Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

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

Optimization design and exergy analysis of organic rankine cycle in ocean

thermal energy conversion
Faming Sun ∗ , Yasuyuki Ikegami, Baoju Jia, Hirofumi Arima
Institute of Ocean Energy, Saga University, 1-Honjo machi, Saga 840-8502, Japan

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

Article history: Performance analytical function and exergy efficiency of organic rankine cycle (ORC) in ocean thermal
Received 31 August 2011 energy conversion (OTEC) are derived and optimized in this paper. Firstly, the state function correspond-
Received in revised form 3 December 2011 ing to every point in ORC and depending strongly on the temperature of the evaporator and condenser
Accepted 17 December 2011
is successfully achieved, where the suitable working fluids include, but not limited to, ammonia, r134a,
Available online 2 February 2012
etc. And then the system net power output function is achieved based on the characteristics of the ORC,
which is mainly decided by the warm seawater temperature, warm seawater mass flow rate, evaporator
Keywords:
temperature, condenser temperature, etc. After that, a further optimization is carried out to maximize
ORC
Optimization design
the net power output of ORC. Results show that ammonia is a good choice for ORC utilized in OTEC from
Exergy analysis net power output viewpoint. In addition, thermal efficiency and exergy efficiency at maximum net power
OTEC output are also given as reference. Finally, the preliminary design criteria of ORC in OTEC illustrates that
Ammonia or r134a the design of the ORC in a certain scale should choose its corresponding reasonable heat exchanger since
it is a choke point for the larger maximum net power output.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction optimization and analytical optimization. As analytical function of

Energy shortage and environmental pollution are two critical
issues in this century that must be appropriately solved to save
energy and reduce emission. Ocean thermal energy has been con-
sidered as one promising way to generate clean power, and offers
an excellent opportunity to supply electricity with a non-CO2 emit-
ting technology. Especially after the Fukushima nuclear accident in
Japan, ocean thermal energy is got a growing respect in the world.
According to measured temperature of seawater at surface and
deep sea, amount of ocean energy is about a million kilowatt-hours
per year, which is estimated inside the Japanese economic water.
Conversion of the energy into oil is equivalent to about 8.6 billion
tonnes. Then, the OTEC technology is developed to try to convert it
to the available energy.
OTEC is the power generation system which generates elec-
tricity using the temperature difference between sea surface
(20–30 ◦ C) and deep-sea (3–10 ◦ C). Since the available temperature
difference is small for OTEC, the corresponding net power output
is also limited. Therefore under the limited external conditions,
optimization study to achieve the maximum available energy in
OTEC is one way of the utmost importance. The main optimiza-
tion methods to maximize net power output in OTEC are numerical
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 955 20 2190; fax: +81 955 20 2191.
E-mail address: sunfamingjia@gmail.com (F.M. Sun).
optimization results is brief and clear for designing OTEC system,
many research efforts have being made to this area. For example,
Curzon and Ahlborn [1] and Ikegami and Bejan [2], reported the
optimized results for Carnot cycle. Later Wu [3,4], Lee [5] and Khaliq
[6], tried to get the optimal results using rankine cycle. However,
their studies are mainly based on an average entropic tempera-
ture, and the rankine cycle is simplified to a Carnot cycle to get the
performance analytical function for optimization.
Recently, ORC technology is considered as one effective thermal
conversion way in low temperature applications, which uses an
organic fluid as a working medium and offers advantages over con-
ventional rankine cycle with water as the working medium. And it
has been applied for generating power from different medium tem-
perature heat sources such as waste heat, solar thermal, biomass
and geothermal [7–10]. Meanwhile, the choice of optimum working
fluids in ORC will differ depending on the chosen performance indi-
cator. From power output viewpoint, r134a high-density organic
working fluid is favored [11]. As for OTEC, Uehara [12–14] reported
that ammonia is one of the suitable working fluids for a closed rank-
ine cycle OTEC plant. Later, Sun and Ikegami [15] presented a new
simple optimization route to maximize net power output of rank-
ine cycle. And by analyzing and comparing with numerical results
and experiment results, it proved the rationality of the method in
low-grade thermal energy conversion (LTEC).
Therefore, this work tries to introduce the simplified optimiza-
tion method to OTEC, with r134a, or ammonia as working fluids,

