Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Energy and Buildings

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild Thermo-economic optimization of an ice thermal energy

Thermo-economic optimization of an ice thermal energy storage system for air-conditioning applications

Sepehr Sanaye , Ali Shirazi

Energy Systems Improvement Laboratory (ESIL), School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Narmak, Tehran 16844, Iran

a r t i

c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 19 November 2011 Received in revised form 27 October 2012 Accepted 26 December 2012

Keywords:

Ice thermal energy storage system Air-conditioning Thermo-economics Environmental Genetic algorithm Optimization

a b s t r a c t

A major portion of electricity consumption in buildings in residential, administrative, and commercial

sectors is related to air-conditioning (A/C) systems. To reduce and shift the electricity consumption of A/C systems from on-peak hours to off-peak hours, an ice thermal energy storage (ITES) can be utilized.

In this paper, thermo-economic optimization of an ITES system was carried out for A/C applications. In

order to consider the environmental aspects, a penalty cost was considered for CO 2 emission. Applying the genetic algorithm optimization technique, the optimum values of system design parameters were obtained. The objective function included the capital and operational costs as well as the penalty cost due to CO 2 emission, without and with costs associated with exergy destruction. The results indicated that, on average, the amount of electricity consumption and CO 2 emission of ITES system were lower 9% and 9.8%, respectively, in comparison with those of a conventional system. Furthermore, the ITES extra capital cost could be paid back through savings in electricity cost in 3.43 years.

© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The large part of electricity consumption in buildings is allo- cated to A/C systems. In addition, due to the limited resources of fossil fuels and also strict environmental protection rules, finding an appropriate way to reduce energy consumption is necessary. Several methods are currently used to reduce energy consump- tion in buildings, which can be divided into two main categories of active and passive methods. The passive techniques include shading of facades and fenestrations, use of thermal insulation material, and consideration of a proper orientation for the build- ings’ envelop. Management of the building heat loads through dynamic tariff strategy, optimum operation design, and use of ther- mal energy storage (TES) are examples of the active methods [1]. The basic principle behind using TES systems is shifting the elec- tricity consumption of building cooling from on-peak hours (during daytime) to off-peak hours (during night-time). TES systems are divided into two major categories including sensible heat storage (e.g. water and stone) and latent heat stor- age (e.g. water/ice mixtures and salt hydrates) [2]. In the first type, energy is stored by changing the temperature of energy stor- age media (without phase change). In the second type, energy is stored by changing the phase of energy storage media at a constant

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 77240192; fax: +98 21 77240192. E-mail addresses: sepehr@iust.ac.ir (S. Sanaye), ashirazi@mecheng.iust.ac.ir (A. Shirazi).

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.040

temperature. Considering the same volume, latent heat storage systems can store more energy in comparison with sensible heat storage systems [3]. That is why latent TES systems have been receiving much more attention in recent years, mainly in ice storage for use in A/C applications [4]. Although utilizing cold storage sys- tems and their auxiliary equipment incur extra initial costs, these additional costs are paid back in a short time because of reduction in electricity consumption in comparison with conventional systems. Numerous studies have been carried out on modeling of cold thermal storage systems. MacPhee and Dincer [4] evaluated the performance of ice storage charging and discharging processes on the basis of energy and exergy analyses. The results showed that the exergy analysis is important due to the existing thermody- namic irreversibility in ice storage system. Dincer and Rosen [5] also reviewed and reported the technical, economical, and environ- mental advantages of energy storage systems. The mathematical modeling and optimization of a chilled water thermal storage system was carried out by Henze et al. [6]. In their investiga- tion, they considered the capital investment costs as the objective function. The results showed that addition of a TES system to conventional cooling systems is cost-effective. Henze [7] also eval- uated the performance of four control strategies for an ITES system in a commercial unit. Six parameters were investigated on the system performance: Storage losses, utility rate structures, rate periods, penalty for ice making, storage capacity, and the impact of load forecasting. The results showed that control strategy with the priority of storage has the lowest operational cost. A thermal energy storage module for three different types of ITES systems

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

101

Nomenclature

A

heat transfer surface area (m 2 )

c

the unit cost of exergy

c elec

electricity cost (US$/kWh)

˙

C elec

˙

C env

cost rate of electricity consumption (US$/s)

penalty cost rate of CO 2 emission (US$/s)

˙

C tot

total cost rate (US$/s)

COP

coefficient of performance

c p

specific heat at constant pressure (kJ/(kg K))

CRF

capital recovery factor

˙

E

exergy flow rate (kW)

F

logarithmic mean temperature difference correc- tion factor

h

specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)

i

interest rate (%)

i ph

melting latent heat (kJ/kg)

k

specific heat ratio

m˙

mass flow rate (kg/s)

N

operational hours in a year

n

system life time (year)

NTU

number of transfer unit

Obj

objective function

p

pressure (Pa), extra cost payback period (year)

˙

Q

the time rate of heat transfer (kW)

Q C

cooling load (kWh)

˙

Q C

cooling load (kW)

Q ST

stored cooling energy (kWh)

Rth

total thermal resistance (m 2 K/kW)

s

specific entropy (kJ/kg K)

T

temperature (K)

U

overall heat transfer coefficient (kW/(m 2 K))

V

volume (m 3 )

˙

W

the time rate of energy transfer by work (kW)

Z

capital cost (US$)

˙

Z

capital cost rate (US$/s)

Greek letters

thermal efficiency

CO 2

CO 2 emission factor (kg/kWh)

density (kg/m 3 )

˚

maintenance factor

relative humidity (%)

ω

absolute humidity (kg water vapor/kg dry air)

