Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Energy and Buildings
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild
Thermoeconomic optimization of an ice thermal energy storage system for airconditioning 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 Airconditioning Thermoeconomics 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 airconditioning (A/C) systems. To reduce and shift the electricity consumption of A/C systems from onpeak hours to offpeak hours, an ice thermal energy storage (ITES) can be utilized.
In this paper, thermoeconomic 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 onpeak hours (during daytime) to offpeak hours (during nighttime). 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. Email addresses: sepehr@iust.ac.ir (S. Sanaye), ashirazi@mecheng.iust.ac.ir (A. Shirazi).
03787788/$ – 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 costeffective. 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 _{e}_{l}_{e}_{c} 
electricity cost (US$/kWh) 
˙ 
C _{e}_{l}_{e}_{c}
˙
C _{e}_{n}_{v}
cost rate of electricity consumption (US$/s)
penalty cost rate of CO _{2} emission (US$/s)
˙ 

C _{t}_{o}_{t} 
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 _{p}_{h} 
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 _{S}_{T} 
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 
_{C}_{O} _{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 
wetbulb 
(iceoncoil external melt, ice harvester, and iceoncoil 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 shellandtube 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. Thermoeconomic analysis helps designers to reach optimal point of the system performance through a costeffective 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 thermoeconomic analysis in the design and operation of TES systems. Thermoeconomic 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 thermoeconomic and envi ronmental analyses as well as optimization of an ice storage airconditioning 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 thermoeconomic 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 offpeak demand hours when the electricity price is low (usually after midnight). During onpeak 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 onpeak hours is supplied by the storage tank and the ice maker operates only at the nighttime. Therefore, the whole charging cycle is turned off during onpeak 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 _{d}_{c} 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 _{g}_{1} − ω _{2} h _{g}_{2} )
^{ϕ} ^{×} ^{p} ^{w}^{s}
ω = 0.622 ×
p _{a}_{t}_{m} − ϕ × p _{w}_{s}
(3)
(4)
where the terms pws and are water vapor saturation pressure at ambient dry bulb temperature and relative humidity, respectively. p _{w}_{s} 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
( _{S}_{T} ) 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 _{S}_{T} . Therefore, the amount of heat leakage of the tank during charging process (Q _{l}_{,}_{c}_{h} ) is
l,ch ^{=} ^{A} ST T ^{a}^{m}^{b} − T ^{S}^{T}
^{Q}
Rth
^{t} ^{c}^{h}
^{(}^{6}^{)}
where the terms A _{S}_{T} , Rth, and t _{c}_{h} 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} ^{d}^{c}
^{(}^{7}^{)}
where T _{d}_{c} and t _{d}_{c} are discharging temperature and discharging time, respectively. Therefore, the cooling energy which should be stored in the storage vessel (Q _{S}_{T} ) 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} ^{C}^{H}
˙
(11)
S. Sanaye, A. Shirazi / Energy and Buildings 60 (2013) 100–109
103
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the modeled ITES system.
Physical exergy in the general form is deﬁned as follows:
E ˙ ^{P}^{H} = m˙ [(h − h _{0} ) − T _{0} (s − s _{0} )]
(12)
where for liquids (incompressible ﬂuids):
E ˙ ^{P}^{H} =
m˙ c _{p} T _{0} _{T} 0 − 1 − ln _{T} 0
T
T
while for ideal gases:
T
E ^{P}^{H} = 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. Thermoeconomicenvironmental 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, thermoeconomicenvironmental optimization of the system was carried out. To perform this task, two types of objective functions were introduced. The purpose of thermoeconomic 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 _{e}_{n}_{v} ) 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 _{e}_{n}_{v}
(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 _{A}_{H}_{U} = 24202 × A AHU ˙ Z _{p}_{u}_{m}_{p} = 705.48 × W 0.71 pump ^{1} ^{+} 
1− 
pump 0.2 

_{I}_{c}_{e} _{s}_{t}_{o}_{r}_{a}_{g}_{e} _{t}_{a}_{n}_{k} 
_{Z} _{S}_{T} _{=} _{8}_{.}_{6}_{7} _{×} _{1}_{0} [2.9211 exp(0.1416×log V _{S}_{T} )] 