0141-1187/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apor.2011.12.006
 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46 39

temperature sources for generating electricity. In OTEC, ammonia

Nomenclature is also chosen as the working fluid in ORC since it is considered as
one of the suitable working fluids in OTEC. This cycle is used to con-
A area, m2 nect the warm and cold seawater. Heat is transferred from warm
cp specific heat at constant pressure, 3.9 kJ(kg K) seawater to the ORC which converts a fraction of the heat to work
E exergy, kW and rejects the rest to cold seawater. The heat transfer processes
F penalty function, 1/kW are irreversible. The sketch of this cycle is shown in Fig. 1. Mean-
h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg while, Fig. 2(a) and b shows the ORC on the pressure–volume plane
I exergy loss, kW and the temperature–entropy plane, respectively.
ṁ mass flow rate, kg/s Heat rate absorbed from the warm seawater is shown as
P pressure, kPa
Q̇ heat transfer rate, kW Q̇e = ṁws cp tws (1)
s specific entropy, kJ(kg K)
Heat rate rejected into the cold seawater is
t temperature, ◦ C
T absolute temperature, K Q̇c = ṁcs cp tcs (2)
T0 absolute temperature of 0 ◦ C, K
where, ṁws and ṁcs are the mass flow rate of warm and cold
Tm logarithmic mean temperature difference, ◦ C
seawater, respectively. cp is the seawater specific heat capacity
U overall heat-transfer coefficient, kW/(m2 K)
at constant pressure. Meanwhile, tws = twsi − twso , tcs = tcso − tcsi .
v specific volume, m3 /kg
And, twsi and twso are respectively the warm seawater temperature
Ẇ power, kW
at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger; tcsi and tcso are the cold
seawater temperature at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger,
Greek symbols
respectively.
 differential
And heat rate supplied to the cycle (evaporator) is given as
˛ ˛ = (UA)e /(ṁws cP )
ˇ ˇ = (UA)c /(ṁws cP A(tc , te )/B(tc , te )) Q̇ewf = ṁwf (h1 − h4 ) (3)
 thermal efficiency, %
Heat rate rejected from the cycle (condenser) is
Subscripts Q̇cwf = ṁwf (h2 − h3 ) (4)
c condenser
cs cold seawater The ORC net power output is
csi cold seawater at the inlet Ẇnet = ṁwf (h1 − h2 ) − ṁwf (h4 − h3 ) (5)
cso cold seawater at the outlet
e evaporator In which, ṁwf is the mass flow rate of working fluid.
el exhaust loss Heat conduction is expressed as
net net Q̇ = UA Tm (6)
in inlet
out outlet and Q̇ is the rate of heat transfer; U is the overall heat-transfer coef-
opt optimal ficient; A is the cross-section area normal to the direction of heat
p pump transfer; Tm is called the logarithmic mean temperature differ-
r ORC ence (LMTD) and gives
s system tin − tout
Tm = (7)
sds system dead state ln(tin /tout )
step step size
In this expression tin and tout are the temperature difference
t turbine
at A = 0 and A = A, respectively.
wf working fluid
wfp working fluid pump
2.2. State function of every point in ORC
ws warm seawater
wsi warm seawater at the inlet
On the base of temperature conditions in OTEC, by using curve
wso warm seawater at the outlet
fitting method (15 ≤ te ≤ 30 ◦ C, 3 ≤ tc ≤ 15 ◦ C), the enthalpy of sat-
x exergy efficiency
urated ammonia vapor is shown as follows. (In a similar way, the
other working fluid in ORC also can be simulated.) (Point 1)

the state function corresponding to every point in ORC is success- h1 = −0.0101te2 + 1.1263te + 498.7285 [kJ/kg] (8)
fully set up by utilizing the cycle characteristics and a curve-fitting The enthalpy of saturated ammonia liquid (Point 3)
method. Further theoretical optimization to maximize the net
power output of ORC is carried out. Consequently, performance h3 = 4.6821tc − 762.9083 [kJ/kg] (9)
analytical function and exergy efficiency of ORC in OTEC are derived And by using dh = Tds + vdP then (Point 4)
and analyzed. Finally, some optimization design criteria of ORC for
OTEC will be given. h4 = h3 + v3 (P1 − P3 ) [kJ/kg] (10)
(Point 2)
2. ORC modelling
h2 = h3 + (tc + T0 ) · (s2 − s3 ) [kJ/kg] (11)
2.1. Cycle description where T0 = 273.15 [K] represents the absolute temperature of 0 ◦ C.
In addition,
ORC is named for its use of an organic working fluid,
which allows rankine cycle to have a heat recovery from lower P1 = 0.3394te2 + 13.8111te + 443.0038 [kPa] (12)
40 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46

Fig. 1. The sketch of the ORC in OTEC.

