Entropy generation minimization: The new thermodynamics of finitesize

devices and finitetime processes

Adrian Bejan

Citation: J. Appl. Phys. 79, 1191 (1996); doi: 10.1063/1.362674

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.362674
View Table of Contents: http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/JAPIAU/v79/i3
Published by the AIP Publishing LLC.

Additional information on J. Appl. Phys.

Journal Homepage: http://jap.aip.org/
Journal Information: http://jap.aip.org/about/about_the_journal
Top downloads: http://jap.aip.org/features/most_downloaded
Information for Authors: http://jap.aip.org/authors

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
APPLIED PHYSICS REVIEWS

Entropy generation minimization: The new thermodynamics

of finite-size devices and finite-time processes
Adrian Bejan
J. A. Jones Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0300
~Received 12 January 1995; accepted for publication 4 October 1995!
Entropy generation minimization ~finite time thermodynamics, or thermodynamic optimization! is
the method that combines into simple models the most basic concepts of heat transfer, fluid
mechanics, and thermodynamics. These simple models are used in the optimization of real
~irreversible! devices and processes, subject to finite-size and finite-time constraints. The review
traces the development and adoption of the method in several sectors of mainstream thermal
engineering and science: cryogenics, heat transfer, education, storage systems, solar power plants,
nuclear and fossil power plants, and refrigerators. Emphasis is placed on the fundamental and
technological importance of the optimization method and its results, the pedagogical merits of the
method, and the chronological development of the field. 1996 American Institute of Physics.
@S0021-8979~96!04103-9#

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. The method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. Cryogenics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. Heat transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. Storage systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. Solar power plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII. Nuclear and fossil power plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VIII. Refrigeration plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IX. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. OBJECTIVES
Entropy generation minimization ~EGM! is the method
of modeling and optimization of real devices that owe their
thermodynamic imperfection to heat transfer, mass transfer,
and fluid flow irreversibilities. It is also known as thermo-
dynamic optimization in engineering, where it was first de-
veloped, or more recently as finite time thermodynamics
in the physics literature. The method combines from the start
the most basic principles of thermodynamics, heat transfer,
and fluid mechanics, and covers the interdisciplinary domain
pictured in Fig. 1. The most exciting and promising interdis-
ciplinary aspect of the method is that it also combines re-
search interests from engineering and physics.
The objectives of the optimization work may differ from
one application to the next, for example, minimization of
entropy generation in heat exchangers,1 maximization of
power output in power plants,2 8 maximization of an eco-
logical benefit,9 and minimization of cost.10 Common in
these applications is the use of models that feature rate pro-
cesses ~heat transfer, mass transfer, fluid flow!, the finite
sizes of actual devices, and the finite times or finite speeds of
real processes. The optimization is then carried out subject to
physical ~palpable, visible! constraints that are in fact re-
sponsible for the irreversible operation of the device. The
1191 combined heat transfer and thermodynamics model visual-
1192 izes for the analyst the irreversible nature of the device.
1193 From an educational standpoint, the optimization of such a
1197 model gives us a feel for the otherwise abstract concept of
1201 entropy generation, specifically where and how much of it is
1203 being generated, how it flows, and how it impacts thermody-
1206 namic performance.
1212 The emergence of a new field of research is marked by
1214 the appearance of several fundamental results that hold for
entire classes of known and future applications. Although
isolated publications had appeared throughout the 1950s and
1960s, thermodynamic optimization emerged as a self-
standing method and field in the 1970s in engineering, with
applications notably in cryogenics, heat transfer engineering,
solar energy conversion, and education. These first develop-
ments were reviewed in Ref. 1, and Refs. 1113.
The field has experienced tremendous growth during the
1980s and 1990s. The objective of this article is to review the
field, and to place its growth in perspective. The explosion of
interest that we are witnessing today is due to three new
developments: the diversification of the problems tackled in
engineering after the energy policies of the 1970s, the lifting
of the Iron Curtain and the absorption of work done by pre-
viously unrecognized pioneers, and the contributions that ap-
pear in the physics literature. The field today is so large and
active that the author is forced to focus this review on just
three aspects, which were stressed by the editors in their
original invitation:
~1! The fundamental and technological implications of the
results obtained until now.
~2! The pedagogical merits of the method, i.e., how EGM

J. Appl. Phys. 79 (3), 1 February 1996 0021-8979/96/79(3)/1191/28/$6.00 1996 American Institute of Physics 1191

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 this array of interactions is the heat transfer rate between the
system and the atmospheric temperature reservoir, Q 0 , on
which we focus shortly.
The thermodynamics of the system of Fig. 2 consists of
accounting for the first law and the second law ~e.g., Ref.
14!,

n
dE
5
dt i50 i (
Q 2W1 (in mh2 (
out
mh, ~1!

n
dS Q i
S gen5 2
dt i50 T i (2 (in ms1 (
out
ms>0, ~2!

where h is shorthand for the sum of specific enthalpy, ki-

FIG. 1. The interdisciplinary field covered by the method of entropy gen-
eration minimization ~from Ref. 1!.
can make thermodynamics and heat transfer easier to
teach, understand, and apply in actual technical work.
~3! The chronological development of the field, based on a
combined survey of the engineering and physics litera-
ture.
II. THE METHOD
It is instructive to begin the review with a brief look at
why in EGM we need to rely on heat transfer and fluid me-
netic energy, and potential energy of a particular stream at
the boundary. In Eq. ~2! the total entropy generation rate S gen
is simply a definition ~notation! for the entire quantity on the
left-hand side of the inequality sign. Soon, we will recognize
that it is advantageous to decrease S gen , and this can be ac-
complished only by changing at least one of the quantities
~properties, interactions! specified along the system bound-
ary.
We select Q 0 as the interaction that is always allowed to
float as S gen varies. Historically, this choice was inspired ~and
justified! by applications to power plants and refrigeration
plants, because the rejection of heat to the atmosphere was of
no or little consequence in the overall cost analysis of the
design. Eliminating Q 0 between Eqs. ~1! and ~2! we obtain

S D
chanics, not just thermodynamics. Consider the general n
d T0
systemenvironment configuration shown in Fig. 2. The sys-
tem operates in the unsteady state, and its instantaneous in-
W52 ~ E2T 0 S ! 1
dt i51
12 Q
Ti i (
ventories of mass, energy, and entropy are M , E, and S. The

(in m ~ h2T 0 s ! 2 (
system experiences the net work transfer rate W, heat trans-
1 m ~ h2T 0 s ! 2T 0 S gen . ~3!
fer rates (Q 0 ,Q 1 ,...,Q n ) with n11 temperature reservoirs out
(T 0 ,T 1 ,...,T n ), and mass flow rates ~m in , m out! through any
number of inlet and outlet ports. For simplicity, only one The work transfer rate in the limit of reversible operation
inlet and one outlet are illustrated in Fig. 2. Noteworthy in ~S gen50! is clearly

FIG. 2. General work transfer, heat transfer, and mass flows between a system and its environment in the unsteady state ~from Ref. 14!.

1192 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 S D
n
d T0
W rev52
dt
~ E2T 0 S ! 1
i51
12( Q
Ti i
1 (in m ~ h2T 0 s ! 2 (
out
m ~ h2T 0 s ! .
In engineering thermodynamics, each of the terms on the
right-hand side of Eq. ~4! is recognized as an exergy of one
type or another ~e.g., Ref. 14, Chap. 3!, and the calculation
of W rev is known as exergy analysis. Subtracting Eq. ~3!
from Eq. ~4! we arrive at the formula
W rev2W5T 0 S gen
which for most of this century in engineering has been
known as the GouyStodola theorem.1,15,16
Pure thermodynamics ~e.g., exergy analysis! ends, and
EGM begins, with Eq. ~5!. The lost power ~W rev2W! is al-
ways positive, regardless of whether the system is a power
producer ~e.g., power plant! or a power user ~e.g., refrigera-
tion plant!. Equation ~5! states that the destroyed power is
proportional to the total rate of entropy generation. If engi-
neering systems and their components are to operate such
that their destruction of work is minimized, then the concep-
tual design of such systems and components must begin with
the minimization of entropy generation ~Ref. 1, pp. 25,33!.
The critical new aspect of the EGM methodthe aspect
that makes the use of thermodynamics insufficient, and dis-
tinguishes it from exergy analysisis the minimization of
the calculated entropy generation rate. To minimize the irre-
versibility of a proposed design the analyst must use the
relations between temperature differences and heat transfer
rates, and between pressure differences and mass flow rates.
He or she must relate the degree of thermodynamic nonide-
ality of the design to the physical characteristics of the sys-
tem, namely to finite dimensions, shapes, materials, finite
speeds, and finite-time intervals of operation. For this the
analyst must rely on heat transfer and fluid mechanics prin-
ciples, in addition to thermodynamics. Only by varying one
or more of the physical characteristics of the system, can the
analyst bring the design closer to the operation characterized
by minimum entropy generation subject to finite-size and
finite-time constraints.
To explain how the following review was structured, it is
pointed out that the optimization of power and refrigeration
systems has a long and established tradition in engineering.
The portion that is based on exergy analysis is voluminous
and has been reviewed on several occasions.14,1723 Energy
analysis is distinct from EGM, and is not the object of the
present review. In fact, to calculate S gen and minimize it, the
analyst does not need to rely on the concept of exergy ~Ref.
1, pp. 25,33!.
The examples that are presented next illustrate how
EGM blends thermodynamics with heat transfer and fluid
mechanics in the optimization of real systems. The minimum
entropy generation design ~S gen,min! is determined for each
model, as in the case of the optimal diameter of a duct with
flow and heat transfer, or the optimal hot-end temperature of
a power plant with a bypass heat leak to the ambient. The
approach of any other design ~S gen! to the limit of realistic
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
~4!
~5!
FIG. 3. Mechanical support with variable heat leak and intermediate cooling
effect ~after Ref. 24!.
thermodynamic ideality represented by the design with mini-
mum entropy generation ~S gen,min! is monitored in terms of
the entropy generation number N S 5S gen/S gen,min>1, or alter-
natives of the same ratio.1
As a final comment on Fig. 1, note that thermodynamics
is a foundation that should be visible ~i.e., present, and
taught and used! in related disciplines such as heat transfer
and thermodynamics. Historically, however, thermodynamics
was formulated after heat transfer, and long after mechanics
~e.g., Ref. 1!. The interdisciplinary domain that is now being
mapped by the research on EGM or finite-time thermody-
namics is finally bridging the gap between thermodynamics
and the other thermofluid engineering disciplines. This is
why the developments reviewed in this article not only have
technological relevance but also fundamental and pedagogi-
cal value.
III. CRYOGENICS
The field of low temperature refrigeration was the first
where irreversibility minimization became an established
method of optimization and design. As a special application
of Eq. ~5!, it is easy to prove that the power required to keep
a cold space cold is equal to the total rate of entropy genera-
tion times the ambient temperature, with the observation that
the entropy generation rate includes the contribution made
by the leakage of heat from T 0 into the cold space. The
structure of a cryogenic system is in fact dominated by com-
ponents that leak heat, e.g., mechanical supports, radiation
shields, electric cables, and counterflow heat exchangers.
The minimization of entropy generation along a heat leak
path consists of optimizing the path in harmony24 with the
rest of the refrigerator of liquefier.
Figure 3 shows a mechanical support of length L that
connects the cold end of the machine ~T L ! to room tempera-
ture ~T H !. The rate of entropy generation inside the support
shown as a vertical column is
E
TH Q
S gen5 dT, ~6!
TL T2
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1193
where it is important to note that the heat leak Q is allowed
to vary with the local temperature T. The origin of the inte-
grand in Eq. ~6! is the infinitesimal element ~shaded in
Fig. 3!, in which the rate of entropy generation
is dS gen5Q/T1dQ/T2(Q1dQ)/(T1dT)5QdT/T 2 , be-
cause dT!T. The local heat leak decrement dQ is removed
by the rest of the installation, which is modeled as reversible.
The heat leak is also related to the local temperature gradient
and conduction cross-section A,
FIG. 4. The intermediate cooling effect provided by a cold stream in coun-
dT
Q5kA , ~7! terflow with the conduction current through a structural support ~from
dx Ref. 25!.

where the thermal conductivity k(T) decreases toward low

temperatures. Rearranged and integrated from end to end, ture independent, then the optimal flow rate is
Eq. ~7! places a size constraint on the unknown function m opt5(Ak/Lc p )ln(T H /T L ). In reality the conductivity of
Q(T), cryogenic structural materials varies strongly with the tem-

E
L TH k
5 dT.
A TL Q flow rates to be used in conjunction with common structural
According to variational calculus ~e.g., Ref. 14!, the heat
leak function that minimizes the S gen integral ~6! subject to
the finite-size constraint ~8! is obtained by finding the extre-
T
mum of the aggregate integral * T H FdT whose integrand F is
L
a linear combination of the integrands of Eqs. ~6! and ~8!,
F5Q/T 2 1lk/Q, and l is a Lagrange multiplier. The Euler
equation reduces in this case to ] F/ ] Q50, which yields
Q opt5(lk) 1/2T. The Lagrange multiplier is finally deter-
mined by substituting Q opt into the finite-size constraint ~8!.
The results are24
perature, and the single-stream intermediate cooling tech-
~8! nique can approach S gen,min only approximately. The optimal
materials are reported in Ref. 25.
The fabrication of the heat exchanger between the sup-
port and the coolant is less difficult and more economic if the
continuous contact ~Fig. 4! is replaced by a succession of
discrete cooling stations ~Fig. 5!. The optimal heat leak func-
tion required by Eq. ~9! must be approximated by a stepwise-
varying function. The problem consists of determining not
only the optimal cooling rate for each station, but also the
optimal spatial position of each station. Hilal and Boom26
solved this problem using the method of Lagrange multipli-
ers, and reported optimal structural designs for several super-

S E D
conducting coil applications of very large scales.
A TH k 1/2
Q opt5 dT k 1/2T, ~9! The optimization of conduction heat leak paths was con-
L TL T sidered in more general circumstances by Bisio.27,28 An even

SE D
more practical technique for optimizing the support of a ves-
A TH k 1/2 2
sel filled with cryogen is to place the natural stream of vapor
S gen,min5 dT . ~10!
L TL T ~boil off! in contact with the support at a number of cooling
stations ~Fig. 6!. The optimization problem is also simpler
Equation ~6! was provided by thermodynamics and Eq.
because it reduces to finding only the optimal positions of
~8! by heat transfer: together they prescribe the optimal de-
sign @Eqs. ~9! and ~10!#, which is characterized by a certain
distribution of intermediate cooling effect (dQ/dT) opt . Any
other design, Q(T), will generate more entropy and will re-
quire more power in order to maintain the cold end of the
support at T L . Quantitative examples are given in Refs. 1,
13, and 24. Together, Eqs. ~6! and ~8! illustrate the method of
thermodynamic optimization subject to a physical constraint,
and, to paraphrase some of the more recent physics terminol-
ogy, they constitute one of the earliest examples of finite-
size thermodynamics, this in 1974 in engineering.
The technological applications of the variable heat leak
optimization principle are numerous and important. In the
case of a mechanical support, the optimal design is approxi-
mated in practice by placing a stream of cold helium gas in
counterflow ~and in thermal contact! with the conduction
path, Fig. 4. The heat leak varies as dQ/dT5mc p , where
mc p is the capacity flow rate of the stream. The practical
value of the theory @Eqs. ~9! and ~10!# is that it guides the
designer to an optimal flow rate for minimum entropy gen-
eration. To illustrate, if the support conductivity is tempera- FIG. 5. Structural support cooled at several locations ~from Ref. 26!.