Subscripts

a

air

AHU

air handling unit

amb

ambient

CH

chemical

ch

charging

Comp

compressor

Cond

condenser

CT

cooling tower

cv

control volume

CW

chilled water

D

destruction

dc

discharging

EV

evaporator

EX

expansion valve

F

fuel

FP

freezing point

int

initial

k

number of flow line

l

leakage

PH

physical

r

refrigerant

ST

storage tank

sv

salvage value

t

time

w

water

WB

wet-bulb

(ice-on-coil external melt, ice harvester, and ice-on-coil internal melt) was developed by Ihm et al. [8]. In their investigation, they evaluated the potential cost savings associated with the use of TES system for various conventional control strategies as well as TES chiller and storage tank sizes and finally determined the best control strategy for a building equipped with a TES system. Habee- bullah [1] investigated the economic feasibility of retrofitting an ITES system for the unique A/C plant of the Grand Holly Mosque of Mecca in Saudi Arabia in full storage and partial storage scenarios. In his study, the operational and the capital investment costs were considered as the objective function. The obtained results showed that applying the full storage strategy is more reasonable to reduce electrical energy consumption. A theoretical model and optimiza- tion of an ITES system in large commercial buildings was carried out by Chen et al. [9]. In their economic analysis, the objective function included initial cost and energy cost of the system, and optimal parameters of the system were ultimately obtained. More- over, designing, installation, and testing of a shell-and-tube TES unit was performed by Ezana et al. [10]. They analyzed the charg- ing and discharging processes from energy and exergy viewpoints and drew useful concluding remarks. Thermo-economic analysis helps designers to reach optimal point of the system performance through a cost-effective way. This analysis can play a key role in the design and optimization of a thermal system. This method can be implemented by applying cost balance equations and obtaining the exergetic unit cost for each component in a thermodynamic cycle. In fact, through combining economic and thermodynamic analysis, this methodology provides very important information about thermodynamic inefficiencies, and also leads to the optimum configuration of the system. Domanski and Fellah [11] investigated the useful aspects of applying thermo-economic analysis in the design and operation of TES systems. Thermo-economic optimization of a sensible ther- mal storage system was also performed by Badar et al. [12]. In their analysis, they minimized the sum of entropy generation cost and annualized capital cost of system components. The present work covers the thermo-economic and envi- ronmental analyses as well as optimization of an ice storage air-conditioning system to save energy/cost and reduce CO 2 emis- sion. To implement this job, thermal modeling of the system was performed. Then, an objective function (the sum of capital cost, operational cost, and penalty cost due to CO 2 emission) without and with the corresponding cost of system exergy destruction was defined and ultimately minimized subject to a list of constraints. In summary, the followings are the main contribution of this paper into the subject:

An ITES system was modeled in detail for A/C applications and was also analyzed from thermo-economic and environmental viewpoints.

The optimal design of modeled system with a new objective func- tion as well as a new list of design parameters was carried out, which is a novel approach in TES system analysis.

102

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

The performance of modeled ITES system was compared with a conventional cooling system from the viewpoints of electricity consumption and the amount of CO 2 emission (in a year).

2. Mathematical modeling

Schematic diagram of the ITES system which has been consid- ered in the present study is demonstrated in Fig. 1. The whole ITES system included two main parts:

Charging cycle including evaporator, compressor, condenser, cooling tower, pump, and expansion valve.

Discharging cycle including air handling unit (AHU), discharging pump, and ice storage tank.

In charging cycle (vapor compression refrigeration system), R134a is used as refrigerant, and water/Glycol solution (chilled water) is the cooling fluid in discharging cycle (Fig. 1). The charging cycle was used to make ice during off-peak demand hours when the electricity price is low (usually after mid-night). During on-peak demand hours when the electricity price is high, the chilled water inside the tubes passed through the ice storage tank and was pumped into AHU for cooling building (discharging process). In this study, full storage strategy was considered for mod- eling of the ITES system. According to this strategy, the total cooling energy used during on-peak hours is supplied by the storage tank and the ice maker operates only at the night-time. Therefore, the whole charging cycle is turned off during on-peak hours.

2.1. Energy analysis

Based on energy analysis, a thermodynamic model of the ITES system is presented in this section. The following assumptions have been taken into consideration while developing the system model:

Expansion valve heat losses and pressure drop within the con- necting pipes were assumed negligible.

All cooling energy is stored in the water/ice medium.

All kinetic and potential effects were assumed negligible.

The states of the refrigerant at evaporator and condenser outlets were considered as saturated vapor and saturated liquid, respec- tively.

The storage tank temperature distribution was assumed constant.

The relations used to model each system component in charging and discharging cycles are given in Appendix A.The required cool- ing energy of the building (Q C , kWh) can be estimated from its

˙

cooling load ( Q C , kW) [13]:

Q C = t

dc

˙

Q C (t) dt

(1)

where t dc is the discharging time (h). Assuming that cooling load of the building is known, the mass flow rate of air within AHU can be calculated as follows:

m˙

a =

˙

Q C

h 1 h 2

(2)

The difference in specific enthalpy of moist air at points 1 and 2 (h 1 h 2 ), which depends on ambient dry bulb temperature (T), absolute humidity (ω), and specific enthalpy of water vapor (h g ) can be expressed as:

h 1 h 2 = c p,a (T 1 T 2 ) + (ω 1 h g1 ω 2 h g2 )

ϕ × p ws

ω = 0.622 ×

p atm ϕ × p ws

(3)

(4)

where the terms pws and are water vapor saturation pressure at ambient dry bulb temperature and relative humidity, respectively. p ws is a function of temperature and can be estimated as follows