P3 = 0.2733tc2 + 15.7271tc + 428.7508 [kPa] (13) Thus, the ORC net power output can be written as follows

v3 = 0.0016 [m3 ] (14) Ẇnet (twsi , (UA)e , cP ṁws , te , tc )

 twsi − te · (1 − e˛ )
 A(tc , te )

s2 = 2.9151 × 10−5 te2 − 0.0127te + 10.3142 = s2 (te ) [kJ/(kg K)] (15) = ṁws cP · twsi − 1− (21)
e˛ B(tc , te )
s3 = 0.0165tc + 5.6971 = s3 (tc ) [kJ/(kg K)] (16)
In which, ˛ = (UA)e /(ṁws cP ), A(tc , te ) = (tc + T0 ) · (2.9151 ×
2.3. ORC net power output 10−5 te2 − 0.0127te − 0.0165tc + 4.6171), B(tc , te ) = 4.3728 ×
10−4 tc2 − 1.0643 × 10−2 te2 + 1.1042te − 4.6569tc + 1261.6140.
Assume t = tws = tcs , and by using the energy balance at the Based on Eq. (21), it is easy to show that the ORC net
evaporator (Q̇e = Q̇ewf ), then power output Ẇnet is the function of parameters ṁws , twsi ,
(UA)e , cp , te and tc , where 15 ≤ te ≤ 30 [◦ C], 3 ≤ tc ≤ 15 [◦ C],
ṁws cP t tc = (tcsi − (tcsi + twsi − (twsi − te · (1 − e˛ ))/e˛ ) · eˇ )/1 − eˇ and ˇ =
ṁwf = (17)
h1 − h4 (UA)c /(ṁws cP A(tc , te )/B(tc , te )). In order to get the maximum net
Thus Eq. (5) can be written as power output of ORC, optimization design should be introduced to
solve the above function as below.
Ẇnet = ṁws cP t · R (18)
3. Optimization design
where ORC thermal efficiency is defined as
R = ((h1 − h2 ) − (h4 − h3 ))/(h1 − h4 ). According to Eq. (7), then
3.1. Constrained optimization design
t − twso e(UA)e /ṁws cP  
te = wsi (19)
1 − e(UA)e /ṁws cP te
Design variable: X = . Objective function: Ẇnet = Ẇnet (X).
So tc
Find: max{Ẇnet (X)}.
twsi − (twsi − te · (1 − e(UA)e /ṁws cP )) te ,tc
t = (20)
e(UA)e /ṁws cP Satisfy:

Fig. 2. ORC diagrams in OTEC.

 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46 41

(1) The scope of application for using curve fitting method to In the expression, A((tc )opt , (te )opt ) = ((tc )opt + T0 ) · (a1 (te )2opt +
solve state function of every point in ORC:
a2 (te )opt + a3 (tc )opt + a4 ), B((tc )opt , (te )opt ) = b1 (tc )2opt + b2 (te )2opt +
g1 (X) = te − 15 ≥ 0, g2 (X) = 30 − te ≥ 0, g3 (X) = tc − 3 ≥ 0, b3 (te )opt + b4 (tc )opt + b5 . Where, ci (i = 1, 2, . . ., 6), ai (i = 1, 2, 3, 4)
and bi (i = 1, 2, . . ., 5) are constant coefficients, varied with working
g4 (X) = 15 − tc ≥ 0 and g5 (X) = te − tc > 0. fluid medium. Such as ammonia and r134a, whose corresponding
coefficient values are shown in Table 1.
(2) From the energy balance (Q̇c − Q̇cwf = (UA)c (Tm )c − And, we can also get the following optimal operating condition
ṁwf (h2 − h3 ) = 0) at the condenser, then we have the following values
heat balance function, which is the satisfied condition for optimiza- twsi − (te )opt · (1 − e˛ )
tion design: (t)opt = twsi − (29)
e˛
tcsi − (tcsi + twsi − (twsi − te · (1 − e˛ ))/e˛ ) · eˇ Also by using the energy balance at the condenser (Q̇c = Q̇cwf ),
f1 (X) = − tc = 0.
1 − eˇ then the mass flow rate of cold seawater at maximum net power
output is
3.2. Unconstrained optimization design A((tc )opt , (te )opt )
ṁcs = ṁws · (30)
B((tc )opt , (te )opt )
Constraint functions f1 (X), g1 (X), g2 (X), g3 (X) and g4 (X) are
weighted approach, then the constrained optimization prob- The ORC thermal efficiency at maximum net power output is
lem is converted to non-constrained optimization problem as A((tc )opt , (te )opt )
follows.   r = 1 − (31)
te   B((tc )opt , (te )opt )
Design variable: X = . Find: min F(X) .where
tc te ,tc ,k →0,Rk →∞ From this equation, it is known that ORC thermal efficiency at
Penalty Function is maximum net power output is only decided by the warm and cold
seawater temperature at the inlet, twsi and tcsi , for a given working
1 
1
2