Evaporator Compressor 
Z _{E}_{V} = 16648.3 × A ^{0}^{.}^{6}^{1}^{2}^{3} EV Z _{C}_{o}_{m}_{p} = 39.5×m˙ Comp r p dc suc ^{l}^{n} 
p p dc suc 

0.9− 
p 

Expansion valve 
Z _{E}_{X} = 114.5 × m˙ _{r} 

Condenser 
Z _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} = (516.621 × A _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} ) + 268.45 

Cooling tower 
Z _{C}_{T} = 746.749 × (m˙ _{C}_{T} ) ^{0}^{.}^{7}^{9} ( T _{C}_{T} ) ^{0}^{.}^{5}^{7} (T _{i}_{n}_{,}_{C}_{T} − T _{W}_{T}_{,}_{o}_{u}_{t} ) ^{−}^{0}^{.}^{9}^{9}^{2}^{4} (0.022 T _{W}_{B}_{,}_{o}_{u}_{t} + 0.39) ^{2}^{.}^{4}^{4}^{7} 

˙ 

Compression chiller 
Z _{C}_{h}_{i}_{l}_{l}_{e}_{r} = 150.2 × 
^{Q} Chiller 
Operational cost of the system (including the cost of electricity consumption of each system component during offpeak and on peak hours) can be expressed as follows:
^{C} elec ^{=} ^{(} ^{W} Comp ^{+} ^{W} pump,CT ^{+}
˙
˙
˙
W fan,CT ) × ^{c} elec,offpeak
˙
3600
+ (
˙
^{W} pump,dc ^{+}
W fan,AHU ) × ^{c} elec,onpeak
˙
3600
(18)
The penalty cost of CO _{2} emission (c _{C}_{O} _{2} ) was considered as 90 US dollars per ton of carbon dioxide emissions [21]. Using CO _{2} emis sion factor ( _{C}_{O} _{2} ), the amount of CO _{2} produced in ITES system is obtained as:
m _{C}_{O} _{2} [kg] = _{C}_{O} _{2} [kg/kWh]×annual electricity consumption[kWh]
(19)
where _{C}_{O} _{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 _{C}_{O} _{2} /1000) × c _{C}_{O} _{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 exergycost 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
˙
^{(}^{2}^{2}^{)}
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 exergycost 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 thermoeconomic analysis.
For most of the welldesigned 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 thermoeconomic 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 exergoeconomic factor (f _{k} ) was deﬁned for each component, which indicates the ratio of the capital investment cost (nonexergy 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 _{l}_{o}_{s}_{s}_{,}_{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 _{S}_{T} ), refrigerant saturated
temperature at evaporator (T _{E}_{V} ) and condenser (T _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} ).
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 _{W}_{B}_{,}_{o}_{u}_{t} )+5<T _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} < 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 _{S}_{T} < 0 −30 <T _{E}_{V} < 0 

(T _{W}_{B}_{,}_{o}_{u}_{t} )+5<T _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} < 60 
T _{E}_{V} <T _{S}_{T}
T _{F}_{P}_{,}_{G}_{l}_{y}_{c}_{o}_{l} <T _{S}_{T}
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 wetbulb temperature and condenser saturated temperature. Indeed, the lefthandside limit considered in this study (T _{W}_{B}_{,}_{o}_{u}_{t} + 5) guaran tees that T _{c}_{o}_{n}_{d} is always ﬁve degrees Centigrade above T _{W}_{B}_{,}_{o}_{u}_{t} [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 _{S}_{V}
(1 + i) ^{p} ^{=} ^{}
i
k
Z _{k}
(24)
where Z _{s}_{v} 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.
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 _{s}_{v} 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 _{o}_{p} 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 nonlinear 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
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 offpeak 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 (onpeak 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 inhouse 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 onpeak hours was 0.09 US$/kWh and during offpeak hours was 0.06 US$/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 _{s}_{v} ) 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 thermoeconomic 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 _{C}_{o}_{m}_{p} , the compressor power consumption, and
˙
Inputs 
Outputs 
Reported 
Modeling 
Difference 

results 
(%) 