[14]:

p ws =

C 1

T

+ C 2 + C 3 T + C 4 T 2 + C 5 T 3 + C 6 ln(T )

(5)

Since a part of stored cooling energy is lost due to heat transfer between the storage tank and its surroundings, a thermal efficiency

( ST ) was defined for the storage tank. Considering a constant tem- perature distribution within the tank, the amount of heat leakage will be a function of inner temperature of the tank, ambient tem- perature, storage tank heat transfer surface area, and its thermal resistance. During the charging process, the temperature of the tank is T ST . Therefore, the amount of heat leakage of the tank during charging process (Q l,ch ) is

l,ch = A ST T amb T ST

Q

Rth

t ch

(6)

where the terms A ST , Rth, and t ch are the storage tank heat transfer surface area, thermal resistance of the storage tank and the charging time, respectively. Similarly, the amount of heat leakage of the storage tank during discharging process is calculated as:

l,dc = A ST T amb T dc

Q

Rth

t dc

(7)

where T dc and t dc are discharging temperature and discharging time, respectively. Therefore, the cooling energy which should be stored in the storage vessel (Q ST ) can be obtained as:

Q ST =

Q C

ST

where

ST = Q ST Q l,ch Q l,dc

Q

ST

2.2. Exergy analysis

= 1 Q l,ch + Q l,dc

Q

ST

(8)

(9)

Exergy is defined as the maximum theoretical useful work that a system can perform in a given state when it comes to the ambient conditions. The method of exergy analysis is a branch of applied thermodynamics which analyzes thermal systems from the second law of thermodynamics standpoint. This type of analysis focuses

not only on the quantity of energy, but also on its quality. The exergy balance equation for a system (Eq. (10)) accounts for the

time rate of exergy transfer due to heat transfer ( E Q ) and work ( E W ),

˙

˙

˙

the exergy transfer rate at the control volume inlet ( E i ) and outlet

˙

˙

( E e ), and the rate of exergy destruction ( E D ) due to thermodynamic

irreversibility within the control volume.

˙

E D =

E Q E W +

˙

˙

i

E i E e = Q j 1 T 0

˙

e

˙

j

˙

T

j

W cv + E i

˙

˙

i

e

˙

E e

(10)

In absence of electromagnetic, electric, nuclear, and surface ten- sion effects and assuming negligible values of change in potential and kinetic energy, the exergy flow rate of various components of ITES system is divided into two parts of physical and chemical exergy [15,16]:

˙

E =

˙

E PH +

E CH

˙

(11)

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

103

A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109 103 Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the modeled ITES system.

Physical exergy in the general form is defined as follows:

E ˙ PH = m˙ [(h h 0 ) T 0 (s s 0 )]

(12)

where for liquids (incompressible fluids):

E ˙ PH =

m˙ c p T 0 T 0 1 ln T 0

T

T

while for ideal gases:

T

E PH = m˙ c p T 0 T 0 1 ln

˙

T 0 + k 1

T

k

ln

0

p

p

(13)

(14)

In this paper, since any chemical reaction did not occur, the chemical exergy was not used in the modeling of ITES system.

3. Thermo-economic-environmental optimization

In order to identify the sources of thermodynamic inefficien- cies, estimate the thermodynamic irreversibility of components, and obtain optimum design parameters which improve the over- all efficiency of the ITES system, thermo-economic-environmental optimization of the system was carried out. To perform this task, two types of objective functions were introduced. The purpose of thermo-economic optimization here is to estimate those design parameters which minimize the objective function.

3.1. The objective function

In this paper, the first objective function includes the rate of

˙

investment and maintenance costs ( Z k ), operational costs (

˙

˙

C elec ),

and the rate of penalty cost due to CO 2 emission ( C env ) which

was included in the objective function to cover the environmen- tal approaches. Therefore, the first objective function represents the total cost rate of the system in terms of US dollar per second:

Obj(1) =

k

˙

Z k +

˙

C elec +

˙

C env

(15)

The investment cost of each cycle component (Z k ) can be esti-

mated based on the cost functions listed in Table 1 [1,15,17–20]. Due to the fact that the values of Z k should be used in form of

˙

investment cost rate ( Z (US$/s)), one may write:

Z k = Z k × CRF × ˚

˙

N × 3600

(16)

where N, ˚ and CRF are the operational hours of ITES system in a year, maintenance factor, and the capital recovery factor, respec- tively. The capital recovery factor depends on the annual interest rate (i) as well as estimated equipment life time (n) which is defined as:

CRF =

n

i(1 + i) 1 (1 + i) i

(17)

104

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

Table 1 The cost functions of various equipments in ITES system [1,15,17–20].

System component

Capital cost function

 
 

0.4162

Air handling unit (AHU)

Pump

Z AHU = 24202 × A

AHU

˙

Z pump = 705.48 × W

0.71

pump 1 +

1

pump

0.2

Ice storage tank

Z ST = 8.67 × 10 [2.9211 exp(0.1416×log V ST )]

Evaporator

Compressor

Z EV = 16648.3 × A 0.6123

EV

Z Comp =

39.5×m˙

Comp

r

p

dc

suc ln

p

p

dc

suc

 

0.9

p

Expansion valve

Z EX = 114.5 × m˙ r

 

Condenser

Z Cond = (516.621 × A Cond ) + 268.45

 

Cooling tower

Z CT = 746.749 × (m˙ CT ) 0.79 ( T CT ) 0.57 (T in,CT T WT,out ) 0.9924 (0.022 T WB,out + 0.39) 2.447

 

˙

Compression chiller

Z Chiller = 150.2 ×

Q

Chiller

Operational cost of the system (including the cost of electricity consumption of each system component during off-peak and on- peak hours) can be expressed as follows:

C elec = ( W Comp + W pump,CT +

˙

˙

˙

W fan,CT ) × c elec,off-peak

˙

3600

+ (

˙

W pump,dc +

W fan,AHU ) × c elec,on-peak

˙

3600

(18)

The penalty cost of CO 2 emission (c CO 2 ) was considered as 90 US dollars per ton of carbon dioxide emissions [21]. Using CO 2 emis- sion factor ( CO 2 ), the amount of CO 2 produced in ITES system is obtained as:

m CO 2 [kg] = CO 2 [kg/kWh]×annual electricity consumption[kWh]

(19)

where CO 2 is 0.968 (kg/kWh) [22]. Thus, the rate of penalty cost of CO 2 emission is defined as fol- lows:

C env = (m CO 2 /1000) × c CO 2

(20)

˙

N × 3600

For the more accurate analysis and greater emphasis on the thermodynamic inefficiencies, one may introduce the following objective function:

Obj(2) = Z k +

˙

k

C elec + C env +

˙

˙

k

˙

C D,k

(21)

˙ ˙

where the last term (

tion cost rate in kth system component. This additional term caused

E D,k ) represents the exergy destruc-

C D,k = c F,k

the optimal design parameters to shift toward the thermodynami-

cally more efficient values. The rate of exergy destruction in each

˙

component ( E D,k ) was computed through Eq. (10). To calculate the unit cost of fuel for each component (c F,k ), it is necessary to calcu-

late the unit cost of exergy for each flow line (c j ) through solving the exergy-cost balance equation in each system component in the general form of:

(c

j

˙

E j ) k,in +

Z k = (c j

˙

˙

E j ) k,out

j j

˙

(22)

where E j and c j are the exergy flow rate and the unit cost of exergy

in each flow line, respectively. Applying relation (22) for each sys- tem component provided a system of k equations which are given in Appendix B. The matrices of computing c j values from the con- structed exergy-cost balance equations as well as the unit cost of fuel for each component are also listed in Appendix B. It should be

˙

noted that the term C D,k is a hidden cost that can only be revealed

through thermo-economic analysis.

For most of the well-designed equipment, as the amount of exergy destruction decreases, or in other words, the efficiency

increases, the cost of exergy destruction diminishes, and in return,

the cost of capital investment goes up. In thermo-economic opti-

mization, the main point is to achieve the best balance between

˙

C D,k

˙

and Z k . In order to obtain this, a parameter named exergo-economic factor (f k ) was defined for each component, which indicates the ratio of the capital investment cost (non-exergy related cost) to the

total cost [15]:

f k =

˙

Z k

˙

Z k + c F,k (

˙

˙

˙

E D,k + E loss,k )

(23)

where E loss,k is the rate of exergy loss in each component. If the value of f k for a component is small, it is suggested to improve the efficiency of that component by reducing the rate of exergy destruction. This is done by increasing the capital investment cost of that component. On the other hand, a higher value of f k implies the need for decreasing capital investment cost, even at the expense of a relative increase in exergy destruction of that component.

3.2. Design parameters

In this study, the design parameters (decision variables) are chilled water temperature at AHU inlet (T 3 ) and outlet (T 4 ), storage

temperature within the ice storage tank (T ST ), refrigerant saturated

temperature at evaporator (T EV ) and condenser (T Cond ).

The list of mentioned design parameters and their range of vari-

ation as well as the constraints for system optimization are listed in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the range of condenser saturated tem- perature is given by (T WB,out )+5<T Cond < 60. This range varies

Table 2 The ITES design parameters and their range of variation as well as the constraints for system optimization.

Constraints

Reason

3<T 3 < 5 11 <T 4 < 13 10 <T ST < 0 30 <T EV < 0

(T WB,out )+5<T Cond < 60

T EV <T ST

T FP,Glycol <T ST

Typical data for refrigeration systems Typical data for refrigeration systems Typical data for refrigeration systems Minimum and maximum refrigerant saturation temperature in evaporator for a wide range of applications Minimum and maximum refrigerant saturation temperature in condenser for a wide range of applications For occurring heat transfer between evaporator and storage tank To avoid occurring icing phenomenon of water/glycol solution at discharge cycle

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

105

completely in line with relation between ambient wet-bulb temperature and condenser saturated temperature. Indeed, the left-hand-side limit considered in this study (T WB,out + 5) guaran- tees that T cond is always five degrees Centigrade above T WB,out [23].

3.3. Genetic algorithm optimization technique

The genetic algorithm considers an optimization problem as an evolutionary problem. The first step in genetic algorithm is to rep- resent a correct solution to the problem by a string of genes. This string of genes, which represent a solution, is known as a chromo- some. Then an initial population of legal chromosome is needed to start the procedure. The genetic algorithm repeatedly modifies the population of individual solutions. At each step, individuals are selected at random from the current population to be parents. These parents are used to produce the children for the next gen- eration. The genetic process will end if there is no change in the optimal values (population’s best fitness) for a specified number of generations. In this study, genetic algorithm technique was used to optimize the objective functions mentioned in Eqs. (15) and (21) to obtain the optimum design parameters of the ITES system.

4. The payback period

Using ITES system, in comparison with conventional cooling system, imposes additional expenses. These extra expenses arise from the capital investment and maintenance costs of the stor- age tank. These additional costs can be compensated over time with the reduction in electricity consumption (in comparison to conventional systems) when ITES systems are applied. The payback period of additional expenses (in years) can be estimated as follows [24,25]:

(Z op ) (1 + i) p 1 i(1 + i) p

+ Z SV

(1 + i) p =

i

k

Z k

(24)

where Z sv is the difference in salvage values of ITES and conven- tional systems. The salvage value is defined as the estimated value that an asset will realize upon its sale at the end of its useful life.

will realize upon its sale at the end of its useful life. Fig. 2. The typical

Fig. 2. The typical commercial building cooling load profile and the chiller load capacity for both ITES and conventional systems in a day.