4
1 fluid. However the maximum net power output obtained in expres-
F(X) = + Rk (fi (X)) + k (22)
Ẇnet (X) gj (X) sion (28) depends on the performance of heat conductance and heat
i=1 j=1 capacity at constant pressure as well as the warm and cold seawater
temperature at the inlet, twsi , tcsi and mass flow rate of warm sea-
3.3. Solve optimization design water ṁws . These conclusions are consistent with Khaliq’ results
[6].
Assume the (te )opt and (tc )opt locate in the range of 15 ≤ te ≤ 30
[◦ C], 3 ≤ tc ≤ 15 [◦ C], so optimization design is simplified as
3.5. Exergy analysis of the ORC cycle
Find: min {F(X)}where Penalty Function is
te ,tc ,Rk →∞
Reference Nag and Dai’s research [16,17], the exergy efficiency
1 
1
2
of the power generation cycle in ORC for OTEC is given as
F(X) = + Rk (fi (X)) (23) 
Ẇnet (X) Ein − Io
i=1 x,r = (32)
Ein
By solving the heat balance equation f1 (X) = 0, then we know the
following equation as te + tc = tcsi + twsi , thus (te )opt can be approxi- where the item Ein = Ein,ws + Ein,cs represents the sum of the
mated as exergy in OTEC for ORC, Ein,ws = ṁws · [(hwsi − h sds ) − Tsds (swsi −

ssds )], Ein,cs = ṁcs · [(hcsi − hsds ) − Tsds (scsi − ssds )], Io is the sum
(te )opt = (tcsi + twsi ) − (tc )opt (24) of the exergy losses in all the components and the exergy loss
Then optimization design is further simplified as through exhaust, where Tsds + tsds + 273.15, tsds is the temperature
Find: of the system when it is in the dead state, here it is assumed as
  same as ambient temperature, that is tsds = 20 [◦ C]. Meanwhile,
max Ẇnet (tc ) (25) psds = 0.10135 [MPa]. And the exergy of each state point in ORC
tc
can be considered as Ei = ṁ · [(hi − hsds ) − Tsds (si − ssds )]. Thus the
3.4. Optimization design results exergy loss in each component of the power generation cycle is
given below.
By solving ∂(Ẇnet (tc ))/∂tc = 0, we can get (tc )opt as follows Evaporator

2
(tc )opt = c1 tcsi 2
+ c2 twsi · tcsi + c3 twsi + c4 tcsi + c5 twsi + c6 (26) Ieo = Ein,ws − Eout,ws + Ein,e − Eout,e (33)

And according to Eq. (24), then Turbine

2
(te )opt = −c1 tcsi 2
− c2 twsi · tcsi − c3 twsi + (1 − c4 )tcsi + (1 − c5 )twsi − c6 Ito = Ein,t − Eout,t − Wt (34)

(27) Condenser

Ico = Ein,cs − Eout,cs + Ein,c − Eout,c (35)

Thus, the maximum net power output of ORC can be given as
Working fluid pump
 

max Ẇnet twsi , tcsi , ṁws , (UA)e,c , cP o

Iwfp = Wwfp + Ein,wfp − Eout,wfp (36)
  