1194 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

FIG. 6. Structural support with discrete stations for helium boil off cooling
~from Ref. 1!.
the cooling stations. The optimal design ~S gen,min! corre-
sponds to the minimum boil off rate, or the minimum cold
end heat leak into the vessel. This problem was solved by
Lagrange multipliers in Ref. 29, which also reports the opti-
mal positions and boil off rates for designs with up to six
intermediate cooling stations and structural materials with
k/T5constant.
The thermodynamic optimization of a stack of radiation
shields in vacuum, Fig. 7, follows essentially the same route
as in Eqs. ~6!~10!. To see this at a glance, assume that the
FIG. 7. Discrete intermediate cooling of a stack of radiation shields ~from
Ref. 14!.
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
number of shields ~N21! is sufficiently large such that the
net radiation heat transfer between two adjacent shields is
approximately1,14
DT i
Q i 5 s AF ~ T 4i11 2T 4i ! >4 s AFT 3i , ~11!
Di
where DT i 5T i11 2T i , Di5(i11)2i and A, F, and s are
the shield area, effective view factor, and StefanBoltzmann
constant. Integrating Eq. ~11! across the stack we obtain a
finite-size constraint that replaces Eq. ~8!,
N
A
5 E TL
T0 4 s T 3F
Q
dT, ~12!
where T 0 is the same as the room temperature T H used ear-
lier. The result of minimizing the entropy generation rate
integral ~6! is an optimal radiation heat leak variation
Q opt(T), i.e., an optimal way of cooling each shield. The
practical techniques of providing this intermediate effect
~single stream, discrete stations, boil off! have also been ap-
plied to stacks of radiation shields. The optimization effort
requires computer assistance when the number of shields is
small and the approximation made in Eq. ~11! does not hold.
Martynovskii et al.30 determined the optimal intermediate
cooling ~and optimal shield temperatures! for minimum en-
tropy generation rate in stacks with one, two, and three
shields. Eyssa and Okasha31 optimized stacks of radiation
shields where the space between shields is filled with super-
insulation. Chato and Khodadadi32 minimized the entropy
generation rate in stacks with shield-to-shield spaces occu-
pied by a structural material. Further aspects of the thermo-
dynamic optimization of cryogenic insulation and support
techniques are presented in Chen et al.33
Superconducting devices must communicate with the
room temperature environment not only mechanically but
also electrically. For example, the electric cables ~current
leads! that connect the liquid helium temperature windings to
the room temperature network can be modeled as a heat con-
ducting path of length L, cross-section A, and constant ther-
mal conductivity k. In addition, the cable conducts a total
electric current I, against an electric resistivity re . The fact
that the electric power dissipated via Joule heating in the
cable is inversely proportional to A, and that the conductive
heat leak is proportional to A, guarantees the existence of an
optimal cable cross section for which the two sources of
irreversibility add up to a minimum. Furthermore, when the
cable geometry and material are specified, it is possible to
equip the cable with the optimal intermediate cooling effect
so that the refrigerator power needed to keep the cable cold
is minimized.
The optimization method is the same as in Eqs. ~6!~10!.
The optimal intermediate cooling regime for cryogenic
cables was developed by Agsten34 who minimized the total
power ~refrigerator power1electric power! required to oper-
ate the cooled cable. When the single stream cooling tech-
nique of Fig. 4 is used, the optimal flow rate of cold helium
gas is1,35
m optc p L
kA
5ln
TH
1
1
T L ln~ T H /T L !
ILL 1/2
kA
0
2
, S D ~13!
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1195

FIG. 8. The longitudinal convective heat leak carried by a counterflow heat
exchanger ~from Ref. 43!.
where L 052.4531028 ~W/A K!2 is the constant in the
WiedemannFranz law, L 0 5k r e /T. An additional advantage
to using the flow rate ~13! is that it guarantees the thermal
stability of the cable.36 The optimal cable cross section for
minimum entropy generation rate is1
ILL 1/2
0
A opt5 . ~14!
k ln~ T H /T L !
The current cable with Joule heating and longitudinal
heat leak is just one of the optimization application problems
at the interface between cryogenics and electrical engineer-
ing. Another wide class of applications deals with the cool-
ing of heat generating electric components that must operate
at a certain temperature. Examples are the superconducting
transition,37 superconducting windings for stationary mag-
nets and rotating machines,38 40 and electronic packages in
computers.41,42
Another class of engineering components that has been
optimized based on the irreversibility minimization prin-
ciples ~6!~10! is the counterflow heat exchangers that con-
nect the coldest regions of refrigerators and liquefiers to the
room temperature compressor.43 The counterflow sketched in
Fig. 8 was intentionally oriented and labeled in the same way
as the mechanical support of Fig. 3 to stress the analogy
between the two devices. The entropy generation rate asso-
ciated with the two streams and the space between them ~Fig.
8! is given by Eq. ~6! in which Q is now the longitudinal
convective heat leak
Q5mc p DT ~15!
and DT is the transversal ~stream-to-stream! temperature dif-
ference. The equivalent of the finite-size constraint ~8! is
obtained by writing that the enthalpy gained by the colder
stream is equal to the local stream-to-stream heat transfer
rate,
mc p dT5 ~ pdx ! UDT, ~16!
1196 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
where p is the perimeter of the duct that carries m, and U is
the overall heat transfer coefficient based on p. The total
stream-to-stream heat transfer area pL is fixed. We account
for this constraint by eliminating DT between Eqs. ~15! and
~16!, and integrating from x50 to x5L,
pL5 E TL
TH mc p
QU
dT. ~17!
The integral constraint ~17! plays the same role as Eq. ~8!,
and the result of the EGM analysis is again an optimal heat
leak variation,
Q opt5 S mc p
UpL
ln
TH
TL
mc p T,D ~18!
S gen,min5 S mc p
UpL
ln
TH
TL D 2
UA ~19!
or an optimal regime of intermediate cooling, (dQ/dT) opt .
The way this cooling effect is built into the practical
design of the counterflow heat exchanger is by bleeding a
fraction (m e ) of the high pressure stream, expanding it in a
work producing device ~cylinder and piston, or turbine!, and
using this cold stream to cool the counterflow heat ex-
changer, Fig. 9. The optimal flow rate through the expander
is known from Eq. ~18! and m e,optc p 5 (dQ/dT) opt . When
the pressure ratio P H / P L is not large enough for the ex-
panded fraction m e to become as cold as the cold end of the
counterflow (T L ), the engineering solution is to install two or
three expanders along the counterflow. The optimization of
the temperature locations of such a sequence of expanders is
described in Ref. 14. Another fundamental development is
the optimal temperature staging of cryogenic refrigerators.44
One interesting characteristic of the counterflow heat ex-
changer with optimal intermediate cooling effect is that the
stream-to-stream temperature difference DT opt decreases
proportionally with T, Fig. 9,
S D
DT mc p T H
5 ln . ~20!
T opt
UA TL
This rule follows from Eqs. ~15! and ~18! and is widely
recognized in the design of cryogenic counterflow heat
exchangers.45 Another interesting aspect is that the convec-
tive heat leak ~18! and entropy generation rate ~19! decrease
when the stream-to-stream thermal conductance UpL in-
creases. In other words, by promoting heat transfer in the
transversal direction, counterflow heat exchangers serve as
effective insulations in the longitudinal direction.
The structure of any low temperature installation con-
tains more than one heat leak path. The intermediate cooling
regime for parallel heat leak paths has been optimized46
based on the EGM approach presented in this section. One
conclusion is that parallel heat leak paths must be fitted in-
dividually with optimal continuous distributions of interme-
diate cooling. References such as 24, 30, and 45 are further
examples of early finite size thermodynamics work in engi-
neering.
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan
 FIG. 9. The optimal intermediate cooling of a counterflow heat exchanger ~from Ref. 14!.

IV. HEAT TRANSFER 8

made by heat transfer, S gen,DT , while the second term is the
The field of heat transfer engineering adopted the tech- contribution due to fluid friction, S 8gen,D P , in other words
niques developed in cryogenics and applied them to many 8 5S gen,DT
S gen 8 1S 8gen,D P . ~22!
classes of devices for promoting heat transfer. The optimiza-
tion was carried out at two levels of complexity: complete A characteristic of all heat transfer devices with fluid
components ~e.g., heat exchangers!, and elemental features 8
flow is that S gen,DT competes against S 8gen,D P : for example, in
~e.g., fins, ducts!. The field is vast, therefore in this section the smooth tube with fixed q 8 and m, the changes in
we review only some of the most basic examples. 8
S gen,DT and S 8gen,D P have opposing signs as D changes. The
Consider first the flow of a single-phase stream m optimal tube diameter that minimizes the S 8gen expression
through a heat exchanger tube of internal diameter D. The ~21! is given by48
heat transfer rate per unit tube length, between the tube wall 20.07
and the stream, q 8, is given. The entropy generation rate per ReD,opt52.023B 0.36
0 Pr , ~23!
unit tube length is47,48 where B 0 is a heat and fluid flow duty parameter that
q 82 32m 3 f accounts for the constraints (q 8 ,m):
S 8gen5 1 , ~21!
p kT 2 Nu p 2 r 2 TD 5 q 8 m
B 05 . ~24!
where the Nusselt number Nu5hD/k is a nondimensional ~ kT ! 1/2m 5/2/ r
way of expressing the wallstream heat transfer coefficient
The minimum entropy generation rate S gen,min 8 is ob-
h. Similarly, the friction factor f accounts for the frictional
tained by combining Eq. ~23! with Eq. ~21!. The perfor-
pressure drop along the tube, f 5(2d P/dx) r D/(2G 2 ),
mance of any other design (D,S gen 8 ) relative to the optimal
where G5m/( p D 2 /4). The properties r, T, and k are the
bulk density, temperature, and thermal conductivity of the design (D opt ,S 8gen,min) is described by the entropy generation
fluid, and x increases in the downstream direction. number N S ,
The Nusselt number is a result taken from the field of
heat transfer, e.g., Nu50.023 Re0.8 D Pr
0.4
when 2500
,ReD ,10 , ReD 5VD/ n and V5m/( rp D /4). The friction
6 2
N S5
S 8gen
S 8gen,min
50.856 S ReD
ReD,opt D 20.8
10.144 S ReD
ReD,opt D 4.8
,
~25!
factor is a result taken from fluid mechanics, namely
f 50.046 Re20.2 D when 23104,ReD ,106. In this way Eq. where ReD /ReD,opt5D opt /D because the mass flow rate is
~21! shows at a glance the meaning of Fig. 1, i.e., how ther- fixed. This ratio is plotted in Fig. 10, which shows that the
modynamics is combined from the start with heat transfer rate of entropy generation increases sharply on either side of
and fluid mechanics in the calculation and minimization of the optimum. The irreversibility distribution ratio plotted on
S 8gen . The first term on the right-hand side is the contribution the curve is defined as f 5 S 8gen,D P /S gen,DT
8 . The entropy gen-

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1197

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
FIG. 10. Entropy generation number N S , or relative entropy generation rate
in a smooth tube with heat transfer ~from Ref. 48!.
8 /S gen,min
eration rate ratio S gen 8 is used to monitor the approach
of any design relative to the best design that can be con-
ceived subject to the same constraints. This performance cri-
terion was used extensively in the engineering literature
~e.g., Refs. 1 and 14! and, just last year, was also recognized
in the physics literature.49
The minimization of entropy generation in ducts with
heat transfer attracted considerable interest from engineers
working on heat transfer augmentation techniques. In such
techniques the main objective is to increase the wallfluid
heat transfer coefficient relative to the coefficient of the un-
augmented ~i.e., untouched! surface. A parallel objective,
however, is to register this improvement without causing a
damaging increase in the pumping power demanded by the
forced-convection arrangement. These two objectives reveal
the conflict that accompanies the implementation of any aug-
mentation technique: a design modification that improves the
thermal contact ~e.g., roughening the heat transfer surface! is
likely to also augment the mechanical pumping power re-
quirement.
The true effect of a proposed augmentation technique on
thermodynamic performance can be evaluated by comparing
the entropy generation rate of the heat-exchange apparatus
before and after the implementation of the augmentation
technique. This method of optimizing augmentation tech-
niques was proposed in Ref. 50, where it was applied to the
design of ducts with sand-grain roughness and transversal rib
roughness. Spiral tubes, twisted tape inserts, propeller inserts
and tubes with internal spiral ribs were optimized in Ref. 51.
Nelson52 used this method to evaluate the effect of heat
transfer augmentation on optimized full-size heat exchang-
ers. Sekulic et al.53 documented the thermodynamic optimi-
zation of several ducts ~smooth and enhanced!, and showed
that the minimum entropy generation design differs mark-
edly from the design based on conventional methods.
Perez-Blanco54 integrated the entropy generation rate along
the entire surface of the heat exchanger, and then evaluated
1198 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
FIG. 11. The optimal size of a plate, cylinder, and sphere for minimum
entropy generation ~from Ref. 64!.
the effect of the heat transfer augmentation technique on the
total entropy generation rate. Zimparov and Vulchanov55 ap-
plied the EGM method to assess the merits of using spirally
corrugated tubes. Performance evaluation studies were also
conducted by Chen and Huang56 and Prasad and Shen.57,58
The EGM method was recognized in the most recent review
of heat transfer augmentation techniques.59
The opportunity of minimizing the entropy generation to
determine the optimal sizes of ducts and other heat transfer
devices has been noted by practitioners in the field of chemi-
cal process engineering.60 The same topic became a sizable
component in the new edition of a classic undergraduate heat
transfer textbook.61
Another large and diverse group of heat transfer devices
relies on external convection, that is, heat transfer between a
stream and a body immersed in the stream. The minimization
of entropy generation for members of this class has been
performed by adapting the internal flow analyses ~21!~25!
to external flow. The start is the formula for the total entropy
generation rate associated with heat transfer and drag on an
immersed body62
Q B ~ T B 2T ` ! F D U `
S gen5 1 , ~26!
T BT ` T`
where Q B , T B , T ` , F D , and U ` are the heat transfer rate,
body temperature, free stream temperature, drag force, and
free stream velocity. The relation for calculating Q B is pro-
vided by the field of heat transfer. Similarly, the fluid flow
information required for evaluating F D comes from fluid me-
chanics. The S gen expression has the same two-term structure
as Eq. ~22!. The competition between the two terms points to
an optimal body size for minimum entropy generation rate.
The simplest example is the selection of the swept length
L of a plate immersed in a parallel stream ~Fig. 11 inset!. The
optimization procedure for laminar and turbulent flow was
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