Therefore, Z sv is given as a percentage of the difference between investment costs of ITES and conventional systems. k Z k is the additional investment cost for substituting ITES system instead of the conventional system. Z op is savings in annual operational cost (the difference in annual operational cost of conventional and IETS systems). Finally, i and p are the interest rate and the payback period. Eq. (24) is a non-linear equation in terms of p which was solved by Newton–Rophson iterative numerical method.

5. The case study

The investigated case study was a commercial building in Ahwaz, a city in south of Iran. The working hours of the building were 7 AM to 7 PM. The daily cooling load of the building is shown

in Fig. 2. The chiller cooling load capacity for ITES and conventional (system with capability of load change (increase or decrease) steps

equal to 25% of nominal cooling load) systems are also shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 illustrates the variation of maximum values of ambient temperatures during a year in Ahwaz [26]. Table 3 outlines the approximate thermal energy stored in the storage tank during

Table 3 The building required cooling load, the ITES cooling and chiller load capacities for our case study during 24 h of a day.

Time of day (h)

Process

Storage (kW)

Building load (kW)

Chiller capacity in ITES system (kW)

Chiller capacity in conventional system (kW)

1

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

2

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

3

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

4

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

5

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

6

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

7

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

8

Discharging

0

305

0

481.5

9

Discharging

0

404

0

481.5

10

Discharging

0

569

0

963

11

Discharging

0

779

0

963

12

Discharging

0

1131

0

1444.5

13

Discharging

0

1490

0

1926

14

Discharging

0

1756

0

1926

15

Discharging

0

1926

0

1926

16

Discharging

0

1750

0

1926

17

Discharging

0

1125

0

1444.5

18

Discharging

0

751

0

963

19

0

0

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

21

0

0

0

0

22

0

0

0

0

23

0

0

0

0

24

Charging

1513.4

0

1513.4

0

106

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109 Fig. 3. Variation of the minimum and

Fig. 3. Variation of the minimum and maximum values of ambient temperatures in a year for Ahwaz [26].

charging and discharging processes, the building cooling load as well as the chiller capacity of ITES and conventional systems quantitatively. As is shown, during off-peak hours when the cooling load of commercial building is zero, the ice maker stores the building required cooling energy in the storage tank. During the day (on-peak hours), the refrigeration system is turned off (discharging process), and the storage tank provides the building required cooling load. The refrigerant used in the modeling of the refrigeration sys- tem is R314a, and all of its properties were obtained from in-house developed software. The thermal resistance (Rth) of the storage tank is 1980 m 2 K/kW [27]. The comfort temperature and the rel- ative humidity of the room as well as the ambient pressure are assumed to be 21 C, 0.55, and 100 kPa, respectively. The electricity cost during on-peak hours was 0.09 US$/kWh and during off-peak hours was 0.06 US$/kWh [3]. To determine CRF (Eq. (17)), the annual interest rate, approx- imate life time of the system, and the maintenance factor were considered as 14% [28], 15 years, and 1.06, respectively. The salvage value ( Z sv ) was considered to be 10% of the difference between the capital costs of two systems [29]. The annual operational hours of ITES system (N) from March to December (Fig. 3) for the charging (12 PM to 7 AM) and discharging (7 AM to 7 PM) cycles were 2100 and 3600 h, respectively.

6. Discussion and results

6.1. Modeling and optimization results

6.1.1. Model verification

From our modeling procedure presented in this paper, the basic parameters of the refrigeration system, including the refrigerant mass flow rate, compressor power consumption, and the coefficient of performance (COP) were obtained from the modeling results and compared with the corresponding values given in Ref. [30]. As shown in Table 4, in this comparison, the difference percent points were less than 1.5%, which is an acceptable value.

6.1.2. Optimization results

In order to achieve the optimal performance of the ITES system from thermo-economic and environmental viewpoints, the opti- mum design parameters (decision variables) were computed by considering two objective functions (1) and (2).

Table 4

The comparison of computed values of system operating parameters including m˙ r ,

the refrigerant mass flow rate,

COP, coefficient of performance, obtained from modeling of vapor compression refrigeration system with the corresponding values reported in Ref. [30].

W Comp , the compressor power consumption, and

˙

Inputs

Outputs

Reported

Modeling

Difference

 

results

(%)

T EV ( C)

20

m˙ r

0.2

0.2001

0.05

 

˙

T Cond ( C)

40

W Comp

9

9.1102

1.22

˙

Q EV (kW)

25.9

COP

2.87

2.8430

0.94

The genetic algorithm optimization was applied for 100 gener- ations, using a search population size of 100 individuals, cross over probability 0.9, and gene mutation probability 0.1. Applying objective function (1) including the cost of investment and maintenance, operational cost, and penalty cost due to CO 2 emission, the optimum design parameters were obtained to min- imize the objective function. In the next step, objective function (2) was used to optimize the system performance, and optimum design parameters of the system were determined accordingly. In this case, the sum of exergy destruction cost rate of system compo-