twsi − (te )opt · (1 − e˛ ) A((tc )opt , (te )opt )
= ṁws cP · twsi − 1− The system exergy exhaust loss
e˛ B((tc )opt , (te )opt )
(28) Iso = Eout,ws + Eout,cs (37)
42 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46
Table 1
Constant coefficient for ammonia and R134a.
i Ammonia
ai bi
1 2.9151e−05 4.3728e−04
2 −1.2700e−02 −1.0643e−02
3 −1.6500e−02 1.1042
4 4.6171 −4.6569
5 1261.6140
6 −2.7136e−02
Moreover, it should be noticed that the following assumptions
should be applied to the system.
• Turbine efficiency and pump efficiency are assumed as 85% in this
case.
• The piping and other auxiliary are considered no heat losses in
the system.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Validity of the optimization design
By solving the heat balance equation f1 (X) = 0, te and tc can be
approximated as an equation of te + tc = tcsi + twsi . In order to check
the rationality of the analytical approximation, based on OTEC
and ammonia as working fluid, one figure verification example
is given, initial conditions are chosen as: (UA)e,c = 10,000 [kW/K],
tcsi = 5 [◦ C], twsi = 28 [◦ C], ṁws = 1000, 5000, 7000 [kg/s]. There-
fore, figure examination can be built as follows.
Fig. 3 shows the relationship between te and f1 (X) in the case
of tc = 6, 10, 14 [◦ C] with the condition of ṁws = 1000 (Fig. 3(a)),
5000 (Fig. 3(b)) and 7000 [kg/s] (Fig. 3(c)), respectively. From this
figure, it is shown that the results of te + tc and tcsi + twsi fit well in
the condition of f1 (X) = 0. In the case of tc = 6 [◦ C], ṁws = 1000 [kg/s]
and tcsi + twsi = 33 [◦ C], which is shown in the figure, when f1 (X) = 0,
there is the result of te + tc = 27 + 6 = 33 [◦ C] = tcsi + twsi . Mean-
while, the equation for other cases also has the same conclusion,
which means that the analytical approximation for solving the
equation f1 (X) = 0 is rational.
Furthermore, (te )opt and (tc )opt can be approximated as an
equation, (te )opt + (tc )opt = tcsi + twsi . And then the performance
analytical functions can be derived for ORC as shown in the paper.
To check the validity of the optimal analytical results, the numerical
Fig. 3. Relationship between te and f1 (X).
R134a
ci ai bi ci
3.4694e−04 1.8325e−06 1.3856e−04 5.3061e−04
−3.2653e−05 −3.9550e−04 −2.1449e−03 1.6531e−04
3.5483e−04 −4.8212e−03 6.1488e−01 5.7905e−04
7.4355e−01 7.2560e−01 −1.3626 7.3734e−01
2.4331e−01 198.3605 2.3649e−01
5.0713e−02
examination is also introduced, and initial conditions are same
as aforementioned figure examination, mass flow rate of warm
seawater is given as ṁws = [1000, 7000] [kg/s]. As a result, the
optimal analytical results are (tc )opt = 10.8 [◦ C], (te )opt = 22.2 [◦ C],
r = 3.76 [%] with the help of Eq. (26), Eq. (27) and Eq. (31),
respectively. Meanwhile, the corresponding optimal numerical cal-
culation results are shown as follows. In addition, thermodynamic
properties of the ammonia are evaluated by using the formulation
of Stewart, etc. [18].
It is known that there is a step error in numerical calculation,
such as the abovementioned operating condition (t)opt of ORC in
OTEC. Normally, it can be solved by reducing the step size. However
this way will cost more time. Herein, it should be clear that if the
result analyzed by using the proposed optimization method can
give a theoretical guidance to solve the step error issues for the
numerical calculation.
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between ṁws and (t)opt for the
proposed results and numerical results with (t)step = 1 [◦ C] and
(t)step = 0.1 [◦ C], respectively. It should be noted that the proposed
results (Fig. 4) are calculated by using analysis equation obtained
in this paper. While numerical results are calculated by using a
simulation program written by authors with Fortran. Hereinafter,
the definitions for both are also applied to the other discussions.
The data of maximum power output max{Ẇnet } and the opti-
mal temperature difference (t)opt are also given in Table 2 for
comparison. And corresponding comparison diagram is shown in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. In Fig. 5(a–g), represent numerical results
with ṁws = [1000, 7000] [kg/s], respectively; Fig. 5(h) shows the
theoretical guidance numerical results based on (t)opt [◦ C]; (i) is
the proposed results. It can be seen that the numerical results with
(t)step = 0.1 [◦ C] fit well with the theoretical guidance numerical
results. This means that the theoretical optimization design in this
paper provides a good guidance in helping the numerical calcula-
tion to find out the optimal temperature difference. Meanwhile it
Fig. 4. Relationship between ṁws and (t)opt .
 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46 43

Table 2
Comparison between numerical results and proposed results.

ṁws [kg/s] 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Numerical results in the case of (t)step = 1 [◦ C]
◦
(t)opt [ C] 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
max{Ẇnet } [kW] 787.3 1242.4 1471.1 1631.7 1696.0 1810.5 1844.4
Numerical results in the case of (t)step = 0.1 [◦ C]
(t)opt [◦ C] 5.4 4.3 3.4 2.8 2.4 2.1 1.8
max{Ẇnet } [kW] 792.4 1247.1 1491.7 1640.8 1740.5 1811.8 1865.1
Proposed results
◦
(t)opt [ C] (Eq. (29)) 5.3402 4.1803 3.3243 2.7380 2.3212 2.0120 1.7745
max{Ẇnet } [kW](Eq. (28)) 783.6 1226.8 1463.4 1607.1 1703.0 1771.4 1822.7
Numerical results based on (t)opt [◦ C] (Eq. (29))
max{Ẇnet } [kW] 792.2 1246.8 1491.3 1640.2 1739.9 1811.0 1864.4
(te )opt [◦ C] 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2
(tc )opt [◦ C] 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6