T _{E}_{V} ( ^{◦} C) 
−20 
m˙ _{r} 
0.2 
0.2001 
0.05 
˙ 

T _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} ( ^{◦} C) 
40 
W _{C}_{o}_{m}_{p} 
9 
9.1102 
1.22 
˙ 

Q _{E}_{V} (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 reemphasized. 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 _{E}_{V} is lower than T _{S}_{T} 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 _{c}_{o}_{n}_{d} . In fact, with increasing T _{c}_{o}_{n}_{d} , 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 _{c}_{o}_{n}_{d} . Thus, the optimum value of T _{c}_{o}_{n}_{d} 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 _{S}_{T} ( ^{◦} C) T _{E}_{V} ( ^{◦} C) 
3.86 
3.31 
12.39 
12.80 

−2.51 
−1.68 

−5.20 
−4.27 

T _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} ( ^{◦} 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 exergoeconomic 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) Exergoeconomic 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) Exergoeconomic 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) Exergoeconomic 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) Exergoeconomic 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) Exergoeconomic 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
exergoeconomic factor
The amount of investment cost, exergy destruction cost, exergy destruction rate, and exergoeconomic 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 exergoeconomic 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
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
Thermoeconomic 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 _{S}_{T}
_{w} c _{p}_{,}_{w} (T _{d}_{c} − T _{F}_{P}_{,}_{w} ) + _{w} i _{p}_{h} +
^{} ice ^{c} p,ice ^{(}^{T} FP,w ^{−} ^{T} ST ^{)}
A _{S}_{T} = 6 ^{V} ^{S}^{T} 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 ^{S}^{T}
˙
^{t}
ch
• Refrigerant mass ﬂow rate:
m˙
_{r} =
˙
Q
EV
h _{6} −
_{h} 5
(A.3)
(A.4)
• Refrigeration cycle compressor power consumption:
˙
W _{C}_{o}_{m}_{p} = m˙ _{r} (h _{7} − h _{6} )
(A.5)
• Condenser heat transfer rate:
˙
Q _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d} = m˙ _{r} (h _{7} − h _{8} )
• Refrigeration system COP
COP =
˙
Q EV
˙
^{W} Comp
• Cooling tower mass ﬂow rate:
m˙ _{C}_{T} = 43.2 × 10 ^{−}^{3} Q _{C}_{o}_{n}_{d}
˙
(A.6)
(A.7)
(A.8)
• Evaporator heat transfer surface area:
A EV = NTU × (mc˙
U
EV
_{p} ) _{m}_{i}_{n}
(A.9)
• Condenser heat transfer surface area:
˙
^{Q} Cond
^{A}
Cond ^{=}
U
Appendix B.
× F ×
_{T} LMTD
(A.10)
The exergycost 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 _{S}_{T}_{,}_{i}_{n}_{t} 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 _{1}_{0}
˙
˙
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 exergycost 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 _{1}_{0} )
˙
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}_{,}_{A}_{H}_{U} = c _{3}
c _{F}_{,}_{S}_{T} = c _{S}_{T}
c _{F}_{,}_{E}_{V} = c _{5}
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
^{c} F,Comp ^{=} ^{c} w,Comp
c _{F}_{,}_{E}_{X} = 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}^{.}^{1}^{2}^{)}
(B.13)
^{(}^{B}^{.}^{1}^{4}^{)}
[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, Thermoeconomic 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 icestorage 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, Thermoeconomic analysis of sensible heat, thermal
energy storage systems, Applied Thermal Engineering 18 (1998) 693–704.
M.A. Badar, S.M. Zubair, A.A. AlFarayedhi, Secondlaw based thermoeconomic
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 airconditioning 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, Thermoeconomic optimization of subcooled 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/2emissions.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., PrenticeHall, 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., PrenticeHall, New Jersey, 1991, pp. 325–389. [33] ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Systems and Equipment, Cooling Towers, 2008, pp. 1–20 (chap. 39).
[31]
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.