FIG. 12. Optimal pin fin diameter and length for minimum entropy genera-
tion ~from Ref. 62!.
given in Ref. 1, and for turbulent flow in Ref. 63. The results
for ReL,opt5U ` L opt / n are shown in Fig. 11 where B is the
duty parameter
Q B /W
B5 ~27!
U ` ~ k m T ` Pr1/3! 1/2
and W is the plate dimension perpendicular to Fig. 11. The
same figure shows the corresponding results for the optimal
diameter of a cylinder in cross flow,63,64 where ReD,opt
5 U ` D opt / n , and B is given by Eq. ~27!. The optimal diam-
eter of the sphere1,63,64 is referenced to the sphere duty pa-
rameter defined by
Q B
B s5 . ~28!
n ~ k m T ` Pr1/3! 1/2
The fins planted on the surfaces of heat exchanges act as
bodies with heat transfer in external flow. The size of a fin of
given shape can be optimized by minimizing S gen of Eq. ~26!
while accounting for the internal heat transfer characteristics
~longitudinal conduction!65 of the fin. Figure 12 shows one
example of how to select the optimal length and diameter of
a pin fin ~cylindrical spine!, where ReL,opt5U ` L opt / n ,
ReD,opt5U ` D opt / n , and B5 rn 3 kT ` /Q 2B . The figure was
drawn for M 5(k/l) 1/2Pr21/65100 where k and l are the fin
and fluid thermal conductivities. Optimal sizes for other fin
shapes are reported in Ref. 62.
The technological benefit of applying the EGM method
to heat transfer devices is that such devices are notorious for
their large number of dimensions, which have to be selected
by the designer. The thermodynamic optimization method
shows how to select certain dimensions such that the device
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
destroys minimum power while performing its assigned heat
and fluid flow duty. The design is improved and, at the same
time, simplified. Even the teaching of the discipline of heat
transfer benefits from this approach.
Elemental features such as ducts and fins are what heat
exchangers are made of. The EGM method was also applied
to heat exchangers as complete, more complex systems.
Consider for example the counterflow heat exchanger seen in
Fig. 8, where the inlet conditions (T H , P H ) and (T L , P L ) are
fixed. The two streams have the same capacity rate mc p , and
the fluid is the same ideal gas (R,c p ). Each stream flows
with pressure drop through a space ~passage! of length
(L H ,L L ) and hydraulic diameter (D h,H ,D h,L ). The sub-
scripts H and L refer to the high pressure side and, respec-
tively, low pressure side of the heat transfer surface. It has
been shown that the rate of entropy generation of each pas-
sage is minimized if the passage slenderness ratio is selected
optimally66
S D
L
Dh opt
5
t
4G @~ R/c p ! f St # 1/2
*
, ~29!
S gen,min
mc p
52 t
R
cp S D SD 1/2
G
f
* St
1/2
, ~30!
where t5u T H 2T L u /(T H T L ) 1/2, G 5G/(2 r P) 1/2, and G is
*
the mass velocity through the passage flow cross-section A f ,
namely G5m/A f . As a first approximation, the ratio f /St is
a constant for a given type of heat exchanger surface.66 The
subscripts H and L are dropped from Eqs. ~29! and ~30!
because one such set can be written for either passage. This
further illustrates the power of the method: the same optimi-
zation rule applies on both sides of the heat transfer surface.
In Eq. ~29! we see just one of the geometric optima that
have been developed. The balanced counterflow heat ex-
changer subject to fixed heat transfer area was optimized in
Ref. 66, which also reported the optimization subject to fixed
heat exchanger volume. The doubly constrained optimization
of the counterflow heat exchanger with fixed area and vol-
ume was reported in Ref. 14. In Refs. 47 and 66 we see early
examples of finite size thermodynamics applications in heat
transfer. The optimization subject to fixed total number of
heat transfer units ~N tu! was developed in a noteworthy study
by Sekulic and Herman.67 Another line of research focused
on the thermodynamic optimization of several types of heat
exchangers where the fluid friction irreversibility is
negligible.68 71 Heat exchangers with phase change ~boilers,
condensers! were optimized by London and Shah,72 Zubair
et al.,73 and Lau et al.74
Extensions to the study of entropy generation in coun-
terflow heat exchangers66 have been performed by Sarangi
and Chowdhury68 and Huang.75 Grazzini and Gori76 recon-
sidered the entropy generation analysis, and distinguished
between three separate entropy generation number defini-
tions, two of which are new. They investigated the extrema
of these numbers, and applied their results to an air-to-air
counterflow heat exchanger. In chemical engineering,
Tondeur77 and Tondeur and Kvaalen78 showed that, for a
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1199
given duty, the best configuration of a heat and mass process
is that where the entropy generation rate is distributed in the
most uniform way possible.
A study of crossflow heat exchangers was conducted by
Baclic and Sekulic.79 Their study reveals once again the
tradeoff between heat transfer and fluid flow irreversibilities,
as well as the remanent ~imbalance! irreversibility associated
purely with the crossflow arrangement. Several basic studies
of the thermodynamics of forced convection heat transfer in
heat exchangers were undertaken by Soumerai.80,81 The rela-
tionship between entropy generation minimization and cost
minimization was illustrated by Wepfer et al.82 in the prob-
lem of deciding the optimal size of a steam pipe and its
insulation.
The generation of entropy at the local ~differential! level
in heat exchangers was documented by El-Sayed,83 Liang
and Kuehn,84 Evans and von Spakovsky,85 and Drost and
Zaworski.86 The calculation and display87 of entropy genera-
tion rate distributions through heat and fluid flow fields was
recommended by Paoletti et al.,88 White and Drost,89 Cheng
and Huang,90 Drost and White,91,92 Benedetti and Sciubba,93
and Cheng et al.94 Taken together, these studies argue that
commercial computational fluid dynamics packages should
have the capability of displaying entropy generation rate
maps for both laminar and turbulent flows.
For example, Figs. 13~a! and 13~b! show the flow and
temperature fields in the entrance region to a vertical channel
with mixed ~forced1natural! convection. The right wall is
heated ~T 1!, and is fitted with horizontal fins. The left wall is
cooled to the ambient temperature ~T 0!, which is also the
temperature of the fluid that enters through the bottom of the
FIG. 13. Flow, temperature, and volumetric entropy generation rate in a
channel. New in this display of numerical information is Fig. vertical duct with mixed convection ~from Ref. 94: Courtesy of Prof. C.-H.
13~c!, which shows the contour lines of the local ~volumet- Cheng, Tatung Institute of Technology, Taipei!.
ric! entropy generation rate. For the latter, Paoletti et al.88
proposed plotting contour lines for constant values of the
-
dimensionless group S gen,DT -
/(S gen,DT 1S -
gen,D P ), to show the this work cover conduction in a medium with thermal con-
relative importance of heat transfer irreversibility in the local ductivity ~or its derivative! that is a piecewise continuous
total entropy generation rate ~see also Refs. 93 and 95!. function of temperature,107 and thermal conductivity that is
The thermodynamic optimization of complete heat ex- also a function of the temperature gradient in the heat flux
changer systems was performed by Tapia and Moran,96 Ra- direction.108
nasinghe et al.,97 and Li et al.98 Heat exchanger networks An entirely new area of application of entropy genera-
were optimized by Hesselmann,99 Chato and Damianides,100 tion by conduction is being charted by the work of Kinra and
and Sekulic and Milosevic.101 Regenerators were optimized his associates109113 at Texas A&M University. They used the
by Tsujikawa et al.102 for gas-turbine power plants, by entropy generation calculations to explain and predict damp-
Hutchinson and Lyke103 for Stirling cycle machines, and ing in homogeneous and inhomogeneous elastic systems.
Matsumoto and Shiino104 for cryogenic plants. Heat ex- They named their theory elastothermodynamic damping.
changers with offset strip-fin surfaces were optimized more Kinras approach begins with the observation that a ma-
recently by Schenone et al.105 terial that is stressed reversibly and adiabatically always ex-
The method was also extended in several fundamental periences local changes in temperature, however small. This
directions of heat transfer science. The generation of entropy thermoelastic effect can be predicted using the first law and
by pure heat conduction, in the absence of fluid flow, has the second law. The new observation is that since the tem-
come under close scrutiny in more recent papers. Bisio106 perature field and the stress field are coupled, nonuniformi-
focused on one-dimensional heat conduction in systems with ties in stress and materials properties induce nonuniformities
time-dependent boundary conditions. The thermal conductiv- in temperature. As a consequence, heat is conducted locally
ity was a function of temperature and the coordinate of the from regions of relatively high temperature to regions of low
heat flux direction. He examined homogeneous as well as temperature. The entropy generated by conduction through-
multilayered systems, and pointed out relations between en- out the material is responsible for the damping effect.
tropy generation extrema and the solution to the heat con- Kinra, Bishop, and Milligan have used this approach to
duction problem ~the temperature distribution!. Extensions of demonstrate that it is now possible to design a composite

1200 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
material that has certain, desired damping characteristics.
Theirs is an interdisciplinary example of the importance of
the concept of entropy generation in the field of materials
design. This is an important development, because the other
applications collected in this review come strictly from the
mainstream of thermal engineering ~Fig. 1!.
As an analogy to the convective heat transfer irrevers-
ibility illustrated in Fig. 10, the competition between mass
transfer and fluid flow irreversibilities was demonstrated by
San et al.114 The irreversibility of combined heat and mass
transfer was minimized in internal flow by San et al.115 and
in external flow by Poulikakos and Johnson.63 Carrington
and Sun116,117 reconsidered the internal and external flow
problems. Sun and Carrington118 developed a general analy-
sis of the flow of a fluid mixture with heat conduction, mass
diffusion, fluid friction, and chemical reactions.
The generation of entropy in reacting flows with radia-
tion has been studied by Arpaci and his associates119124 and
Puri.125 For example, Arpaci and Selamet122 focused on pre-
mixed flames stabilized above a flat flame burner, and
showed that the tangency condition ~i.e., the minimum
quench distance! is related to an extremum of the entropy
generation rate, which is inversely proportional to the Peclet
number. Puri125 minimized the entropy generation rate of a
droplet burning in a stream. He showed that the minimum
entropy generation rate corresponds to a tradeoff between
drag and mass loss from the droplet, and to maximum energy
per unit mass flowrate at the combustor exit.
The entropy generation rate in convection through a
saturated porous medium was presented in Ref. 126. The
general form for the local entropy generation rate due to
combined heat, mass, and fluid flow through a porous me-
dium is given in Ref. 14.
V. STORAGE SYSTEMS
The optimization of time-dependent heating and cooling
processes has generated a subfield of its own. The applica-
tions are diverse, for example, sensible heating versus latent
heating, or the temporary storage of heating versus the
storage of refrigeration. Common to all these applications
is the search for optimal strategies for executing heating and
cooling processes, i.e., the search for optimal histories, or
optimal evolutions in time.
The earliest work of this type127 focused on the sensible
heating of a storage element ~solid or incompressible liquid!
of mass M and specific heat C, by using a stream of hot gas
(m,c p ,T ` ) as shown in Fig. 14. Initially, the storage element
is at the ambient temperature T 0 . Gradually, the element tem-
perature T and the gas outlet temperature T out rise and ap-
proach T ` . The temperature histories T(t) and T out(t) can be
written analytically as functions of the dimensionless time u
and the number of heat transfer units N tu based on the
stream-element thermal conductance UA ~fixed!,
mc p UA
u 5t , N tu5 . ~31!
MC mc p
Figure 14 shows that the sensible heating process has
two sources of entropy generation, the heat transfer between
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
FIG. 14. Solid or liquid-bath element for sensible heat storage ~from
Ref. 127!.
the stream and the storage element, and the heat transfer
between the exhaust and the ambient. A third source, ne-
glected here but treated in Ref. 127, is the pressure drop on
the gas side of the UA heat exchanger. It was shown that the
total entropy generated from t50 to t5t is minimum at a
certain time ~duration! of the heating process, t opt or uopt . In
the limit t!t opt , the generated entropy is due mainly to the
internal source, while in the limit t@t opt the dominant source
is the external thermal mixing ~Fig. 14!. Charts for calculat-
ing the optimal heating time uopt as a function of N tu and
(T ` 2T 0 )/T 0 are available in Refs. 1 and 127. For
(T ` 2T 0 )!T 0 , the optimal heating time is available in
closed form:
1.256
u opt5 . ~32!
12exp~ 2N tu!
Since in most heat exchangers N tu is of the order of 1 or
greater, Eq. ~32! shows that uopt is of the order of 1, or that
t opt;M C/(mc p ). In conclusion, for engineering design pur-
poses, the optimal heating strategy is such that the process
must be terminated when the thermal inertia of the hot gas
used (mc p t) becomes of the same order as the thermal iner-
tia of the storage element (M C).
The thermodynamic optimization of the element of Fig.
14 during a complete storage and removal cycle ~i.e., heating
followed by cooling back to T 0! was performed by Krane.128
An improvement to the single-element storage method of
Fig. 14 is the use of several elements in series, as proposed in
Ref. 1. This proposal was investigated in great detail by Tay-
lor et al.129 based on a solid distributed-storage-element
model in which the storage material temperature varied con-
tinuously along the stream. Taylor et al. showed among other
things that the longitudinal conduction of heat through the
storage material during the periodic operation of the heat
exchanger can have a major impact on the overall irrevers-
ibility of the installation. The overall entropy generation is
again a strong function of the time interval required by the
storage part of the cycle: the identification of the optimal
storage time interval is critical. The series of storage units
was optimized further by Sekulic and Krane.130
Closely related to the continuous one-dimensional stor-
age scheme with periodic counterflow circulation is the class
of periodic heat exchangers recognized as regenerators. The
design of this type of heat exchanger was approached on the
basis of EGM by San et al.131 Their model consists of two-
dimensional parallel-plate channels sandwiched between
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1201

FIG. 15. Batch cooling and temperature history during a cooldown process
~from Ref. 140!.
slabs of storage material. The longitudinal conduction of heat
through the storage material is neglected. An important dif-
ference between this regenerator model and the continuous
storage system analyzed by Taylor et al.129 is that in the re-
generator the stream exhausted during the storage phase is
not dumped into the atmosphere.
The minimization of entropy generation in periodic-flow
regenerative heat exchangers was studied also by Hutchinson
and Lyke,103 Shen and Worek,132 Mathiprakasam and
Beeson,133 Das and Sahoo,134 and Sahoo and Das.135 The
thermodynamic arguments of this section were combined
with overall cost minimization arguments into a thermoeco-
nomics extension of the sensible heat storage process by Ba-
dar et al.136 and Kotas and Jassim.137
An overview of the thermodynamic optimization of sen-
sible heat storage methods was presented by Rosen et al.138
Treated were the individual storage and removal processes as
well as the complete cycle. The emphasis was on the devel-
opment of simple and consistent ways ~conventions! to
evaluate and compare the performance of competing designs.
This work was continued by Rosen139 who showed that dif-
ferent efficiency measures are suitable for different applica-
tions, and that it is important to agree on a common effi-
ciency definition before comparing designs of the same class.
The thermodynamic optimization of heating and cooling
processes continued in two additional directions. One is the
optimization subject to a finite-time constraint. Figure 15 il-
lustrates the fundamental question of how to cool a mass to a
prescribed temperature level (T L ) during a fixed time inter-
val t c , while using the minimum quantity of coolant140
m5 E 0
tc
m ~ t ! dt.
1202 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
This question is essential in the operation of large scale su-
perconducting systems, which must be cooled down before
they can function. Note that to minimize the amount of cool-
ing agent ~cryogen! is equivalent to minimizing the refrig-
erator work needed to produce the cryogen, or the total en-
tropy generated in the cold space.
This problem was solved by variational calculus for the
optimal flow rate history m opt(t) that minimizes the m inte-
gral ~33! subject to the time constraint t c . The details can be
found in Refs. 1 and 140. The end result is
m opt~ t ! 5 F U~ T !A
C *c p~ T ! G 1/2
, ~34!
where T(t) is the companion result for the optimal body
temperature history. The constant C * can be evaluated by
using the time constraint t c . Equation ~34! is a compact re-
sult with important engineering implications. Bearing in
mind that the heat transfer coefficient U varies as T de-
creases, we learn that during poor heat transfer conditions
~low U! the flow rate should be lower. Furthermore, since
during cooldown the coolant c p increases, the flow rate
should decrease even more as the end of the process nears.
The engineering work on the optimization of heating and
cooling subject to time constraints was continued recently in
the physics literature by Andresen and Gordon,141 who mini-
mized the generation of entropy instead of the amount of
heating or cooling agent used. As heat source or heat sink
they assumed a heat reservoir of temperature that can be
varied at will, instead of the coolant flow rate m(t) of Fig.
15. Between the heat reservoir and the thermal inertia they
assumed several heat transfer rate laws, e.g., convection with
a constant heat transfer coefficient, and radiation with con-
stant ~temperature-independent! emissivities. In a companion
paper, Andresen and Gordon142 considered the related prob-
lem where the heating of the body of interest is effected by a
stream, while the heat reservoir temperature may change or
remain constant. The result of the EGM procedure is again
an optimal flow rate of the heating agent. In both papers the
effect of pressure drop was neglected.
The other direction of the work on storage systems is
concerned with phase-change storage elements, e.g., latent
heating instead of sensible heating. This activity began with
the papers of Bjurstrom and Carlsson143 and Adebiyi and
Russell144 who applied to a phase-change storage element the
entropy generation analysis given in Ref. 127 and Fig. 14 for
the single-phase element. These authors showed that the en-
tropy generated during heating ~melting! is minimum when
the melting temperature of the storage material has the opti-
mal value
T m,opt5 ~ T ` T 0 ! 1/2. ~35!
Technologically, this result is extremely valuable because it
guides the designer in the selection of the type of phase-
change material.
The details of the real ~time-dependent! melting and so-
lidification processes were accounted for in Refs. 145 and
146, where it was shown that Eq. ~35! is a good approxima-
~33! tion for the optimal phase-change temperature. Lim et al.147
showed that Eq. ~35! holds for the entire melting and solidi-
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