nents k C D,k was also added to the objective function. In other words, in the second objective function, the hidden costs due to exergy destruction of the system components were re-emphasized. The optimal values of system design parameters for optimization of objective functions (1) and (2) are given in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the optimum value of T EV is lower than T ST about 2.6 C, which is a typical temperature difference based on the results reported in Ref. [4]. The amount of total exergy efficiency of the system was com- puted based on the optimum design parameters obtained from objective functions (1) and (2), with total efficiencies of 30.34% (with the total cost of 1.3441 MUS$) and 32.49% (with the total cost of 1.4337 MUS$), respectively. The results show that objective function (2) considers hidden costs related to the system ther- modynamic irreversibility. Therefore, objective function (2) may be considered more appropriate than objective function (1) when the electricity and investment cost (and therefore the total cost) is relatively high. The difference between results of using objective functions (1) or (2) can also be analyzed for optimum values of T cond . In fact, with increasing T cond , the compressor electricity consumption increases, which results in a decline in COP of the system. It should be noted that objective function (1) does not sense the cost of irreversibili- ties and exergy destruction in various parts of the system. On the other hand, objective function (2) considers hidden costs related to irreversibilities and exergy destruction within system components, which increases with rise in T cond . Thus, the optimum value of T cond obtained from optimization of objective function (2) decreased compared to objective function (1) to shift the system design to a thermodynamically more efficient point.

˙

Table 5 The optimum values of design parameters (decision variables) by using objective functions (1) and (2).

 

Optimum values (objective function (1))

Optimum values (objective function (2))

T 3 ( C) T 4 ( C) T ST ( C) T EV ( C)

3.86

3.31

12.39

12.80

2.51

1.68

5.20

4.27

T Cond ( C)

38.05

36.11

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

107

Table 6 The investment cost, exergy destruction cost, exergy destruction and exergo-economic factor for various components of the ITES system optimized at various ambient temperatures 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 C.

Ambient temperature

AHU

ST

EV

Comp

EX

Cond + CT

 

Investment cost (MUS$)

0.2238

0.0963

0.1093

0.2285

0.0007

0.1883

Exergy destruction cost (MUS$)

0.2501

0.1343

0.1905

0.1677

0.0062

0.5536

30

Exergy destruction (kW) Exergo-economic factor (%)

79.54

97.25

83.08

176.53

18.68

278.06

22.4

20.2

52.1

56.3

14.8

25.3

Investment cost (MUS$)

0.2249

0. 0964

0.1095

0.2481

0.0007

0.2246

Exergy destruction cost (MUS$)

0. 2575

0. 1392

0.1996

0.1779

0.0068

0.5715

35

Exergy destruction (kW) Exergo-economic factor (%)

97.16

98.71

83.88

182.01

22.18

285.31

20.8

19.2

50.3

55.6

14.2

24.7

Investment cost (MUS$)

0.2262

0.0965

0.1096

0.2741

0.0008

0.2586

Exergy destruction cost (MUS$)

0.2652

0.1434

0.2091

0.1885

0.0075

0.5886

40

Exergy destruction (kW) Exergo-economic factor (%)

119.21

100.19

84.75

187.06

26.17

293.95

19.9

18.4

49.4

54.9

13.8

24.1

Investment cost (MUS$)

0.2273

0.0967

0.1098

0.2909

0.0008

0.2906

Exergy destruction cost (MUS$)

0.2624

0.1476

0.2194

0.2076

0.0083

0.6063

45

Exergy destruction (kW) Exergo-economic factor (%)

142.92

102.19

85.49

192.49

30.87

302.77

19.3

17.9

48.8

54.2

12.9

23.7

Investment cost (MUS$)

0.2285

0.0969

0.1099

0.3093

0.0009

0.3285

Exergy destruction cost (MUS$)

0.2799

0.1520

0.2305

0.2199

0.0092

0.6245

50

Exergy destruction (kW) Exergo-economic factor (%)

171.51

104.24

86.48

198.06

36.42

311.86

18.4

17.3

48.1

53.6

11.9

23.1

6.2. Investment costs, exergy destruction costs and

exergo-economic factor

The amount of investment cost, exergy destruction cost, exergy destruction rate, and exergo-economic factor for various compo- nents of ITES system when the ambient temperature was varied from 30 C to 50 C are presented in Table 6 (for the design param- eters obtained from optimization of the objective function (2)). It was observed that the investment cost of each component increases due to the increase in the capacity size of system components when the ambient temperature rises. For instance, with increase of the ambient temperature from 40 C to 45 C, the compressor power consumption, as well as the evaporator and condenser heat trans- fer surface area and their investment cost increase (6.1%, 0.2% and 8.3%, respectively). The exergy destruction cost of each compo- nent (as well as the exergy destruction rate) also goes up when the

ambient temperature rises due to increase in the entropy genera- tion of the system as a result of thermodynamic irreversibility. It is observed that the highest values of thermodynamic irreversibility and exergy destruction cost belong to the condenser and the cool- ing tower (which varies from 0.5536 MUS$ to 0.6245 MUS$ for the various ambient temperatures). The next highest exergy destruc- tion costs were related to AHU (increasing from 0.2501 MUS$ to

0.2799 MUS$ at the various ambient temperatures), evaporator

(from 0.1905 MUS$ to 0.2305 MUS$), and the compressor (from

0.1677 MUS$ to 0.2199 MUS$), respectively.

Table 6 also shows that the amount of exergo-economic fac- tor for each component decreases when the ambient temperature increases. This is due to more intense increase of exergy destruc- tion rate of each component at higher temperatures in comparison with the corresponding capital investment cost (Eq. (23)).

