759e66.
h Heating [15] Khaliq A, Kumar R. Thermodynamic performance assessment of gas turbine
hp Heating process trigeneration system for combined heat cold and power production. Journal of
i Inlet Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Transactions of the ASME 2008;
130(2).
j Indicate a property of a value at state j [16] Kowalski GJ, Zenouzi M. Selection of distributed power-generating systems
o Organic based on electric, heating, and cooling loads. Journal of Energy Resources
oe ORC evaporator Technology, Transactions of the ASME 2006;128(3):168e77.
[17] Lian Z, Chua K, Chou S. A thermoeconomic analysis of biomass energy for
op ORC cycle pump trigeneration. Applied Energy 2010;87(1):84e95.
ot ORC cycle turbine [18] Rentizelas A, Karellas S, Kakaras E, Tatsiopoulos I. Comparative techno-
sp Solution pump economic analysis of orc and gasification for bioenergy applications. Energy
Conversion and Management 2009;50(3):674e81.
tri Trigeneration [19] Verda V. Solid oxide fuel cell system configurations for distributed generation.
Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology, Transactions of the ASME 2008;
5(4).
Superscripts [20] Akkaya AV, Sahin B. A study on performance of solid oxide fuel cell-organic
Molar base rankine cycle combined system. International Journal of Energy Research
CH Chemical exergy 2009;33(6):553e64.
[21] Al-Sulaiman FA, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur F. Energy analysis of a trigeneration
PH Physical exergy plant based on solid oxide fuel cell and organic rankine cycle. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(10):5104e13.
[22] Al-Sulaiman FA, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur F. Exergy analysis of an integrated
References solid oxide fuel cell and organic rankine cycle for cooling, heating and power
production. Journal of Power Sources 2010;195(8):2346e54.
[1] Energy Information Administration. International energy outlook, USA; 2009. [23] Casten T. District energy with trigenerated ammonia cooling. ASHRAE
[2] Kerr T. Combined heating and power and emissions trading: options for policy Transactions 1994;100(1):1136e43.
makers. France: International Energy Agency; 2008. [24] Klein SA. Engineering equation solver. Academic Professional. Version 8,
[3] International Energy Agency. Combined heat and power: evaluating the www.fchart.com/ees/ees.shtml; 2010.
benefits of greater global investment, France; 2008. [25] Herlod KE, Radermacher R, Klein S. Absorption chillers and heat pumps. USA:
[4] Al-Sulaiman FA, Hamdullahpur F, Dincer I. Trigeneration: a comprehensive CRC Press; 1996.
review based on prime movers. International Journal of Energy Research [26] Ganapathy V. Steam plant calculations manual. USA: Marcel Dekker; 1994.
2011;35(3):233e58. [27] Basu P. Combustion and gasification in fluidized beds. USA: CRC Press; 2006.
[5] Vaja I, Gambarotta A. Internal combustion engine (ice) bottoming with [28] Li KW, Priddy AP. Power plant system design. USA: Wiley; 1985.
organic rankine cycles (orcs). Energy 2010;35(2):1084e93. [29] Moran M, Shapiro H. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. 5th ed.
[6] Wang H, Peterson R, Harada K, Miller E, Ingram-Goble R, Fisher L, et al. England: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2004.
Performance of a combined organic rankine cycle and vapor compression [30] Szargut J. Exergy method: technical and ecological applications. UK: WIT
cycle for heat activated cooling. Energy 2011;36(1):447e58. Press; 2005.
[7] Wang H, Peterson R, Herron T. Design study of configurations on system cop [31] Thermax I. Absorpion cooling: Cogenie, www.thermax-usa.com/index.htm;
for a combined orc (organic rankine cycle) and vcc (vapor compression cycle). 2011.
Energy 2011;36(8):4809e20. [32] Hung T-C. Waste heat recovery of organic rankine cycle using dry fluids.
[8] Carvalho M, Serra LM, Lozano MA. Optimal synthesis of trigeneration systems Energy Conversion and Management 2001;42(5):539e53.
subject to environmental constraints. Energy 2011;36(6):3779e90. [33] Tchanche BF, Papadakis G, Lambrinos G, Frangoudakis A. Fluid selection for
[9] He M, Zhang X, Zeng K, Gao K. A combined thermodynamic cycle used for waste a low-temperature solar organic rankine cycle. Applied Thermal Engineering
heat recovery of internal combustion engine. Energy 2011;36(12):6821e9. 2009;29(11e12):2468e76.
[10] Bagdanavicius A, Jenkins N, Hammond GP. “Assessment of community energy [34] Drescher U, Brfggemann D. Fluid selection for the organic rankine cycle (orc)
supply systems using energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis. Energy in biomass power and heat plants. Applied Thermal Engineering 2007;27(1):
2012;45(1):247e55. 223e8.
[11] Bhattacharya A, Manna D, Paul B, Datta A. Biomass integrated gasification [35] Riffat SB, Zhao X. A novel hybrid heat-pipe solar collector/chp systemepart ii:
combined cycle power generation with supplementary biomass firing: energy theoretical and experimental investigations. Renewable Energy 2004;29(12):
and exergy based performance analysis. Energy 2011;36(5):2599e610. 1965e90.
[12] Huangfu Y, Wu J, Wang R, Kong X, Wei B. Evaluation and analysis of novel [36] Lv P, Xiong Z, Chang J, Wu C, Chen Y, Zhu J. An experimental study on biomass
micro-scale combined cooling, heating and power (mcchp) system. Energy air-steam gasi_cation in a uidized bed. Bioresource Technology 2004;95(1):
Conversion and Management 2007;48(5):1703e9. 95e101.