FIG. 16. Latent heat storage by using two phase-change materials in series
~from Ref. 147!.
fication cycle when the fluid is modeled as well mixed inside
the storage element. The same authors showed that the ther-
modynamic performance of the latent heat storage process
can be improved by using two or more different phase-
change materials in series. Two such elements are pictured in
Fig. 16, for which there are two optimal melting tempera-
tures ~i.e., two materials! as shown in Fig. 17. The dimen-
sionless optimal temperatures in Fig. 17 are referenced to Eq.
~35!, namely t 1,opt5T m,1,opt /(T ` T 0 ) 1/2 and t 2,opt
5T m,2,opt /(T ` T 0 ) . Lim et al.147 similarly optimized an in-
1/2
finite number of phase-change materials heated in series, and
a single material melted by an unmixed stream.
The thermodynamic optimization of practical storage in-
stallations with melting and solidification has attracted a lot
of interest in both engineering and physics. For example,
Adebiyi148 considered a bed with particles with several ratios
of latent heat to sensible heat storage capability. He modeled
the heat conduction as one dimensional in the cylindrical
pellet geometry. For the complete storage and removal cycle,
he found that the optimal phase-change temperature is equal
to the arithmetic average of the heat source and ambient
temperatures.
Charach and Zemel149 optimized the thermodynamic
performance of latent heat storage in the shell of a shell-and-
tube heat exchanger. The focus was on the effect of two-
dimensional heat transfer, that is, as a step beyond the one-
dimensional model employed by De Lucia and Bejan.145
Charach and Zemel149 also considered the effect of pressure
drop on the stream side of the heat exchanger. Their analysis
has been extended by Charach and Zemel150 and Charach151
to the complete melting and solidification cycle, by using a
quasisteady treatment of the phase change process occurring
in the shell. These latest studies showed that the optimal
phase-change temperature is bounded from above and from
below by the arithmetic and, respectively, geometric aver-
ages of the source and ambient temperatures.
Another interesting direction has been the study of latent
heat storage units coupled in series with a power plant, and
optimized over the entire storage and removal cycle. Bellecci
and Conti152 showed that minimization of entropy generation
and operation stability are two competing criteria in the op-
timization of the aggregate installation. The arithmetic aver-
age of the extreme temperatures emerges again as the opti-
mal phase-change temperature. Detailed modeling and
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
numerical simulations of the heat transfer behavior of the
shell-and-tube phase-change heat exchanger were performed
by Bellecci and Conti.153,154
Aceves-Saborio et al.155 developed a systematic way of
modeling phase-change storage systems, by applying the
lumped model to many independent phase-change capsules.
They also considered the more general case where the phase-
change material melts over a finite temperature range. In an
earlier study, Aceves-Saborio et al.156 optimized a single
latent-heat cell by first simulating numerically the phase-
change process. This is an important and difficult task be-
cause the natural convection currents that occur in the liquid
control the shape and movement of the liquidsolid interface
~e.g., Sec. 10.4 in Ref. 157!. It was shown by De Lucia and
Bejan145 that when the melting process is controlled by natu-
ral convection the optimal melting temperature is equal to
the geometric average shown in Eq. ~35!.
Adebiyi et al.158 constructed a numerical model for
simulating and then optimizing the performance of storage
systems with multiple phase-change materials. They found
that the second law efficiency of systems with multiple ma-
terials can exceed by 13%26% the efficiency of systems
employing a single material. A fundamental study of EGM in
time-dependent unidirectional heat conduction was con-
ducted by Charach and Rubinstein.159
VI. SOLAR POWER PLANTS
The generation of mechanical or electrical power has
been subjected to thermodynamic optimization in many stud-
ies that cover a vast territory. Therefore in this section and
Sec. VII we cover only some of the central ideas and the
literature that followed. We do this chronologically, i.e., in
the order in which the use of the method reached critical
mass in the various sectors of the power generation field.
This occurred first in the optimization of solar driven power
plants, as exemplified by the solar theme chosen for a
recent book160 dedicated to the application of the method.
Book chapters on the application of the EGM method to
solar power plants appeared earlier in Refs. 1 and 14.
In a 1957 paper, Muser161 optimized the power produced
by an engine driven by solar heating. Musers model is
equivalent to the upper portion drawn between T s and T L in
Fig. 18. The hot end of the heat engine cycle receives heat
from a solar collector (T H ) that sees not only the solar disc
(T s ) but also the cold universe ~T `!. The heat engine cycle is
modeled as reversible, with the cold end in equilibrium with
the ambient. Muser161 and, independently, Castans,162
Jeter,163 and De Vos and Pauwels164 showed that the power
output W is maximum when the collector temperature has
the optimal value given by
4T 5H,opt23T L T 4H,opt2T 4s T L 50. ~36!
This was an important first step in the demonstration that
an optimal design can be found based on a model that com-
bines only the thermodynamics of the (T H 2T L ) compart-
ment with the irreversibility of radiation heat transfer in the
three-surface enclosure formed by T H , T s , and T ` . The
same combination of thermodynamics and radiation heat
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1203

FIG. 17. The optimal melting temperatures of the phase-change materials in
the series arrangement of Fig. 16 ~From Ref. 147!.
transfer was the method used independently in 1971 by Mar-
tynovskii et al.30 in the optimization of radiation shields.
Another important observation is that to maximize the
power output W is equivalent to minimizing the total entropy
generation rate associated with the solar power plant ~Ref.
14!. Note that as T H is varied during the optimization pro-
cess, the net solar heat input to the collector ~Q, from T s to
T H ! also varies. And if Q is to float freely, then the actual
heat input available from the sun must be greater than any Q
value that might be required in the course of W maximiza-
tion. Let Q be this sufficiently large ~and fixed! heat transfer
rate. A portion of Q is intercepted by the collector (Q),
while the remainder (Q 2Q) must necessarily fall on the
ground, i.e., be rejected to the ambient T L . Both portions
vary with the lone degree of freedom in the power plant
design ~T H , Q, or W!. The total entropy generation rate
S D
Q Q Q 2Q W 1 1 model of Fig. 18 is related to the conversion of solar heating
S gen5 2 1 52 1Q 2 ~37!
TH Ts TL TL TL Ts
1204 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
FIG. 18. Model of solar power plant with heat transfer irreversibilities at the
hot end and the cold end ~after Refs. 14 and 65!.
shows that when the external irreversibility due to (Q 2Q)
is taken into account, the maximization of W is indeed analo-
gous to the minimization of S gen , in agreement with the
Gouy-Stodola theorem ~5!.
De Voss book160 is also a review of the models such as
Fig. 18 that have been used in physics. In this section we
review some of the engineering contributions to the field,
which are not covered in Ref. 160. For example, the model
of Fig. 18 refers to an extraterrestrial solar power plant that
uses a radiator to reject heat to the universe ~T `!. The heat
transfer from T L to T ` is by radiation in a two-surface en-
closure. In Refs. 14 and 65 this power plant model was op-
timized subject to the total area constraint
A H 1A L 5A. ~38!
The design has two degrees of freedom, and the twice-
maximized power output is represented by
A H,opt50.35A, A L,opt50.65A, ~39!
S D
4
Ts
F Hs 51.538, ~40!
T H,opt
W max50.0414s AF Hs T 4s , ~41!
where s and F Hs are the StefanBoltzmann constant and the
collector-sun view factor. If we substitute T s 55762 K and
F Hs ;1024 into this solution we obtain T H,opt > 520 K and
T L,opt > 340 K for the recommended extreme temperatures
~boiler, condenser! of the power cycle executed by the work-
ing fluid. Another technological aspect of this result is that
the radiator area should be roughly twice as large as the
collector area.
As a way to think, the extraterrestrial solar power plant
into wind power ~natural convection! on earth. This power is
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan
FIG. 19. Solar power plant model with collector-ambient heat loss and
collector-power cycle heat exchanger ~from Ref. 167!.
destroyed almost totally by friction and heat transfer across
finite temperature differences. The thermodynamic heat en-
gine that drives any natural convection process was also
noted in the field of natural convection heat transfer ~Ref.
126!. The theoretical limits of the conversion of terrestrial
solar heating into wind power were investigated by Gordon
and Zarmi,165 De Vos and Flater,166 and De Vos.160
Another engineering model is the power plant driven by
a solar collector with convective heat leak to the ambient,167
which is shown in Fig. 19. The heat leak was modeled as
proportional to the collectorambient temperature differ-
ence, Q 0 5(UA) c (T c 2T 0 ). The internal heat exchanger be-
tween the collector and the hot end of the power cycle ~the
user! was modeled similarly, Q5(UA) i (T c 2T u ). It was
found that there is an optimal coupling between the collector
and the power cycle such that the power output is maximum.
This design is represented by the optimal collector tempera-
ture
T c,opt u 1/2
max1R u max
5 ,
T0 11R
where R5(UA) c /(UA) i , u max5T c,max /T0, and T c,max is the
maximum ~stagnation! temperature of the collector. The cor-
responding optimal coupling between a collector with heat
loss and a refrigerator was documented by Sokolov and
Hershgal.168
Radiation heat transfer contributes significantly to the
collectorambient heat loss mechanism when the collector
operating temperature rises above the 100200 C range.
The radiation effect on the heat loss and the optimization of
the solar power plant were analyzed by Howell and
Bannerot.169 A sample of their results for optimal collector
temperature is presented in Fig. 20 for four classes of collec-
tor designs ~A, B, C, D!, which are described in Ref. 169.
The dimensionless radiative heat loss parameter a and con-
vective heat loss parameter b are also defined in Ref. 169.
Howell and Bannerot produced similar graphs for the opti-
mal thermodynamic design of solar driven power cycles
~Stirling, Ericsson, Brayton!, heat pumps, and absorption re-
frigerators.
The solar power plant model with collectorambient
heat loss and heat exchanger between the cold end of the
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
FIG. 20. Optimal collector temperatures for maximum power generation
~after Ref. 169!.
power cycle and the ambient was optimized in Ref. 170 sub-
ject to a total heat transfer area constraint. The same study
presents the area-constrained optimization of a model with
phase-change energy storage at the hot end of the cycle,
between the collector and the working fluid. One useful re-
sult is that the melting material must be such that its melting
point is the geometric average of the collector and ambient
temperatures,
T m,opt5 ~ T c T 0 ! 1/2. ~43!
Solar power plant models with nonisothermal collectors
were optimized in Ref. 167. Models with collectors operat-
ing under time-varying conditions dictated by the daily inso-
lation cycle were optimized in Refs. 171 and 172. A model
with time-dependent solar heating and variable amount of
fluid in the collector was optimized in Ref. 172. In this
model the collector has the ability to store the solar input as
~42! sensible heat, and to deliver it to the rest of the power plant
when the solar heating effect is less intense.
The common message of these models is that several
extremely basic tradeoffs exist in the thermodynamic optimi-
zation of power plants driven by heat transfer from the sun.
The models share the feature that heat loss always occurs
between the collector and the ambient. The thermodynamic
tradeoffs are of two kinds. When the overall size of the in-
stallation is constrained, there is an optimal way of allocating
the hardware ~e.g., heat transfer area! between the various
components. When the daily variation of the solar heat input
is known, there is an optimal time-dependent strategy of op-
erating the power plant.
Thermodynamic tradeoffs have been found in the opti-
mization of the direct ~photovoltaic! conversion of solar ra-
diation. This work was reviewed in the book by De Vos160
and continues today. For example, Baruch and Parrott173 ex-
amined the possibility of constructing a Carnot cycle for the
conversion of photovoltaic energy by using electronhole
plasma as the working substance.
The basic thermodynamic limits to the conversion of so-
lar radiation have attracted considerable attention. This work
was reviewed in Ref. 174, where it was also shown that the
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1205

FIG. 21. The sources of entropy generation in Chambadals power plant
model ~from Ref. 197!.
different ideal conversion efficiencies reported by Petela,175
Spanner,176 and Jeter163 are complementary, and can be uni-
fied into a single theory. Related aspects were considered
more recently by Badescu.177180 For example Badescu178
showed that the maximum efficiency decreases abruptly
when the collector concentration ratio decreases.
Roy and Grasse181 reviewed comparatively the practical
merits of solar power technologies across the entire spec-
trum, from photovoltaic to solarthermal applications. The
mechanisms of entropy generation in solar collectors were
also investigated by Fujiwara,182 Suzuki,183 and Han and
Lee.184 The thermodynamic optimization of collectors
coupled with power plants was considered further by
Grazzini,185 Borner et al.,186 De Vos et al.,187 and Yan and
Chen.188 Models with radiation-dominated collector and ra-
diator were optimized by De Vos and van der Wel189 and
Gotkun et al.190
A more applied line of inquiry concerns the thermody-
namic optimization of specific designs of processes and
power plants driven by solar heating. Recent examples are
the optimization of flat-plate solar air heaters,191,192 phase-
change energy storage,193 and solar assisted heat pumps.194
The optimal coupling between solar collectors and Stirling
and Ericsson cycles was also documented by Badescu.195
Another type of power plant driven by a renewable en-
ergy source is the power plant with heating from a hot-dry-
rock system. The optimal time-dependent strategy of running
such a power plant ~e.g., the optimal water flow rate! was
developed in Ref. 196.
VII. NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL POWER PLANTS
In 1957 in nuclear engineering, Chambadal2 and
Novikov5 showed independently that the hot-end tempera-
ture of a power plant can be optimized such that the power
output is maximum. Chambadals analytical argument corre-
sponds to the model drawn by the author in Fig. 21. The
power plant is driven by a stream of hot single-phase fluid of
inlet temperature T H and constant specific heat c p . The
power plant model has two compartments. The one sand-
wiched between the surface of temperature T HC and the am-
bient (T L ) operates reversibly. The area of the T HC surface is
assumed to be sufficiently large such that the outlet tempera-
1206 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
ture of the stream is equal to T HC . There is only one degree
of freedom in the optimization of the power plant: the hot
end of the inner compartment, or the exhaust temperature
T HC . It is not difficult to express W as a function of T HC and
to show that W is maximized when
T HC,opt5 ~ T H T L ! 1/2. ~44!
Chambadals corresponding energy conversion efficiency at
maximum power is
h 512 S D
TL
TH
1/2
. ~45!
It can be shown that the same efficiency formula ~45! holds
when the heat exchanger area is finite and the exhaust tem-
perature is higher than hot-end temperature of the reversible
compartment.197 Equation ~45! also holds when the unmixed
stream of Fig. 21 is replaced with a single-temperature
~mixed! fluid inside that heat exchanger.197
The maximum-power efficiency ~45! can also be derived
by minimizing the total entropy generation rate associated
with the power plant.197 One obvious source of entropy gen-
eration in Fig. 21 is the heat exchanger. The other is less
obvious: it is the dumping of the used stream into the ambi-
ent. This second source was featured prominently by an en-
tire subfield dedicated to the optimization of storage systems
~Sec. IV, Fig. 14!. The dumping of the T HC -hot exhaust is an
essential part of the optimization process: T HC is a degree of
freedom only when the exhaust (T HC ) is free to float, i.e.,
when it is not required ~used! by someone else downstream.
The external irreversibility indicated in Fig. 21 is an essential
part of the physics of the optimization process: without it the
plant design cannot be optimized. This additional irrevers-
ibility is what gives the design room to move, therefore it can
be called the room-to-move irreversibility.
With reference to Fig. 21, the total entropy generation
rate due to the power plant is
~46!
where the stream was treated as an ideal gas at constant
pressure, Q H 5mc p (T H 2T HC ) and Q e 5mc p (T HC 2T L ).
Equation ~46! shows that S gen has a minimum with respect to
T HC , and that the S gen,min design corresponds to the
maximum-power formulas ~44! and ~45!.
It is worth noting that if we had overlooked the room-
to-move irreversibility, that is, if we had written only the
entropy generation associated with the visible confines of the
power plant, then we would have found that S gen has a mini-
mum at a T HC value that differs from the maximum-power
value ~44!. These T HC values differ not because maximum
power and minimum entropy generation rate are two differ-
ent designs, but because an oversight has occurred in the
evaluation of the total rate of entropy generation. This obser-
vation sheds light on the physics literature claim198 that, in
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