6.3. Performance comparison of ITES system with a conventional

system

To compare the performance of ITES and conventional cooling systems, the amount of electricity consumption in two systems were compared with similar input conditions. The results of this comparison are presented in Fig. 4. The results show that the electricity consumption of ITES system is lower than that of con- ventional system (in this study about 9%). The reason is that the

cooling energy provided by the conventional system is more than the required demand, which is clearly shown in Fig. 2. It should be mentioned that the conventional chiller system considered in this paper is a four steps chiller which is commonly available at the local market and is capable of load change equal to 25% of its nominal cooling load in each step, which results in producing more cooling energy than the required demand. However, the ITES system pro- vided the exact required cooling load by running the chilled water pump at the appropriate times to control the room temperature by a thermostat. Thus, although the ITES system has a lower evaporation temperature compared to the conventional one (which leads to an increment in its electrical consumption), owing to the fact that the conventional system produces an excessive cooling energy (more than required cooling load), the overall electrical consumption of the ITES system is less than the conventional one. Moreover, on average, 0.577 × 10 6 kg carbon dioxide emission was prevented to enter the atmosphere in comparison with that of the conventional system (9.8% decrease) in our case study. Finally, according to Eq. (24), the payback period of the extra cost of ITES system relative to a conventional system was estimated 3.43

system relative to a conventional system was estimated 3.43 Fig. 4. The comparison of electricity consumption

Fig. 4. The comparison of electricity consumption between ITES and conventional systems in a year.

108

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

years. Therefore, the additional expenses imposed by the installa- tion of the storage tank in the ITES system can be compensated in less than four years due to reduction in electricity consumption when ITES system was applied.

7. Conclusions

Thermo-economic modeling and optimum design of an ITES sys- tem was performed for A/C applications. In order to consider the environmental aspects, a penalty cost was considered for CO 2 emis- sion. The whole system consisted of charging (including a vapor compression refrigeration cycle) and discharging cycles (including a storage tank and an air handling unit). The objective function in the system optimization was the total cost (including the capital investment cost, operational cost, and the penalty cost due to CO 2 emission) without and with the cor- responding cost of total exergy destruction by which the objective functions (1) and (2) were introduced, respectively. The optimum values of design parameters obtained from the objective function (2) indicated more thermodynamically efficient design (with the higher total cost). The results of a case study demonstrated that, on average, the amounts of annual electricity consumption and CO 2 emission of the ITES system, relative to a conventional cooling system decreased by 9% and 9.8%, respectively. In addition, the extra cost of ITES sys- tem relative to a conventional one was compensated and recovered within 3.43 years.

Appendix A.

A.1. Air handling unit

The overall heat transfer coefficient, heat transfer surface area and pressure drop for air handling unit (AHU) were obtained from Ref. [3].

A.2. Ice storage tank

The following relations are used to determine the storage tank volume and its heat transfer surface area [4,31]:

V ST =

3600 Q ST

w c p,w (T dc T FP,w ) + w i ph +

ice c p,ice (T FP,w T ST )

A ST = 6 V ST 2/3

2

(A.1)

(A.2)

It should be mentioned that the shape of ice storage tank was assumed to be cylindrical (with diameter equal to the height) in order to minimize the heat leakage rate [4].

A.3. The refrigeration cycle

The relations used to model vapor compression refrigeration system (charging cycle) are [32,33]:

Evaporator heat transfer rate:

Q EV = Q ST

˙

t

ch

Refrigerant mass flow rate:

m˙

r =

˙

Q

EV

h 6

h 5

(A.3)

(A.4)

Refrigeration cycle compressor power consumption:

˙

W Comp = m˙ r (h 7 h 6 )

(A.5)

Condenser heat transfer rate:

˙

Q Cond = m˙ r (h 7 h 8 )

Refrigeration system COP

COP =

˙

Q EV

˙

W Comp

Cooling tower mass flow rate:

m˙ CT = 43.2 × 10 3 Q Cond

˙

(A.6)

(A.7)

(A.8)

Evaporator heat transfer surface area:

A EV = NTU × (mc˙

U

EV

p ) min

(A.9)

Condenser heat transfer surface area:

˙

Q Cond

A

Cond =

U

Appendix B.
Appendix B.

Appendix B.

× F ×

T LMTD

(A.10)

The exergy-cost balance equations for various components of ITES system based on Eq. (22) are written as follows:

Air handling unit (AHU):

˙ ˙

c

1

E 1 + c 3 E 3 +

Z AHU = c 2

˙

E 2 +

˙

˙

c 4 E 4

Ice storage tank:

˙ ˙

c 4 E 4 + c ST

E

Q

CW +

˙ ˙

Z ST = c 3

E 3 + c ST,int

E ST,int

˙

(B.1)

(B.2)

where E ST,int is the initial exergy flow rate in storage tank before

starting charging process.

Evaporator:

 

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

ST,int E ST,int + c 5

E 5 +

Z EV = c ST E ST,ch + c 6

E 6

Compressor:

c

6

˙

˙

˙

E 6 + c w,Comp W Comp + Z Comp = c 7

Expansion valve:

˙

˙

˙

c 8 E 8 + Z EX = c 5 E 5

Condenser:

˙

E 7

˙

˙

c 7 E 7 + c 10 E 10 +

˙

Z Cond = c 8

Cooling tower:

˙

c 9 E 9 +

˙

Z CT = c 10

˙

E 10

˙

˙

E 8 + c 9 E 9

(B.3)

(B.4)

(B.5)

(B.6)

(B.7)

The matrices of computing unit cost of exergy values (c) which are obtained from exergy-cost balance equations as well as the unit cost of fuel for each component are as follows:

A.X = B

A =

˙

E 2

0

0

0

0

0

˙

˙

(

( E 3 E 4 )

0

0

0

0

E 4 E 3 )

˙

˙

00

0

0

( E 6 E 5 )

˙

E

E 5

0

0

˙

˙

˙

6

0

0

0

˙

E 7

0

˙

E

0

7

0

0

0

0

˙

E 8

˙

E 8

0

(

(

˙

0

0

0

0

0

˙

E 9 E 10 )