for numerical results with (t)step = 1 [◦ C] are not fit well with

Fig. 5. Relationship between Ẇnet and t.
also proves the validity of the method proposed in the paper. In
addition, from Table 2, the errors of Eqs. (28) and (29) can also be
obtained as ±2.3 [%] and ±0.15 [◦ C], respectively.
Fig. 6 gives the relationships between (tc )opt , (te )opt ,
(te )opt + (tc )opt and mass flow rate of warm seawater ṁws for
the proposed results and numerical ones with (t)step = 1 [◦ C] and
(t)step = 0.1 [◦ C], respectively. It is clear that the (te )opt + (tc )opt of
the proposed results and numerical results fit very well, which
further confirmed that the analytical approximation for solving
the equation f1 (X) = 0 is justifiable. However, the (te )opt and (tc )opt
the proposed results, the reason of which is due to the step error
in numerical calculation. Therefore, this problem is proved to be
solved by using a small step (t)step = 0.1 [◦ C] in the numerical
calculation. In order to illustrate the error of the (tc )opt , (te )opt and r
in Eq. (26), Eq. (27) and Eq. (31), separately. We choose random two
conditions (ṁws = 3000 [kg/s] and ṁws = 4000 [kg/s]) for numeri-
cal calculation with a very small step error. So we can get the values
of (tc )opt , (te )opt and r as follows: in the case of ṁws = 3000 [kg/s],
(tc )opt = 10.78 [◦ C], (te )opt = 22.08 [◦ C] and r = 3.75 [%] are resulted.
Meanwhile, for the case ṁws = 4000 [kg/s], (tc )opt = 10.76 [◦ C],
(te )opt = 22.08 [◦ C] and r = 3.76 [%] are obtained. By comparing the
two cases, we know that (tc )opt , (te )opt and r have no relationship
to the mass flow rate of warm seawater ṁws , which is consistent
with the Eq. (26), Eq. (27) and Eq. (31). Therefore, we choose
these two cases to average (tc )opt and (te )opt as the reference
values: (tc )opt = 10.77 [◦ C], (te )opt = 22.08 [◦ C] and r = 3.755 [%].
Consequently, the errors for the equations (26), (27) and (31) can
be given as ±0.03 [◦ C], ±0.12 [◦ C] and ±0.005 [%], respectively.
Fig. 7 displays the relationship between the ORC net
power output Ẇnet and te under condition of ṁws =
1000, 3000, 5000, 7000 [kg/s] using Eq. (21). The optimal
(tc )opt = 10.8 [◦ C] and (te )opt = 22.2 [◦ C] corresponding to max{Ẇnet }
match very well with Eq. (26) and Eq. (27), respectively, which
indicates that the solution for theoretical optimization result of
maximum power output in ORC is correct.
Fig. 8 shows the relationship between the maximum ORC net
power output max{Ẇnet } and the mass flow rate of warm seawa-
ter ṁws for the proposed and numerical results in the condition
of working fluids: ammonia and r134a, respectively. Meanwhile,