FIG. 22. Power plant driven by heating from a combustion chamber with
well mixed products of combustion ~from Ref. 14!.
the same power plant, minimum entropy generation and
maximum power are two different design conditions.
A maximum power design similar to Chambadals is the
optimal combustion chamber temperature that was derived
independently in Ref. 14. Figure 22 shows a two-part model
of a power plant with isobaric and isothermal ~well mixed!
combustion chamber. It was shown that when the specific
heats of all the products of combustion are assumed to be
sufficiently constant ~independent of temperature!, the maxi-
mum power design corresponds to a hot-end ~flame! tem-
perature (T f ) equal to the geometric average of the adiabatic
flame temperature ~T af! and the ambient temperature ~T 0!,
T f ,opt5 ~ T afT 0 ! 1/2.
The maximization of power output was also described
by Odum and Pinkerton,199 who gave several examples from
engineering, physics, and biology, without deriving results
such as Eqs. ~44! and ~45!. Equal credit for such results goes
to Novikov5 who, like Chambadal, published them in 1957.
Novikovs analysis was reprinted in English in North-
American engineering textbooks200,201 as well as in Russian
engineering textbooks.7,202,203 His model is shown in Fig. 23.
The hot-end heat exchanger of finite thermal conductance
UA drives the heat transfer rate Q H into the working fluid,
which is heated at constant temperature (T HC ) from state (b)
to state (c). The fluid is expanded irreversibly from (c) to
(d): Novikov accounted for this irreversibility by writing
FIG. 23. Novikovs model for a steady-state power plant with heat transfer and expander irreversibilities ~from Ref. 197!.
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
(s d 2 s a ) 5 (1 1 i)(s d,rev 2 s a ), or Q L 5 (1 1 i)Q L,rev , where
~11i!>1 and Q L is the heat transferred to the ambient (T L ).
The rest of the power plant operates reversibly. Novikovs
optimal heating temperature and efficiency for maximum
power output,
T HC,opt5 ~ 11i ! 1/2~ T H T L ! 1/2, ~48!
h 512 ~ 11i ! 1/2 S D
TL
TH
1/2
~49!
match Chambadals Eqs. ~44! and ~45! in the limit where the
expansion is executed reversibly ~i50!.
The efficiency formula ~45! was rediscovered in 1975 in
the physics literature by Curzon and Ahlborn.8 Their model
differed from Chambadals and Novikovs in two respects.
First, the power plant operated in unsteady fashion, in time.
It executed a four-process ~two-stroke! cycle modeled as in
Sadi Carnots original memoir, however, the piston and cyl-
inder apparatus made contact during finite time intervals
with the two heat reservoirs. This contact occurred across
finite temperature differences. The second new feature in
Curzon and Ahlborns model is the heat transfer irreversibil-
ity ~finite thermal conductance! placed at the cold end of the
cycle. In summary, the maximum-power efficiency ~45! may
be called, chronologically, the ChambadalNovikov
~47!
CurzonAhlborn efficiency, or the CNCA efficiency for
short.
An entirely different way of modeling the irreversible
operation of a power plant was proposed in 1976 in
engineering.204 The loss of heat from the hot end of the
power plant was modeled as a thermal resistance ~bypass
heat leak! in parallel with an irreversibility free compartment
that produces the actual power output W, Fig. 24. The hot-
end temperature T H could vary. The heat leak was modeled
as proportional to the temperature difference between the hot
end and the ambient, Q C 5C(T H 2T L ), where C is the ther-
mal conductance of the leaky insulation of the power plant.
The power is maximum when the hot-end temperature T H
reaches the optimal level
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1207
 FIG. 24. Power plant model with bypass heat leak ~after Ref. 204!.

T H,opt5T L 11 S Q H
CT L
D 1/2
. ~50!

The corresponding efficiency ~W max/Q H ! is expectedly lower FIG. 25. Steady-state power plant model with finite hot-end and cold-end
than the Carnot efficiency, thermal conductances ~from Ref. 1!.

12T L /T H,opt ~ 11r ! 1/221

h5 5 , ~51!
11T L /T H,opt ~ 11r ! 1/211
contribution to power dissipation. Feature ~i! makes the
where r5Q H /(CT L ) is the dimensionless thermal resistance
steady state power plant model look like the one drawn in
of the power plant insulation. An optimal hot-end tempera-
Fig. 25, which will be discussed shortly. Feature ~ii! illus-
ture exists because when T H , T H,opt the Carnot efficiency of
trates the interplay between friction, thermodynamics, and
the right-hand side of the model of Fig. 24 is too low, while
heat transfer in the application of the method ~Fig. 1!. Re-
when T H . T H,opt too much of the fixed heat input Q H by-
garding feature ~iii!, to which Andresen et al.207 refer as
passes the power producing component.
heat leak, it must be noted that the origin of that energy
An interesting aspect of this power plant model is that
interaction is the work reservoir, or, in the authors own ter-
when we minimize the entropy generated inside the dashed
minology, a reservoir with infinite temperature ~i.e., an
box between T H and T L in Fig. 24, we find an optimum that
energy interaction accompanied by zero entropy transfer!.
differs from Eqs. ~50! and ~51! ~Ref. 1!. This paradox is an
Feature ~iii! is actually power dissipation ~e.g., electric, Joule
indication that the entropy generation calculation is incor-
heating! or a friction leak as stressed by Grazzini,208 not a
rect, as noted earlier under Eq. ~46!. For if T H is a degree of
bypass heat leak in the sense of Fig. 24.
freedom in the design, then the hot end of the power plant
The steady-state power plant model with two finite heat
must be free to float between the ambient and another ~nec-
exchangers was proposed independently in Ref. 1, not for
essary! heat reservoir whose temperature T f ~fixed! must be
deriving the CNCA efficiency ~45!, but for answering a more
always higher than T H . The neglected room-to-move irre-
direct technological question: Given the two heat exchangers
versibility occurs as Q H crosses the temperature gap
~U H A H and U L A L ! and an additional unit of expensive heat
(T f 2T H ). It is easy to show that by minimizing the entropy
transfer area (DA), should DA be placed at the hot end, or at
generated between T f (.T H ) and T L in Fig. 24, the optimal
the cold end? The finite-area allocation problem was gener-
hot-end temperature and efficiency match Eqs. ~50! and ~51!
alized by considering a power plant that makes contact with
~Ref. 12!.
an infinity of heat reservoirs distributed over a finite tem-
Curzon and Ahlborns work8 triggered a series of papers
perature interval, and by deriving based on variational calcu-
on power maximization in the physics literature. Reviews of
lus the optimal distribution of area over the same tempera-
this specialized line of research were published by
ture interval ~Ref. 1!.
Andresen205 and Andresen et al.206 Noteworthy in this series
The optimal allocation of heat exchanger inventory in
is the first follow up paper,207 which appeared in 1977 and in
the power plant model of Fig. 25 was illustrated in Refs. 10
which the power plant was modeled in the steady state. Com-
and 14, where it was assumed that the total thermal conduc-
pared with Novikovs model ~Fig. 23!, the model of Ref. 207
tance is fixed,
had three new features: ~i! a finite thermal conductance at the
cold end, ~ii! a speed-dependent dissipation of mechanical
power caused by shaft friction, and ~iii! a speed-independent U H A H 1U L A L 5UA. ~52!

1208 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
The power output, which was maximized once to arrive at
Eq. ~45!, can be maximized one more time by choosing the
proper ratio U H A H /(U L A L ) subject to constraint ~52!. The
optimal conductance allocation rule is
~ U H A H ! opt5 ~ U L A L ! opt . ~53!
This optimization result also holds when the conductance
inventory UA is minimized subject to fixed power output.209
If, instead of Eq. ~52!, the optimization is performed subject
to the total area constraint
A H 1A L 5A ~54!
the optimal way to divide the area inventory is210
A H,opt 1
5 . ~55!
A 11 ~ U H /U L ! 1/2
Optimization results such as Eqs. ~45!, ~53!, and ~55! can
also be derived by minimizing the entropy generation rate of
the power plant model of Fig. 25. In this alternate approach
it is essential to note that the optimization requires that Q H
vary, i.e., that the appropriate room-to-move entropy genera-
tion rate197 must be included in the calculation of the total
entropy generation rate. On the other hand, if the heat input
Q H is treated as fixed,197 the only degree of freedom left in
the optimization of the model of Fig. 25 is the allocation of
the finite heat exchanger inventory. For example, if the UA FIG. 26. Combined-cycle power plant with three heat exchangers ~from
inventory is constrained in accordance with Eq. ~52!, then Ref. 170!.
the optimal allocation rule continues to be Eq. ~53!, with the
corresponding maximum efficiency197 @see also the discus-
sion under Eq. ~63!#: leading to the CNCA efficiency, Eq. ~45!. Second, the finite

h5
W max
Q H
512
TL
TH
S 12
4Q H
UAT H
D 21

. ~56!
UA inventory ~52! must be divided equally between the two
heat exchangers, cf. Eq. ~53!. Third, there is a tradeoff be-
tween investing more in the heat exchanger equipment (UA)
Rubin and Andresen211 optimized the temperature stag- and in the resistance R i to the bypass heat leak
ing of two power plants fitted with three finite-size heat ex-
changers, Fig. 26. They showed that the efficiency at maxi-
mum total power (W 1 1W 2 ) is given by the same formula as
in Eq. ~45!. The power output was maximized further in Ref.
170, where the total thermal conductance inventory was con-
strained
U H A H 1U M A M 1U L A L 5UA. ~57!
The optimal way to allocate UA to the three heat exchangers,
and the resulting maximum power are
~ U H A H ! opt5 ~ U M A M ! opt5 ~ U L A L ! opt , ~58!

~ W 1 1W 2 ! max5
1
9
UAT H 12
TL
TH F S DG 1/2 2
. ~59!

A power plant model that combines the irreversibility

mechanisms illustrated in Figs. 24 and 25 is the model with
heat leak and two heat exchangers,10 Fig. 27. The power
output can be maximized in three ways. First, the optimal
temperature ratio across the imagined reversible compart-
ment turns out to be the same as in Ref. 8,

S D S D
T HC
T LC opt
5
TH
TL
1/2
~60! FIG. 27. Power plant model with bypass heat leak and two finite-size heat
exchangers ~from Ref. 10!.

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1209

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 Figs. 2123 and 2527!. However, in the presentation of the
empirical efficiency data T H was erroneously taken as equal
to the highest temperature reached by the working fluid, in-
stead of the equivalent temperature of the combustion cham-
ber as an exergy source ~Ref. 14!. An alternative explanation
for the position of the empirical data is provided by the
model of Fig. 29, in which the bypass heat leak of Fig. 24 is
optimized in harmony with the power-producing compart-
ment, i.e., in accordance with the method used in cryogenics
~Fig. 3!. When the entropy generated inside the insulation of
resistance R i is minimized as in Eqs. ~6!~10!, the power
plant model of Fig. 29~b! delivers maximum power with the
efficiency170
FIG. 28. The efficiencies of: actual power plants, models with finite heat
exchangers, and a model with bypass heat leak optimized in harmony with
the power-producing compartment ~From Ref. 170!.
h 512
TL
TH S
11ln
TH
TL
. D ~63!

The agreement between Eq. ~63! and the efficiencies re-

ported in Fig. 28 suggests that an actual power plant may
Q i 5(T H 2T L )/R i . It was shown that if the total UA and R i
also be viewed as an obstacle to direct heat transfer from the
compete against one another in the cost constraint
heat source T H to the heat sink T L , i.e., as an insulation
p c UA1p r R i 5K, ~61! designed to produce maximum power when its size is con-
where p c and p r are the unit costs of conductance and resis- strained. A third alternative to explaining the position of the
tance, then the optimal way of allocating the cost is reported efficiencies is provided by the fixed-heat-input
model: Equation ~56! agrees well with all the plotted h data
p c ~ UA ! opt5p r R i,opt . ~62! if the dimensionless group Q H /(UAT H ) has a value of order
The model of Fig. 27 was used later in the physics literature 0.1. The constancy of this group makes sense because both
by Gordon and Huleihil,212 Gordon and Orlov,213 and Pathria Q H and UA scale with the overall size of the power plant.
et al.214 Two notes on the history of the discipline of heat transfer
The technological applicability of the modeling features can be made at this point. The assumed proportionality be-
presented so far in this section varies. The practical implica- tween convective heat transfer rate and temperature differ-
tions of results such as Eqs. ~53! and ~62! are clear: the heat ence, e.g.,
exchanger inventory and the total cost must be divided in Q H 5U H A H ~ T H 2T H1 ! ~64!
certain ways. The practical meaning of the optimal tempera-
ture staging ~60! is less clear. Equation ~60! means that there in Fig. 26, in the physics literature is sometimes referred to
is one set of optimal internal temperatures (T HC,opt ,T LC,opt) as Newtons law of cooling. A study of the original writ-
for each set of specified heat exchanger sizes. The message ings shows that there is no published basis on which to at-
to the designer is that the working fluid must be selected in tribute such a formula to Newton ~Ref. 65!. Newton stated
such a way that it can be heated while at a certain tempera- that the cooling rate of a body ~i.e., the derivative dT/dt! is
ture ~e.g., boil at T HC,opt in a simple ideal Rankine cycle!, proportional to the temperature difference between the body
and be cooled while at another optimal temperature ~e.g., and the ambient. To use an analytical statement such as Eq.
condense at T LC,opt! for each given pair of heat exchanger ~64!, Newton would have needed the concepts of quantity of
sizes, U H A H and U L A L . The designer is considerably less
free to play around with the fluid type ~e.g., to abandon the
use of water! than to divide the UA inventory. This reality,
the author believes, explains at least in part why
Chambadals2 4 and Novikovs57,200203 optimal boiler tem-
perature ~44! was not noted more in engineering. Another
reason is that large scale power plants are designed ~opti-
mized! per unit of rate of fuel consumption @e.g., fixed Q H ,
Eq. ~56!#, not with a freely varying ~infinitely abundant! heat
input.
Another way to summarize the modeling features re-
viewed in this section is by comparing the reported efficien-
cies of actual power plants ~the dots in Fig. 28! with the
CNCA efficiency ~45!. The efficiency data are based on a
compilation started in Ref. 8 and continued in Refs. 10 and
14. The agreement between the data and Eq. ~45! tends to
FIG. 29. ~a! Power plant model with bypass heat leak to the ambient, and
suggest that the irreversible nature of power plants is cap- ~b! the optimization of the heat transfer interaction between the bypass
tured by simple models with finite heat exchangers ~e.g., conductance and the power-producing compartment ~From Ref. 170!.