˙

E 10

˙

E 9 )

(

(

0

E ST,int E Q CW ) E ST,ch E ST,int )

˙

˙

˙

˙

0

0

0

0

(B.8)

S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109

109

B =

˙

Z

˙

˙

Z

˙

Z

AHU

ST

EV

˙

c w,Comp W Comp + Z Comp

˙

Z

EX

Cond

˙

Z

˙

Z

CT

c F,AHU = c 3

c F,ST = c ST

c F,EV = c 5

c F,Comp = c w,Comp

c F,EX = c 8

c F,Cond+CT = c 9

References

X =

c

2

3

5

7

8

9

ST

c

c

c

c

c

c

(B.9)

(B.10)

(B.11)

(B.12)

(B.13)

(B.14)

[1] B.A. Habeebullah, Economic feasibility of thermal energy storage systems,

Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 355–363. I. Dincer, Thermal energy storage systems and applications in buildings, Energy

[2]

and Buildings 34 (2002) 377–388. [3] S. Sanaye, A. Fardad, M. Mostakhdemi, Thermo-economic optimization of an ice thermal storage system for gas turbine inlet cooling, Energy 36 (2011)

1057–1067.

[4] D. MacPhee, I. Dincer, Performance assessment of some ice TES systems, Inter- national Journal of Thermal Sciences 48 (2009) 2288–2299. [5] I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Energetic, environmental and economic aspects of ther- mal energy storage systems for cooling capacity, Applied Thermal Engineering 21 (2001) 1105–1117. [6] G.P. Henze, B. Biffar, D. Kohn, M.P. Becker, Optimal design and operation of a thermal storage system for a chilled water plant serving pharmaceutical buildings, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1004–1019. [7] G.P. Henze, Parametric study of a simplified ice storage model under conven- tional and optimal control strategies, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 125 (2003) 2–12. [8] P. Ihma, M. Krarti, G.P. Henze, Development of a thermal energy storage model for Energy Plus, Energy and Buildings 36 (2004) 807–814. [9] H.-J. Chen, D.W.P. Wangs, S.-L. Chen, Optimization of an ice-storage air conditioning system using dynamic programming method, Applied Thermal Engineering 25 (2005) 461–472.

[10] M.A. Ezana, M. Ozdogana, H. Gunerhanb, E. Aytunc, A. Hepbasli, Energetic and

exergetic analysis and assessment of a thermal energy storage (TES) unit for

building applications, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 1896–1901.

[11] R. Domanski, G. Fellah, Thermo-economic analysis of sensible heat, thermal

energy storage systems, Applied Thermal Engineering 18 (1998) 693–704.

M.A. Badar, S.M. Zubair, A.A. Al-Farayedhi, Second-law based thermo-economic

optimization of a sensible heat thermal energy storage system, Energy 18

(1993) 641–649.

[12]

[13] M.M. Hussain, I. Dincer, S.M. Zubair, A feasibility study of using thermal energy

storage in a conventional air-conditioning system, International Journal of Energy Research 28 (2004) 955–967. [14] ASHRAE Handbook, Fundamentals, Psychrometrics, 2009, pp. 1–16 (chap. 1). [15] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, M. Moran, Thermal Design and Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996, pp. 113–134, 405–459. [16] T.J. Kotas, The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis, Krieger Publishing

Company, FL, 1995, pp. 29–51. P. Roosen, S. Uhlenbruck, K. Lucas, Pareto optimization of combined cycle power system as a decision support tool for trading off investment vs. operating costs, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 42 (2003) 553–560.

[17]

[18] G. Wall, Optimization of refrigeration machinery, International Journal of Refrigeration 14 (1991) 336–340. [19] R. Selbas, O. Kizilka, A. Sencan, Thermo-economic optimization of sub-cooled and superheated vapor compression refrigeration cycle, Energy 31 (2006)

2108–2128.

[20] M.H. Panjeshahi, A. Ataei, Application of an environmentally optimum cooling water system design in water and energy conservation, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 5 (2) (2008) 251–262. [21] http://www.ecocostsvalue.com/httpdocs/content/html/2-emissions.html [22] J. Wang, Z. Zhai, Y. Jing, C. Zhang, Particle swarm optimization for redun- dant building cooling heating and power system, Applied Energy 87 (2010)

3668–3679.

[23] R.J. Dossat, Principles of Refrigeration, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1991, pp. 287–298.

S. Sanaye, M. Aghaei Meybodi, M. Chahartaghi, Modeling and economic analysis of gas engine heat pumps for residential and commercial buildings in various climate regions of Iran, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 1129–1138.

[25] K.K. Humpherys, S. Kattell, Basic Cost Engineering, Marcel Dekker, New York,

[24]

1981.

[26] http://www.irimo.ir/English/statistics/synopH/Ahwaz.txt

[27] M.A. Rosen, I. Dincer, N. Pedinelli, Thermodynamic performance of ice thermal energy storage systems, Journal of Energy Resources Technology 122 (2000)

205–211.

[28] http://www.cbi.ir (The official website of Iranian Central Bank). [29] http://www.mim.gov.ir (The official website of ministry of industries). [30] I. Dincer, Refrigeration Systems and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., England, 2003, pp. 109–210.

B. Kilkis, S. Kakac, Energy Storage System, vol 167, Kluwer Academic Publishers

Series E: Applied Sciences, 1989, pp. 703–720. [32] R.J. Dossat, Principles of Refrigeration, third ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1991, pp. 325–389. [33] ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Systems and Equipment, Cooling Towers, 2008, pp. 1–20 (chap. 39).

[31]