Fig. 6. Relationship between ṁws and (te )opt + (tc )opt , (te )opt and (tc )opt . Fig. 7. Relationship between te and Ẇnet .
44 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46
Fig. 8. Relationship between ṁws and max{Ẇnet } with different working fluid.
thermodynamic properties of the r134a are from Japanese asso-
ciation of refrigeration and Japan Flon gas association [19]. As
demonstrated in the figure, the max{Ẇnet } of the proposed
results and numerical results tally closely irrespective of ammo-
nia medium or r134a medium. It is thus clear that the theoretical
optimization function of maximum net power output for ORC is
not only valid, but also suitable for different fluid medium. Also
we noticed that the maximum net power output with ammonia
is a little bit larger than that of r134a in OTEC. This result agrees
well with the conclusions by other researchers that ammonia is
a better working fluid for ORC in OTEC. Therefore in the follow-
ing part, we will mainly use ammonia as working fluid to discuss
the behavior of the ORC for OTEC. Meanwhile, the maximum net
power output by Khaliq [6], who used an average entropic temper-
ature and simplified rankine cycle (Carnot cycle) was lower than
that obtained in this paper. We noticed that the te in their approx-
imation method is smaller than that of the rankine cycle, which
resulted in the decreased maximum net power output.
Based on the above analysis and examination, it can be con-
cluded that the equation achieved for maximizing the net power
output of the ORC in OTEC is rational, and which can be used for
both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Fig. 9. Relationship between ṁws and max{Ẇnet } with different heat exchanger
performance.
Fig. 10. Relationship between ṁws and max{Ẇnet } with different twsi and tcsi .
4.2. Theoretical optimization results and discussion
Fig. 9 shows a comparison between the maximum net power
output max{Ẇnet } of ORC with different heat exchanger perfor-
mance (UA)e,c and Ẇm of the Carnot case [2], which vary with mass
flow rate of warm seawater. And the corresponding comparison
data is shown in Table 3. As the ṁws increased, the maximum net
power outputs for both increased, however, the net power output in
ORC increased slowly, and the difference between them increased
with the flow rates. When performance of evaporator and con-
denser is improved, or the value of (UA)e,c is increased, it is clear
that the maximum net power output of ORC is getting closer to the
maximum net power of the ideal cycle. This means that the maxi-
mum net power output of ORC increased with increasing the scale
of the system. However there is a choke point, which is the heat
exchanger performance of the system. Therefore, the design of the
ORC in a certain scale should choose the corresponding reasonable
heat exchanger for the larger maximum net power output.
From the established theoretical method for maximizing the net
power output of the ORC in Eq. (28), we can see that max{Ẇnet } is
mainly decided by the following parameters: the mass flow rate
of the warm seawater ṁws , the warm and cold seawater temper-
ature at the inlet, twsi and tcsi . Thus the effect of the variation of
each parameter on the maximum power output max{Ẇnet } can be
easily discussed while keeping other parameters constant, which
is shown in Fig. 10. From the figure we know that the max{Ẇnet }
increases with increasing of ṁws , say, the larger the mass flow
Fig. 11. Relationship between twsi and r with different tcsi .
 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46 45

Table 3
Comparison between maximum power output of ORC and Carnot cycle.

ṁws [kg/s] 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

ṁcs [kg/s] 962 1925 2887 3850 4812 5774 6737
(UA)e,c [kW/K] max{Ẇnet } [kW] (ORC)
10,000 783.6 1226.8 1463.4 1607.1 1703.0 1771.4 1822.7
15,000 830.8 1449.8 1840.2 2097.6 2277.9 2410.6 2512.2
20,000 843.9 1567.2 2086 2453.6 2722.8 2926.8 3086.3
25,000 847.6 1629.1 2246.3 2712 3067 3343.7 3564.4
50,000 849.0 1695.1 2511.4 3258.1 3918 4492.5 4990.9
Ẇm [kW] (Carnot) [2] 873.9 1747.8 2621.7 3495.6 4369.5 5243.4 6117.3

rational by sampling check a set of numerical calculation results.