1210 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
heat, specific heat and convective heat transfer coefficient,
which were conceived roughly a hundred years later by
Black,14 Wilcke,14 and Fourier,65 respectively. Proportionali-
ties such as Eq. ~64! are the invention of Fourier, who de-
fined in this way the convective ~fluid flow! heat transfer
coefficient as a concept distinct from that of thermal conduc-
tivity. To his contemporaries and the subsequent develop-
ment of heat transfer science, Fouriers heat transfer coeffi-
cient was revolutionary: it is an important reason why he,
and not Biot, won the race for the development of a success-
ful analytical theory of conduction heat transfer.
The second observation concerns the nonlinear alterna-
tive to Eq. ~64!, which in the physics literature is sometimes
referred to as the Dulong & Petit law. This terminology
belongs to the mid-1800s, when it was known empirically
that the heat transfer relation can be more complicated than
in Eq. ~64!. The readers may be interested to know that mod-
ern heat transfer is now a mature science, which is capable of
anticipating the nonlinear heat transfer rates based on highly
successful theories of forced convection, natural convection,
radiation, mixed convection, and conjugate heat transfer. The
predictive powers of heat transfer science were developed
over the past 200 years on the back of analytical advances
made, chronologically, in heat conduction, hydrodynamics,
thermal radiation, aerodynamics, boundary layer theory, and
convection in porous media. The most recent overviews of
the current status of heat transfer science are presented in
Refs. 65, 157, and 215.
The work that has been published on the thermodynamic
optimization of power plant models is sizable. As we saw in
Fig. 23, Novikovs model included the effect of irreversible
expansion through the turbine of the steam cycle. Lu,216
Grazzini,208 Ibrahim et al.,217,218 and Wu and Kiang219 ex-
tended this model by also accounting for the irreversibility of
the compression process and for the fact that the temperature
of the working fluid changes along the two heat exchangers.
Petrescu et al.220 generalized the model by including the ef-
fect of piston speed and type of working fluid.
The model of Fig. 27 was extended by Swanson221 to
account for the capacity flow rates and effectivenessN tu
relations of the heat exchangers. Swanson showed that in this
case the optimal thermal conductance allocation ratio de-
pends on the total number of heat transfer units of the two
heat exchangers. A similar model was optimized by Ibrahim
and Klein222 and Lee and Kim,223,224 who extended it further
to the optimization of Lorentz cycles, and by Ibrahim
et al.,217 who also considered the life-cycle economic opti-
mization of the power plant.
The four-process ~two-stroke! model of Curzon and
Ahlborn8 and its steady-state counterpart ~Fig. 25! was pur-
sued along several lines. These were reviewed most recently
by Wu et al.,225 Feidt et al.,226 and Arias-Hernandez and
Angulo-Brown,227 to whom the reader is directed. For ex-
ample, in several studies beginning with Gutkowicz-Krusin
et al.,228 the assumption that the heat transfer rates are pro-
portional to the local temperature differences was replaced
with more general, nonlinear heat transfer models that ac-
count for natural convection, radiation, and temperature de-
pendent properties.229231 The maximum power efficiency
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
formula ~45! does not hold when the heat transfer model is
not linear. Early studies were also contributed by Rubin,232
Lucca,233 Rozonoer and Tsirlin,234 and Mozurkewich and
Berry.235 The effect of speed on optimal performance was
studied by Spence and Harrison236 and Petrescu et al.220
There is an important technological issue to consider in
connection with the two-stroke model inspired by Ref. 8. In
Sadi Carnots 1824 essay we were told of a gas contained in
a cylinder and piston apparatus that underwent a cycle com-
posed of two strokes and four processes: two quasistatic and
isothermal processes interspaced with two quasistatic and
adiabatic processes. Curzon and Ahlborn8 added finite ther-
mal resistances between the cylinder and the respective tem-
perature reservoirs, and, in this way, described and optimized
the time-dependent evolution of the cycle. Although the
cycle described by Curzon and Ahlborn is a good instrument
for teaching, it is a questionable roadmap to improvements in
the thermodynamic performance of real heat engines. Recall
that the maximized power output can be further increased by
increasing the thermal conductances associated with the iso-
thermal processes. Can this be accomplished in a real heat
engine in which the same cylinder wall is asked to be a
perfect insulator during one process and a very good thermal
conductor during the next process in the same stroke? The
engine builders have faced this question early in the devel-
opment of practical machines. Examples are Watts 1769
separate condenser, Braytons 1873 external combustion
chamber, and Otto and Langens 1876 internal combustion
engine ~Ref. 14!.
Another line of research focused on individual features
of the four-process model. Band et al.237 performed the op-
timization of the heating process undergone by a fluid in a
piston and cylinder apparatus. Richter and Ross238 and
Fairen and Ross239,240 considered the effect of time-
dependent operation and inertia. Orlov and Berry241 opti-
mized an engine model where the working fluid is noniso-
thermal and viscous ~with pressure drop! while in contact
with the heat reservoirs. The mechanical optimization of the
kinematics of engines is an interesting direction defined by
the work of Senft.242244 Related to this is the cylindroids
rotary engine of Vargas and Florea.245
The maximization of work output as opposed to power
output was pursued by Grazzini and Gori246 and Wu et al.225
Subtle differences between the maximum power in time-
dependent ~reciprocating! versus steady-flow power plant
models were clarified by Kiang and Wu.247 As an ecological
figure of merit in power plant optimization, Angulo-Brown9
proposed to maximize the function W2T L S gen , where S gen is
the entropy generation rate of the power plant and T L is the
heat sink temperature.
Nomenclature innovations included the introduction of
the term endoreversible ~Rubin!232 to describe the revers-
ibility of the innermost compartment such as the one shown
in Fig. 25, or alternatively, the term exoirreversible for the
external irreversibilities that surround the same compartment
~Radcenco!.248 As pointed out by Berg,249 the concept of
internal reversibility ~or external irreversibility! is basically
the same as the local thermodynamic equilibrium model that
serves as foundation for all modern heat transfer and fluid
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1211
mechanics. The term thermodynamics in finite time was
introduced in 1977 specifically for the optimization of ther-
modynamic processes subjected to time constraints.250
Alefeld251 analyzed an entire steam-cycle modern power
station, and showed how the entropy generation rates con-
tributed by the components can be summed up to evaluate
the overall performance of the power plant. A similar proce-
dure was illustrated using the simple Rankine cycle in Ref.
14. The Rankine cycle power plant was also analyzed and
optimized by Wilson and Radwan,252 Roche,253 Habib and
Zubair,254 Smith,255 and Radcenco et al.256 Several of these
studies emphasized the importance of matching the variable
temperature of the working fluid to the temperature of the
heating agent. The graphic presentation and optimization of
complex power cycles was illustrated by Jin and Ishida.257
A comprehensive treatment of the distribution of sources
FIG. 30. Model of power plant with on and off operation and scale ~fouling!
of entropy generation in a gas-turbine power plant was accumulating on the hot-end heat exchanger surface ~from Ref. 197!.
present by Denton.258 The effect of turbine blade cooling on
entropy generation was investigated by Farina and
Donatini.259 Fundamental studies of power maximization in VIII. REFRIGERATION PLANTS
simple Brayton ~Joule! cycles were conducted by Leff,260
Landsberg and Leff,261 Wu,262 as well as in Refs. 10 and 14. The modeling features used for power plants ~Secs. VI
Organ263 presented a detailed analysis of the distribution and VII! have also been used in the optimization of refrig-
of entropy generation in a Stirling-cycle power plant. This eration plants. This body of work parallels in several respects
the work done on power plants, therefore its review in this
topic and the maximization of power received considerable
article will be more brief. It is interesting that by ending this
attention in subsequent papers by Organ,264 Organ and
article with a second look at refrigeration we are in fact
Jung,265 Radcenco et al.,256 Ladas and Ibrahim,266 and Blank completing a circle that started in cryogenic engineering
et al.267 Reviews of this field were published by Organ,268 ~Sec. III!. This is another indicator of how established the
Reader269 and, in a recent book, by Organ.270 method is, and how well rounded the field has become.
A systematic treatment of the Otto, Brayton ~Joule!, Die- The model that was studied the most is the refrigerator
sel, and Atkinson cycles was made by Leff260 and, in a gen- composed of a cold-end heat exchanger ~e.g., evaporator!, a
eralized form, by Landsberg and Leff.261 The Diesel cycle reversible compartment that receives power and moves the
was optimized for maximum power by Hoffman et al.,271 entropy stream toward higher temperatures, and a room-
and the distribution of entropy generation was studied by temperature heat exchanger ~e.g., condenser!. This model is
Primus and Flynn.272 Papers on Otto-cycle power plants shown in Fig. 31~b!. It was used first by Andresen et al.207
were written by Mozurkewich and Berry235 and Angulo- who focused on the optimal temperature staging of the three
Brown et al.273 Internal combustion power plants were also
optimized by Orlov and Berry:274 potentially important in
practice is the fact that optimized stroke-by-stroke cycles
such as the Otto cycle require optimal time-dependent piston
motions, which, in turn, require optimal kinematics ~link-
ages, shapes! between piston and crankshaft.
Ocean thermal energy conversion ~OTEC! power plants
were optimized by Johnson275 and Wu.276 The MHD power
cycle was treated by Aydin and Yavuz277 and Human.278 The
on and off operation of power plants that have to be shut
down to have their heat exchangers cleaned ~defouled! was
optimized in Ref. 279. An example of the model of time-
dependent operation is shown in Fig. 30, where fouling is
assumed to occur on the surfaces of the hot-end heat ex-
changer. The thickness of the scale increases with time, d(t).
It was shown that the period-averaged power output is maxi-
mized when the on time interval has an optimal duration.
The optimal design conditions are reported in dimensionless
charts that also hold for power plants in which fouling occurs FIG. 31. ~a! Actual steady-state refrigeration plant, and ~b! model with two
on the surfaces of the cold-end heat exchanger. finite size heat exchangers ~from Refs. 1 and 209!.

1212 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

FIG. 32. Refrigerator model with bypass heat leak and two finite-size heat
exchangers ~from Ref. 281!.
compartments: unlike in the power-plant equivalent ~Fig.
25!, in a refrigerator there is no optimal T HC /T LC ratio for
minimum power input.
The model of Fig. 31~b! was proposed independently in
Ref. 1 for determining the optimal allocation of a finite heat
exchanger inventory. This topic was pursued along several
lines in the literature. In Ref. 1, the initial question was
where to invest an additional unit of heat transfer area (DA)
when the cold-end conductance U L A L and room temperature
conductance U H A H are given. Goth and Feidt280 assumed
that the total heat transfer area A is constrained according to
Eq. ~54!, and showed that the power input is minimum when
A is divided as shown in Eq. ~55!. An independent study281
was based on the optimization based on the UA constraint
~52!, and led to the conclusion that the thermal conductance
inventory must be split evenly between the two heat ex-
changers, cf. Eq. ~53!. The same optimization rule applies
when the UA inventory is minimized subject to fixed power
input.209,282
Of technological importance is that compact design rules
such as Eqs. ~53! and ~54! lead to savings in power input,
and that they apply to power plants as well. The model of
Fig. 31~b! was also analyzed by Yan and Chen283,284 and
Grazzini.285 The optimal allocation of either A or UA in a
modern defrosting refrigerator based on the vapor compres-
sion cycle with fluids R-12 or R-134a is documented numeri-
cally in Ref. 286.
A model that combines the heat exchanger irreversibili-
ties of Fig. 31~b! with the heat leak irreversibility of Fig. 3
was proposed in Ref. 281 ~Fig. 32!. The bypass heat leak was
modeled as proportional to the room-load temperature differ-
ence, Q i 5(T H 2T L )/R i . There are two degrees of freedom
in the maximization of the refrigeration effect Q L , the allo-
cation of the heat exchanger inventory between the two ends
of the machine, and the allocation of cost between the total
heat exchanger inventory and the thermal insulation. Specifi-
cally, when the heat transfer rates are modeled as
Q HC 5U H A H (T HC 2T H ) and Q LC 5U L A L (T L 2T LC ), and
the heat exchanger inventory is constrained according to Eq.
~52!, the optimal UA allocation rule is Eq. ~53!. If the ther-
mal conductance inventory UA and the thermal resistance of
J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
the insulation R i compete in a cost formula that is the same
as Eq. ~61!, then the optimal cost allocation rule is given by
Eq. ~62!. We see again the power of compact design optimi-
zation results such as Eqs. ~53! and ~62!: they apply across
the board, to power plants and refrigeration plants. The
model of Fig. 32 was used subsequently by Agrawal and
Menon287 and Chen.288 The optimal allocation of heat ex-
changer inventory subject to a constraint that is qualitatively
related to Eq. ~52! was documented by Klein.289
Another practical merit of this modeling method is with
respect to correlating and explaining the trends in the data
reported on the performance of existing refrigeration plants.
To correlate the data is important because correlations are
needed for making projections on the refrigeration needs of
future large scale projects ~e.g., Ref. 40!. This line or work
was pursued in Refs. 14 and 281 for low temperature refrig-
erators, and in Ref. 290 for near ambient refrigerators and
heat pumps ~chillers!.
The power of the method can be seen by examining the
cloud of performance data of actual refrigerators,291 Fig.
33. The data cover refrigerators in the temperature range 1.8
K,T L ,90 K and capacity ~size! range 0.1 W,Q L ,106 W.
The ordinate shows the reported second-law efficiencies
hII5COP/~COP!rev where COP5Q L /W. A three-line analysis
of the model of Fig. 34 predicts that hII should vary as14,281
h II5 11F C iT H
Q L
S 12
TL
TH DG 21
, ~65!
where C i is the thermal conductance of the leaky insulation,
Q L 5C i (T H 2T L ). A comparison with Fig. 33 shows that Eq.
~65! with C i T H /Q L ;5 is an adequate curve fit for the re-
ported performance data. Equation ~65! predicts several of
the observed trends. First, hII decreases monotonically as C i
increases, which should be expected because leakier refrig-
erated enclosures make less efficient refrigeration plants.
Second, hII decreases as T L /T H decreases. Third, the second-
law efficiency ~or the COP! increases as Q L increases, which
means that larger machines are more efficient. Finally, the
fact that the empirical data of Fig. 33 are fitted by
C i T H /Q L ;5 means that in modern low temperature refrig-
erators the heat leak is of the order of five times the actual
refrigeration load. Some of these trends were also anticipated
by Gordon and Ng290 and Ref. 281 based on more complex
models such as Fig. 32.
Other aspects of improving the thermodynamic perfor-
mance of refrigeration machines are discussed by
Alefeld.292,293 In contrast to using exergy analysis, Alefeld
describes the effectiveness of components in terms of their
respective contributions to the total entropy generation rate.
The optimal distribution of a finite amount of insulation over
a cold enclosure of nonuniform temperature was developed
in Ref. 294. The application of this insulation allocation prin-
ciple to a modern domestic refrigerator with two temperature
compartments ~fridge and freezer! is described in Ref. 295.
Even closer to modern refrigeration technology is the opti-
mization of time-dependent refrigerators that must be de-
frosted periodically. The model of Fig. 35 was sufficient for
pinpointing an optimal rhythm of on and off operation when
the growth of the frost layer thickness d(t) is known. Opti-
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1213
 FIG. 33. Compilation of the second-law efficiencies of existing refrigerators and liquifiers ~from Ref. 291!.
mization results that are directly applicable to current design
and manufacture are presented in Ref. 286 for refrigerators
based on the vapor compression cycle. These results cover
not only the optimal control of the defrosting cycle but also
the optimal allocation of a finite heat transfer area to the
evaporator and the condenser.
The formation of frost on cold heat exchangers is detri-
mental to refrigerator thermodynamic performance, which is
why the optimization of the freezing and frost removal cycle
is an important technological issue. Most interesting is that
the same phenomenonthe same on and off cyclecan be
viewed and optimized as something beneficial, namely, the
maximization of ice production in industrial ice making in-
stallations. Models of the same class as Fig. 35 have been
used to determine the optimal freezing and removal fre-
FIG. 34. Model of refrigeration plant with heat leak irreversibility ~from
Refs. 14 and 281!.
1214 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996
Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
quency for the manufacture of ice on the outside of horizon-
tal tubes296 and on the inside or outside of vertical surfaces
of several shapes.297 The analyses also require the use of
contact melting theory.298 This optimization principle is rel-
evant to the production by intermittent solidification of other
materials, not just ice.
IX. CONCLUSION
A revolution is taking place in thermodynamics, and it
amounts to the bridging of the gaps between thermodynam-
ics, heat transfer and fluid mechanics. Today a common
methodology unites these seemingly separate disciplines,
and, when viewed as self-standing, the method and its vari-
ous models are surprisingly simple. This review showed that
new contributions are being added at an accelerated pace in
FIG. 35. Model of refrigerator with unsteady operation and frost accumula-
tion on the evaporator surface ~from Ref. 197!.
Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan
 opportunity to distribute the hardware optimally in the de-
sign of actual installations. The contribution made by simple
models and the method of entropy generation minimization
is to show the way, i.e., to uncover new opportunities for the
work that will follow in industrial research and development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank the Editors, Dr. J. M. Poate, and Dr. S. J.
Rothman, for inviting me to prepare this review article. I also
thank the National Science Foundation for supporting my
current research on basic thermodynamics, heat transfer, and
fluid mechanics.

1
A. Bejan, Entropy Generation through Heat and Fluid Flow ~Wiley, New
York, 1982!.
2
P. Chambadal, Les Centrales Nucleaires ~Armand Colin, Paris, 1957!, pp.
4158.
3
P. Chambadal, Rev. Gen. Elect. 67, 332 ~1958!.
4
P. Chambadal, Evolution et Applications du Concept dEntropie ~Dunod,
Paris, 1963!, Sec. 30.
FIG. 36. The diversity and structure of the field of entropy generation mini-
5
I. I. Novikov, Atomnaya Energiya 3, 409 ~1957!.
mization ~finite time thermodynamics, or thermodynamic optimization!
6
I. I. Novikov, J. Nucl. Energy II 7, 125 ~1958!.
~from Ref. 197!.
7
M. P. Vukalovich and I. I. Novikov, Thermodynamics ~Mashinostroenie,
Moscow, 1972!.
8
F. L. Curzon and B. Ahlborn, Am. J. Phys. 43, 22 ~1975!.
9
F. Angulo-Brown, J. Appl. Phys. 69, 7465 ~1991!.
both engineering and physics. The contributors are almost as 10
A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 31, 1211 ~1988!.
diverse as the topics: engineers, physicists, chemists, and op-
11
A. Bejan, Thermodynamic Design, Course ME 551 ~University of Colo-
rado, Boulder, 1979!.
timal control scientists. My hope299 is that this review will 12
A. Bejan, Solutions Manual for Entropy Generation through Heat and
lead to more effective interactions between the various sec- Fluid Flow ~Wiley, New York, 1984!.
tors of the field, and, certainly, to a broader and more accu- 13
A. Bejan, Adv. Heat Transfer 15, 1 ~1982!.
rate view of the field.
14
A. Bejan, Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics ~Wiley, New York,
1988!.
A birds-eye-view of the territory we just covered is 15
G. Gouy, J. Phys. 8, 501 ~1889!.
shown in Fig. 36. The field has a two-dimensional structure 16
A. Stodola, Steam and Gas Turbines ~McGraw-Hill, New York, 1910!.
17
with specific applications added steadily on the vertical, and M. J. Moran, Availability Analysis: A Guide to Efficient Energy Use, 2nd
with the optimization level indicated on the horizontal. The ed. ~ASME, New York, 1989!.
18
A Future for Energy, edited by S. S. Stecco and M. J. Moran ~Pergamon,
optimization can be approached from left, by focusing from Oxford, UK, 1990!.
the start on the total system and dividing it into compart- 19
Analysis of Thermal and Energy Systems, Proceedings of the International
ments that account for identifiable irreversibilities. In this Conference, edited by D. A. Kouremenos, G. Tsatsaronis, and C. D. Ra-
kopoulos ~Greg. Foundas, Athens, Greece, 1991!.
case, success depends greatly on the analysts intuition ~feel 20
Energy for the Transition Age, edited by S. S. Stecco and M. J. Moran
for irreversibility sources!: this stresses the importance of ~Nova Science, New York, 1992!.
21
teaching the entropy generation minimization method as an ECOS 92, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Efficiency,
integral part of thermodynamics. The optimization can also Costs, Optimization and Simulation of Energy Systems, Zaragoza, Spain,
edited by A. Valero and G. Tsatsaronis ~ASME, New York, 1992!.
be approached from the right in Fig. 36, by recognizing that 22
M. J. Moran and E. Sciubba, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 116, 285 ~1994!.
systems are made of actual components, that each compo- 23
A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, and M. Moran, Thermal Design and Optimiza-
nent may contain a large number of one or more elemental tion ~Wiley, New York, 1996!.
features, and that each elemental feature owes its irreversibil-
24
A. Bejan and J. L. Smith, Jr., Cryogenics 14, 158 ~1974!.
25
A. Bejan and J. L. Smith, Jr., Adv. Cryogen. Eng. 21, 247 ~1975!.
ity to processes that occur at the differential level. 26
M. A. Hilal and R. W. Boom, Adv. Cryogen. Eng. 22, 224 ~1977!.
The present review emphasized the fundamental and 27
G. Bisio, Proc. 23rd Intersoc. Energy Conv. Eng. Conf. 4, 67 ~1988!.
technological implications of the optimal results delivered by 28
G. Bisio, Proc. 24th Intersoc. Energy Conv. Eng. Conf. 1713 ~1989!.
the method. At a fundamental and pedagogical level, the
29
A. Bejan, Cryogenics 15, 290 ~1975!.
30
V. S. Martynovskii, V. T. Cheilyakh, and T. N. Shnaid, Energ. Transp. 2
method EGM is changing thermodynamics itself, i.e., the ~1971!.
way in which we think and apply thermodynamic principles. 31
Y. M. Eyssa and O. Okasha, Cryogenics 18, 305 ~1978!.
For additional review material, the reader is directed to the 32
J. C. Chato and J. M. Khodadadi, J. Heat Transfer 106, 871 ~1984!.
33
volume of papers edited by Sieniutycz and Salamon,300 the W. E. W. Chen, J. R. Turner, and T. H. K. Frederking, AIChE Symp. Ser.
251 82, 101 ~1986!.
books of De Vos,160 Feidt,301 and Radcenco,302 as well as to 34
R. Agsten, Cryogenics 13, 141 ~1973!.
the books 1, 14, 23, and 197. 35
A. Bejan, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
On the practical side, we learned repeatedly that a fixed MA, 1975.
36
A. Bejan and E. M. Cluss, Jr., Cryogenics 16, 515 ~1976!.
inventory of hardware can be divided optimally among two 37
F. Angulo-Brown, E. Yepez, and R. Zamorano-Ulloa, Phys. Lett. A 183,
or more components of an installation. If this can be done in 431 ~1993!.
models as simple as Figs. 27 and 32, then there is a real 38
A. Bejan, Cryogenics 16, 153 ~1976!.

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1215

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
39
A. Bejan, Cryogenics 17, 97 ~1977!. 95
S. Petrescu, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 37, 1283 ~1994!.
40
A. Bejan and M. O. Hoenig, IEEE Trans. Magn. MAG-13, 686 ~1977!. 96
C. F. Tapia and M. J. Moran, ASME AES 2-1, 93 ~1986!.
41 97
J. Anderson, R. J. Krane, J. R. Parsons, and A. Bar-Cohen, Proc. Intersoc. J. Ranasinghe, S. Aceves-Saborio, and G. M. Reistad, in Second Law
Thermal Phenom. Electronic Syst., I-THERM III, Austin, TX, 5 8 Feb- Analysis of Thermal Systems, edited by M. J. Moran and E. Sciubba
ruary 1992 ~unpublished!, p. 85. ~ASME, New York, 1987!, pp. 2938.
42
A. Bejan and G. A. Ledezma, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer ~in press!. 98
D. Li, D. S. Scott, and P. Crane, ASME HTD 266, 93 ~1993!.
43
A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 22, 219 ~1979!. 99
K. Hesselmann, ASME HTD 33, 95 ~1984!.
44
S. Jeong and J. L. Smith, Jr., Cryogenics 34, 929 ~1994!. 100
J. C. Chato and C. Damianides, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 29, 1079
45
P. Grassmann and J. Kopp, Kaltetechnik 9, 306 ~1957!. ~1986!.
46
W. Schultz and A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 26, 335 ~1983!. 101
D. P. Sekulic and Z. S. Milosevic, ASME HTD 97, 49 ~1988!.
47
A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 21, 655 ~1978!. 102
Y. Tsujikawa, T. Sawada, T. Morimoto, and K. Murata, Heat Recovery
48
A. Bejan, Energy 5, 721 ~1980!. Syst. 3, 245 ~1986!.
49
V. A. Mironova, A. M. Tsirlin, V. A. Kazakov, and R. S. Berry, J. Appl. 103
R. A. Hutchinson and S. E. Lyke, Proc. 1987 ASME/JSME Thermal Eng.
Phys. 76, 629 ~1994!. Joint Conf. 2, 653 ~1987!.
50
A. Bejan and P. A. Pfister, Jr., Lett. Heat Mass Transfer 7, 97 ~1980!. 104
K. Matsumoto and M. Shiino, Cryogenics 29, 888 ~1989!.
51
W. R. Ouellette and A. Bejan, Energy 5, 587 ~1980!. 105
C. Schenone, L. Tagliafico, and G. Tanda, Heat Transfer Eng. 12, 19
52
R. M. Nelson, ASME AES 7, 59 ~1988!. ~1991!.
53
D. Sekulic, A. Campo, and J. C. Morales, ASME paper no. 94-WA/HT-24 106
G. Bisio, Warme-und Stoffubertragung 23, 143 ~1988!.
~1994!. 107
G. Bisio, Warme-und Stoffubertragung 25, 117 ~1990!.
54
H. Perez-Blanco, ASME HTD 33, 19 ~1984!. 108
G. Bisio, J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn. 17, 11 ~1992!.
55
V. D. Zimparov and N. L. Vulchanov, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 37, 1807 109
J. Bishop and V. Kinra, J. Reinforced Plastics Composites 12, 210 ~1993!.
~1994!. 110
J. E. Bishop and V. K. Kinra, ASME HTD 266, 127 ~1993!.
56
B. H. Chen and W. H. Huang, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 15, 59 111
K. Milligan and V. Kinra, ASME HTD 266, 139 ~1993!.
~1988!. 112
K. Milligan and V. Kinra, Mech. Res. Commun. 20, 137 ~1993!.
57
R. C. Prasad and J. Shen, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 36, 4193 ~1993!. 113
V. Kinra and K. Milligan, J. Appl. Mech. 61, 71 ~1994!.
58
R. C. Prasad and J. Shen, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 37, 2297 ~1994!. 114
J. Y. San, W. M. Worek, and Z. Lavan, J. Heat Transfer 109, 647 ~1987!.
59
C. A. Balaras, Energy 15, 899 ~1990!. 115
J. Y. San, W. M. Worek, and Z. Lavan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 30,
60
W. F. Kenney, Chem. Eng. Progr. February, 57 ~1989!.
1359 ~1987!.
61
F. Kreith and M. Bohn, Principles of Heat Transfer ~Harper and Row, 116
C. G. Carrington and Z. F. Sun, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 34, 2767
New York, 1986!.
~1991!.
62
D. Poulikakos and A. Bejan, J. Heat Transfer 104, 616 ~1982!. 117
C. G. Carrington and Z. F. Sun, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 13, 65 ~1992!.
63
D. Poulikakos and J. M. Johnson, Energy 14, 67 ~1989!.
64
118
Z. F. Sun and C. G. Carrington, J. Energy Res. Technol. 113, 33 ~1991!.
A. J. Fowler and A. Bejan, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 21, 17 119
V. S. Arpaci, AIAA J. 24, 1859 ~1986!.
~1994!.
65
A. Bejan, Heat Transfer ~Wiley, New York, 1993!.
120
V. S. Arpaci, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 30, 2115 ~1987!.
66
A. Bejan, J. Heat Transfer 99, 374 ~1977!.
121
V. S. Arpaci, Adv. Heat Transfer 21, 239 ~1991!.
67
D. P. Sekulic and C. V. Herman, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 13, 23
122
V. S. Arpaci and A. Selamet, Combust. Flame 73, 251 ~1988!.
~1986!.
123
V. S. Arpaci and A. Selamet, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 18, 429 ~1992!.
68
S. Sarangi and K. Chowdhury, Cryogenics 22, 63 ~1982!.
124
A. Selamet and V. S. Arpaci, J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 4, 404 ~1990!.
69
C. E. S. M. da Costa and F. E. M. Saboya, Proceedings of the Eighth
125
I. K. Puri, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 35, 2571 ~1992!.
Brazilian Congress on Mechanical Engineering, 1985 ~unpublished!, p.
126
A. Bejan, Convection Heat Transfer ~Wiley, New York, 1984!.
185.
127
A. Bejan, J. Heat Transfer 100, 708 ~1978!.
70
D. P. Sekulic, Faculty of Technical Sciences 16, University of Novi Sad,
128
R. J. Krane, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 30, 43 ~1987!.
129
Yugoslavia, 19851986. M. J. Taylor, R. J. Krane, and J. R. Parsons, in Ref. 18, pp. 885908.
130
71
D. P. Sekulic, Heat Transfer Eng. 7, 83 ~1986!. D. P. Sekulic and R. J. Krane, in Ref. 21, pp. 6172.
72
A. L. London and R. K. Shah, Heat Transfer Eng. 4, 59 ~1983!.
131
J. Y. San, W. M. Worek, and Z. Lavan, Energy 12, 485 ~1987!.
73
S. M. Zubair, P. V. Kadaba, and R. B. Evans, J. Heat Transfer 109, 287
132
C. M. Shen and W. M. Worek, Energy 18, 355 ~1993!.
133
~1987!. B. Mathiprakasam and J. Beeson, Proc. AIChE Symp. Ser., National Heat
74
S. C. Lau, K. Annamalai, and S. V. Shelton, J. Energy Resources Technol. Transfer Conf. ~Seattle, WA, 1983!.
109, 90 ~1987!.
134
S. K. Das and R. K. Sahoo, Cryogenics 31, 862 ~1991!.
75
S. Y. Huang, VDI-Ber. 539, 623 ~1984!.
135
R. K. Sahoo and S. K. Das, Cryogenics 34, 475 ~1994!.
136
76
G. Grazzini and F. Gori, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 31, 2547 ~1988!. M. A. Badar, S. M. Zubair, and A. A. Al-Farayedhi, Energy 18, 641
77
D. Tondeur, in Ref. 300, pp. 175208. ~1993!.
137
78
D. Tondeur and E. Kvaalen, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 26, 50 ~1987!. T. J. Kotas and R. K. Jassim, Proceedings of the International Conference
79
B. Baclic and D. Sekulic, Termotechnika 4, 34 ~1978!. on Energy Systems and Ecology ~ENSEC93!, Cracow, 1993 ~unpub-
80
H. Soumerai, ASME HTD 33, 11 ~1984!. lished!, p. 313.
138
81
H. Soumerai, Practical Thermodynamic Tools for Heat Exchangers De- M. A. Rosen, F. C. Hooper, and L. N. Barbaris, J. Solar Energy Eng. 110,
sign Engineers ~Wiley, New York, 1987!. 255 ~1988!.
82
W. J. Wepfer, R. A. Gaggioli, and E. F. Obert, J. Eng. Ind. 101, 427
139
M. A. Rosen, J. Solar Energy Eng. 114, 100 ~1992!.
~1979!.
140
A. Bejan and W. Schultz, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 25, 1087 ~1982!.
83
Y. El-Sayed, ASME HTD 97, 19 ~1988!.
141
B. Andresen and J. M. Gordon, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 13, 294 ~1992!.
84
H. Liang and T. H. Kuehn, ASME AES 6, 31 ~1988!.
142
B. Andresen and J. M. Gordon, J. Appl. Phys. 71, 76 ~1992!.
85
R. B. Evans and M. R. von Spakovsky, ASME AES 7, 1 ~1988!.
143
H. Bjurstrom and B. Carlsson, Heat Recovery Syst. 5, 233 ~1985!.
86
M. K. Drost and J. R. Zaworski, ASME AES 4, 7 ~1988!.
144
G. Adebiyi and L. D. Russell, ASME HTD 80, 9 ~1987!.
87
A. Bejan, J. Heat Transfer 101, 718 ~1979!.
145
M. De Lucia and A. Bejan, J. Solar Energy Eng. 112, 110 ~1990!.
88
S. Paoletti, F. Rispoli, and E. Sciubba, ASME AES 10-2, 21 ~1989!.
146
M. De Lucia and A. Bejan, J. Solar Energy Eng. 113, 2 ~1991!.
147
89
M. D. White and M. K. Drost, ASME AES 10-2, 13 ~1989!. J. S. Lim, A. Bejan, and J. H. Kim, J. Energy Resources Technol. 114, 84
90
C.-H. Cheng and W.-H. Huang, Appl. Energy 32, 241 ~1989!. ~1992!.
91
M. K. Drost and M. D. White, Report No. PNL-7519/UC-363, Battelle, 148
G. Adebiyi, J. Solar Energy Eng. 113, 146 ~1991!.
Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA, 1991. 149
Ch. Charach and A. Zemel, J. Solar Energy Eng. 114, 93 ~1992!.
92
M. K. Drost and M. D. White, J. Heat Transfer 113, 823 ~1991!. 150
Ch. Charach and A. Zemel, Open Systems Information Dynamics 1, 423
93
P. Benedetti and E. Sciubba, ASME HTD 266, 81 ~1993!. ~1992!.
94
C.-H. Cheng, W.-P. Ma, and W.-H. Huang, Int. Commun. Heat Mass 151
Ch. Charach, J. Solar Energy Eng. 115, 240 ~1993!.
Transfer 21, 519 ~1994!. 152
C. Bellecci and M. Conti, Solar Energy 53, 163 ~1994!.