Fig. 12. Relationship between ṁws , x,r and each component exergy loss rate in ORC.
rate of warm seawater, the higher the maximum net power out-
put of ORC. However, we also noticed that the max{Ẇnet } increased
rapidly at the initial stage of increasing of ṁws , and then went into a
slow increase stage, which could be due to the performance effect of
the evaporator and condenser, or the value of (UA)e,c as aforemen-
tioned discussion. Meanwhile in keeping with general knowledge,
the max{Ẇnet } increases with the advance of the twsi , and increases
as tcsi decreases, which can be seen from Fig. 10.
The ORC thermal efficiency at maximum net power output is
the function of twsi and tcsi (Eq. (31)), as shown in Fig. 11. In accor-
dance with Khaliq’ conclusions [6], the r increased linearly as twsi
increases with constant tcsi = 3, 5, 7, 10 [◦ C]. Meanwhile, at con-
stant twsi , r decreased with the increase of tcsi . However, there are
also errors with Khaliq’s results. The reason is Khaliq’s conclusions
based on an average entropic temperature, and the rankine cycle is
simplified to a Carnot cycle, therefore its evaporator temperature
is smaller than that of ORC.
According to abovementioned analysis, the ideal OTEC condi-
tions (tcsi = 3 [◦ C], twsi = 30 [◦ C]) are taken as an example for further
exergy analysis. The exergy efficiency x,r at maximum net power
output vary with ṁws is given in Fig. 12. It is shown that the x,r
is decreasing with increasing ṁws as shown in the figure with real
line. The reason is that the exhaust loss accounts for a large pro-
portion of exergy loss of ORC in OTEC. And it is also increasing with
increasing ṁws . That is why aforementioned that the max{Ẇnet }
increased rapidly at initial stage of increasing of ṁws , and then go
into a slow increase stage. So it should improve the performance of
evaporator and condenser with larger scale OTEC.
5. Conclusions
Based on OTEC, performance analytical function of ORC is
derived and optimized in this paper, which has been proved to be
Different from those traditional optimization methods, in which
rankine cycle is simplified to a Carnot cycle by averaging the
entropic temperatures, the current work is mainly based on the
direct simulation of every state point in ORC with specific working
fluid, thus it could better reflect its performance in OTEC. Results
show that ammonia is a good choice for ORC utilized in OTEC from
net power output viewpoint. And the design of the ORC in a cer-
tain scale should choose corresponding reasonable heat exchanger,
which is a choke point for the larger maximum net power output.
Further the ORC thermal efficiency at maximum net power out-
put is given, which is the function of twsi and tcsi . And r increases
with increasing twsi or decreasing tcsi . Finally, the exergy efficiency
at maximum net power output of ORC in OTEC is derived and
analyzed. From exergy loss viewpoint, it is also proved that the
larger scale ORC in OTEC should choose the better performance heat
exchanger to decrease the exhaust loss, which accounts for a large
proportion of exergy loss of ORC in OTEC. In addition, if take warm
and cold seawater pumps power into consideration, there should
be one optimal mass flow rate here for optimal ORC net power out-
put in OTEC since the larger mass flow rate, the larger pumps energy
consumption and then the smaller exergy efficiency.
Acknowledgment
This study is performed under the Research Program of IOES.
References
[1] Curzon FL, Ahlborn B. Efficiency of a Carnot engine at maximum power output.
Am J Physiol 1975;43:22–4.
[2] Ikegami Y, Bejan A. On the thermodynamic optimization of power plants with
heat transfer and fluid flow irreversibilities. J Sol Energy Eng 1998;120:139–44.
[3] Wu C. Power optimization of a finite-time Rankine heat-engine. Int J Heat Fluid
Flow 1989;10(6):134–8.
[4] Wu C. Specific power optimization of closed-cycle OTEC plants. Ocean Eng
1990;17(3):307–14.
[5] Lee WY, Kin SS. An analytical formula for the estimation a Rankine cycle’s heat
engine efficiency at maximum power. Int J Energy Res 1991;15(3):149–59.
[6] Khaliq A. Finite-time heat-transfer analysis and generalized power-
optimization of an endoreversible Rankine heat-engine. Appl Energy
2004;79:27–40.
[7] Wei DH, Lu XS, Lu Z, Gu JM. Performance analysis and optimization of
organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manage
2007;48(4):1113–9.
[8] Delgado-Torresa AM, Garcia-Rodriguez L. Analysis and optimization of the
low-temperature solar organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Energy Convers Manage
2010;51(12):2846–56.
[9] Liu H, Shao YJ, Li JX. A biomass-fired micro-scale CHP system with organic
Rankine cycle (ORC)-Thermodynamic modelling studies. Biomass Bioenergy
2011;35(9):3985–94.
[10] Zhang SJ, Wang HX, Guo T. Performance comparison and parametric opti-
mization of subcritical Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and transcritical power
cycle system for low-temperature geothermal power generation. Appl Energy
2011;88(8):2740–54.
[11] Sauret E, Rowlands AS. Candidate radial-inflow turbines and high-density
working fluids for geothermal power systems. Energy 2011;36(7):4460–7.
[12] Uehara H, Miyara A, Ikegami Y, Nakaoka T. Performance analysis of an OTEC
plant and a desalination plant using an integrated hybrid cycle. J Sol Energy
Eng 1996;118:115–22.
46 F.M. Sun et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 38–46
[13] Uehara H, Dilao CO, Nakaoka T. Conceptual design of ocean thermal energy
conversion power plants in the Philippines. Solar Energy 1998;41(5):431–41.
[14] Uehara H, Ikegami Y. Optimization of a closed-cycle OTEC system. J Sol Energy
Eng 1990;112:247–56.
[15] Sun FM, Ikegami Y. Direct method to maximize net power output of rank-
ine cycle in low-grade thermal energy conversion. J Therm Sci Eng Appl
2010;2:0210031–7.
[16] Nag PK, Gupta AVSSKS. Exergy analysis of the Kalina cycle. Appl Therm Eng
1998;18(6):427–39.
[17] Wang JF, Dai YP, Gao L. Exergy analyses and parametric optimizations
for different cogeneration power plants in cement industry. Appl Energy
2009;86(6):941–8.
[18] Stewart RB, Jacobsen RT, Renoncello SG. ASHRAE thermodynamic properties of
refrigerants. ASHRAE; 1986, 93–7, 262–82.
[19] Japanese Association of Refrigeration Japan Flon Gas Association, Thermophys-
ical Properties of Environmentally Acceptable Fluorocarbons; 1986 [HFC-134a,
HCFC-123].