1216 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
153
C. Bellecci and M. Conti, Solar Energy 51, 169 ~1993!. 207
B. Andresen, P. Salamon, and R. S. Berry, J. Chem. Phys. 66, 1571
154
C. Bellecci and M. Conti, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 36, 2157 ~1993!. ~1977!.
155
S. Aceves-Saborio, H. Nakamura, and G. M. Reistad, J. Energy Re- 208
G. Grazzini, Energy 16, 747 ~1991!.
sources Technol. 116, 79 ~1994!. 209
A. Bejan, J. Energy Res. Technol. 115, 148 ~1993!.
156
S. Aceves-Saborio, A. Hernandez-Guerrero, and H. Nakamura, ASME 210
A. Bejan, Thermal Sci. Eng. ~J. Heat Transfer Soc. Japan! 33, 68 ~1994!.
HTD 266, 73 ~1993!. 211
M. H. Rubin and B. Andresen, J. Appl. Phys. 53, 1 ~1982!.
157
A. Bejan, Convection Heat Transfer, 2nd ed. ~Wiley, New York, 1995!. 212
J. M. Gordon and M. Huleihil, J. Appl. Phys. 72, 829 ~1992!.
158
G. A. Adebiyi, B. K. Hodge, W. G. Steele, A. Jalalzadeh, and E. C. 213
J. M. Gordon and V. N. Orlov, J. Appl. Phys. 74, 5303 ~1993!.
Nsofor, ASME AES 27, 1 ~1992!. 214
R. K. Pathria, J. D. Nulton, and P. Salamon, Am. J. Phys. 61, 916 ~1993!.
159
Ch. Charach and I. Rubinstein, J. Appl. Phys. 66, 4053 ~1989!. 215
D. A. Nield and A. Bejan, Convection in Porous Media ~Springer, New
160
A. De Vos, Endoreversible Thermodynamics of Solar Energy Conversion York, 1992!.
~Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992!. 216
P.-C. Lu, Energy 5, 993 ~1980!.
161
H. Muser, Z. Phys. 148, 380 ~1957!. 217
O. M. Ibrahim, S. A. Klein, and J. W. Mitchell, J. Eng. Gas Turbines
162
M. Castans, Revista Geofis. 35, 227 ~1976!. Power 113, 514 ~1991!.
163
S. Jeter, Solar Energy 26, 231 ~1981!. 218
O. M. Ibrahim, S. A. Klein, and J. W. Mitchell, J. Solar Energy Eng. 114,
164
A. De Vos and H. Pauwels, Appl. Phys. 25, 119 ~1981!. 267 ~1992!.
165
J. M. Gordon and Y. Zarmi, Am. J. Phys. 57, 995 ~1989!. 219
C. Wu and R. L. Kiang, Energy 17, 1173 ~1992!.
166
A. De Vos and G. Flater, Am. J. Phys. 59, 751 ~1991!. 220
S. Petrescu, C. Harman, and A. Bejan, in Ref. 188, pp. 441 452.
167
A. Bejan, D. W. Kearney, and F. Kreith, J. Solar Energy Eng. 103, 23 221
L. W. Swanson, ASME HTD 125, 31 ~1989!.
~1981!. 222
O. M. Ibrahim and S. A. Klein, ASME HTD 124, 91 ~1989!.
168
M. Sokolov and D. Hershgal, Solar Energy 50, 507 ~1993!. 223
W. Y. Lee and S. S. Kim, Energy 16, 1051 ~1991!.
169
J. R. Howell and R. B. Bannerot, Solar Energy 19, 149 ~1977!. 224
W. Y. Lee and S. S. Kim, Energy 17, 275 ~1992!.
170
A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 38, 433 ~1995!. 225
C. Wu, R. L. Kiang, V. J. Lopardo, and G. N. Karpouzian, Int. J. Mech.
171
A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 3, 67 ~1982!. Eng. Ed. 21, 337 ~1993!.
172
D. E. Chelghoum and A. Bejan, J. Solar Energy Eng. 107, 244 ~1985!. 226
M. Feidt, P. Ramany-Bala, and R. Benelmir, in Ref. 188, pp. 429 439.
173
P. Baruch and J. E. Parrott, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 23, 739 ~1990!. 227
L. A. Arias-Hernandez and F. Angulo-Brown, Rev. Mex. Fis. ~1995!.
174
A. Bejan, J. Solar Energy Eng. 109, 46 ~1987!. 228
D. Gutkowicz-Krusin, I. Procaccia, and J. Ross, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 3898
175
R. Petela, J. Heat Transfer 86, 187 ~1964!. ~1978!.
176
D. C. Spanner, Introduction to Thermodynamics ~Academic, London, 229
A. De Vos, Am. J. Phys. 53, 570 ~1985!.
1964!. 230
L. Chen and Z. Yan, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 3740 ~1989!.
177
V. Badescu, Entropie 145, 41 ~1988!. 231
F. Angulo-Brown and R. Paez-Hernandez, J. Appl. Phys. 74, 2216 ~1993!.
178
V. Badescu, Energy 14, 237 ~1989!. 232
M. H. Rubin, Phys. Rev. A 19, 1272 ~1979!.
179
V. Badescu, Energy 14, 571 ~1989!. 233
G. Lucca, Cond. Aria Risc. Refrig. January, 19 ~1981!.
180
V. Badescu, Energy 16, 783 ~1991!. 234
L. I. Rozonoer and A. M. Tsirlin, Avtomatika i Telemekanika 44, 50
181
Proceedings of the International Conference on Comparative Assess- ~1983!.
ments of Solar Power Technologies ~SOLCOM-1! ~Jerusalem, 14 18 235
M. Mozurkewicz and R. S. Berry, J. Appl. Phys. 53, 34 ~1982!.
February 1994! edited by A. Roy and W. Grasse ~unpublished!. 236
R. D. Spence and M. J. Harrison, Am. J. Phys. 53, 890 ~1985!.
182
M. Fujiwara, J. Solar Energy Eng. 105, 163 ~1983!. 237
Y. B. Band, O. Kafri, and P. Salamon, J. Appl. Phys. 52, 3745 ~1981!.
183
A. Suzuki, Doctoral thesis, Sophia University, Japan, 1989. 238
P. H. Richter and J. Ross, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 5521 ~1978!.
184
K. W. Han and C. C. Lee, Energy 16, 859 ~1991!. 239
V. Fairen and J. Ross, J. Chem. Phys. 75, 5485 ~1981!.
185
G. Grazzini, Energie Alternative HTE 12, 325 ~1990!. 240
V. Fairen and J. Ross, J. Chem. Phys. 75, 5490 ~1981!.
186
R. Borner, M. Feidt, and P. Ramany Bala, in Ref. 137, pp. 839 846. 241
V. N. Orlov and R. S. Berry, Phys. Rev. A 42, 7230 ~1991!.
187
A. De Vos, P. T. Landsberg, P. Baruch, and J. E. Parrott, J. Appl. Phys. 74, 242
J. R. Senft, J. Franklin Inst. 324, 273 ~1987!.
3631 ~1993!. 243
J. R. Senft, J. Franklin Inst. 328, 255 ~1991!.
188
Z. Yan and J. Chen, in FLOWERS 94, Proceedings of the Florence World 244
J. R. Senft, J. Franklin Inst. 330, 967 ~1993!.
Energy Research Symposium, edited by E. Carnevalle, G. Manfrida, and 245
J. V. C. Vargas and R. Florea, ASME ICE 22, 215 ~1994!.
F. Martelli ~SGEditoriali, Padova, 1994!, pp. 10511057. 246
G. Grazzini and F. Gori, Rev. Gen. Therm. 312, 637 ~1987!.
189
A. De Vos and P. van der Wel, J. Non-Equil. Thermodyn. 17, 77 ~1992!. 247
R. L. Kiang and C. Wu, Int. J. Power Energy Systems 14, 68 ~1994!.
190
S. Gotkun, S. Ozkaynak, and H. Yavuz, Energy 18, 651 ~1993!. 248
V. Radcenco, Rev. Chimie 41, 40 ~1990!.
191
K. Altfeld, W. Leiner, and M. Fiebig, Solar Energy 41, 127 ~1988!. 249
C. Berg, in Ref. 21, pp. 716.
192
K. Altfeld, W. Leiner, and M. Fiebig, Solar Energy 41, 309 ~1988!. 250
B. Andresen, R. S. Berry, A. Nitzan, and P. Salamon, Phys. Rev. A 15,
193
C. K. Hsieh and C. Y. Choi, J. Solar Energy Eng. 114, 203 ~1992!. 2086 ~1977!.
194
S. K. Chaturvedi, T. O. Mohieldin, and D. T. Chen, Energy 16, 941 251
G. Alefeld, ASME AES 10-2, 61 ~1989!.
~1991!. 252
S. S. Wilson and M. S. Radwan, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Ed. 5, 68 ~1977!.
195
V. Badescu, Energy 17, 601 ~1992!. 253
M. Roche, Rev. Gen. Thermique Fr. 260261, 561 ~1983!.
196
J. S. Lim, A. Bejan, and J. H. Kim, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 13, 71 ~1992!. 254
M. A. Habib and S. M. Zubair, Energy 17, 295 ~1992!.
197
A. Bejan, Entropy Generation Minimization ~CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 255
J. L. Smith, Jr., ASME HTD 266, 181 ~1993!.
256
1996!. V. Radcenco, G. Popescu, V. Apostol, and M. Feidt, Rev Gen. Thermique
198
P. Salamon and A. Nitzan, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 3546 ~1981!. Fr. 382, 509 ~1993!.
199
H. T. Odum and R. C. Pinkerton, Am. Sci. 43, 331 ~1955!. 257
H. Jin and M. Ishida, Energy 18, 615 ~1993!.
200
M. M. El-Wakil, Nuclear Power Engineering ~McGraw-Hill, New York, 258
J. D. Denton, J. Turbomach. 115, 621 ~1993!.
1962!, pp. 162165. 259
F. Farina and F. Donatini, ASME paper no. 93-JPGC-GT 7 ~1993!.
201
M. M. El-Wakil, Nuclear Energy Conversion ~International Textbook 260
H. S. Leff, Am. J. Phys. 55, 602 ~1987!.
Company, Scranton, PA, 1971!, pp. 3135. 261
P. T. Landsberg and H. S. Leff, J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 22, 4019 ~1989!.
202
I. I. Novikov and K. D. Voskresenskii, Thermodynamics and Heat 262
C. Wu, Int. J. Energy Environment Economics 2, 57 ~1992!.
Transfer ~Atomizdat, Moscow, 1977!. 263
A. J. Organ, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 201, 107 ~1987!.
203
I. I. Novikov, Thermodynamics ~Mashinostroenie, Moscow, 1984!. 264
A. J. Organ, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 202, 31 ~1988!.
204
A. Bejan and H. M. Paynter, Solved Problems in Thermodynamics ~Dept. 265
A. J. Organ and P. S. Jung, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 203, 301 ~1989!.
Mech. Eng., Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, 266
H. G. Ladas and O. M. Ibrahim, Energy 19, 837 ~1994!.
MA, 1976!, Problem VII-D. 267
D. A. Blank, G. W. Davis, and C. Wu, Energy 19, 125 ~1994!.
205
B. Andresen, Doctoral thesis, Physics Laboratory II, University of 268
A. J. Organ, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 201, 381 ~1987!.
269
Copenhagen, 1984. G. T. Reader, ISEC, 5th Int. Stirling Engine Conf., Dubrovnik, pp. 353
206
B. Andresen, P. Salamon, and R. S. Berry, Phys. Today, September, 62 359.
~1984!. 270
A. J. Organ, Thermodynamics and Gas Dynamics of the Stirling Cycle

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan 1217

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 Machine ~Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992!. 287
D. C. Agrawal and V. J. Menon, J. Appl. Phys. 74, 2153 ~1993!.
271
K. H. Hoffman, S. J. Watowich, and R. S. Berry, J. Appl. Phys. 58, 2125 288
J. Chen, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 27, 6395 ~1994!.
~1985!. 289
S. A. Klein, Int. J. Refrig. 15, 181 ~1992!.
272
R. J. Primus and P. F. Flynn, ASME AES 23, 61 ~1986!. 290
J. M. Gordon and K. C. Ng, J. Appl. Phys. 75, 2769 ~1994!.
273
F. Angulo-Brown, J. Fernandez-Betanzos, and C. A. Diaz-Pico, Eur. J. 291
T. R. Strobridge, NBS TN 655 ~Washington, DC, June 1974!.
Phys. 15, 38 ~1994!. 292
G. Alefeld, Int. J. Refrig. 10, 331 ~1987!.
274
V. N. Orlov and R. S. Berry, J. Appl. Phys. 74, 4317 ~1993!.
275
D. H. Johnson, Energy 8, 927 ~1983!.
293
G. Alefeld, Newsletter IEA Heat Pump Ctr. 7, 54 ~1989!.
276
C. Wu, Ocean Eng. 14, 349 ~1987!.
294
A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 36, 49 ~1993!.
277
M. Aydin and H. Yavuz, Energy 18, 907 ~1993!.
295
J. S. Lim and A. Bejan, Heat Transfer Eng. 15, 35 ~1994!.
278
M. Human, ASME AES 33, 113 ~1994!. 296
J. V. C. Vargas, A. Bejan, and A. Dobrovicescu, J. Heat Transfer 116, 702
279
A. Bejan, J. V. C. Vargas, and J. S. Lim, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 37, ~1994!.
523 ~1994!. 297
J. V. C. Vargas and A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 38, 2833 ~1995!.
280
Y. Goth and M. Feidt, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 303, 19 ~1986!. 298
A. Bejan, Adv. Heat Transfer 24, 1 ~1994!.
281
A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 32, 1631 ~1989!. 299
A. Bejan, Am. J. Phys. 62, 11 ~1994!.
282
O. M. Ibrahim, S. A. Klein, and J. W. Mitchell, ASME AES 24, 15 300
Finite-Time Thermodynamics and Thermoeconomics, edited by S. Sien-
~1991!.
283
Z. Yan and J. Chen, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 23, 136 ~1990!. iutycz and P. Salamon ~Taylor & Francis, New York, 1990!.
301
284
Z. Yan and J. Chen, Int. J. Energy Environment Economics 2, 63 ~1992!. M. Feidt, Thermodynamique et Optimisation Energetique des Systemes et
285
G. Grazzini, Int. J. Refrig. 16, 101 ~1993!. Procedes ~Technique et Documentation, Lavoisier, Paris, 1987!.
286
V. Radcenco, J. V. C. Vargas, A. Bejan, and J. S. Lim, Int. J. Refrig. 18,
302
V. Radcenco, Generalized Thermodynamics ~Editura Tehnica, Bucharest,
76 ~1995!. 1994!, in English.

1218 J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 3, 1 February 1996 Appl. Phys. Rev.: Adrian Bejan

Downloaded 02 Aug 2013 to 152.3.194.11. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions