INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174

Published online 23 August 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/er.1356

Exergy analysis of double effect vapor absorption refrigeration system

Abdul Khaliq1,*,y and Rajesh Kumar2

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110 025, India
2
Mechanical and Automation Engineering Department, Amity School of Engineering and Technology,
GGSIPU, New Delhi 110 061, India

SUMMARY

Energy and exergy analyses previously performed by the authors for a single effect absorption refrigeration system have
been extended to double effect vapor absorption refrigeration system with the expectation of reducing energy supply as
well as an interest in the diversification of the motive power employed by HVAC technologies. The total exergy
destruction in the system as a percentage of the exergy input from a generator heating water over a range of operating
temperatures is examined for a system operating on LiBr–H2 O solution. The exergy destruction in each component, the
coefficient of performance (COP) and the exergetic COP of the system are determined. It is shown that exergy
destructions occur significantly in generators, absorbers, evaporator2 and heat exchangers while the exergy destructions
in condenser1, evaporator1, throttling valves, and expansion valves are relatively smaller within the range of 1–5%. The
results further indicate that with an increase in the generator1 temperature the COP and ECOP increase, but there is a
significant reduction in total exergy destruction of the system for the same. On the other hand, the COP and ECOP
decrease with an increase in the absorber1 temperature while the total exergy destruction of the system increases
significantly with a small increase in the absorber1 temperature. The results show that the exergy method can be used as
an effective criterion in designing an irreversible double effect absorption refrigeration system and may be a good tool
for the determination of the optimum working conditions of such systems. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: vapor absorption refrigeration; exergy destruction; exergetic efficiency

1. INTRODUCTION industrial waste, etc.) and may, therefore, provide

Heat operated absorption refrigeration systems
(ARSs) for domestic and industrial use are
currently attracting increasing interest; first,
because an ARS can be driven by low-temperature
heat sources (solar energy, geothermal energy,
a means for converting waste heat into useful
refrigeration; second, because the use of CFC
refrigerants and the consequent environmental
damage are easily avoided. Expectations of redu-
cing energy supply, as well as an interest in
diversification of the motive power employed by

*Correspondence to: Abdul Khaliq, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia
Islamia, New Delhi 110 025, India.
y
E-mail: abd khaliq2001@yahoo.co.in

Received 26 September 2006

Revised 28 May 2007
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 1 June 2007
162 A. KHALIQ AND R. KUMAR
HVAC technologies, have led to the development
of advanced absorption machines. Many unex-
plored advanced cycles exist, which may be used to
increase the coefficient of performance (COP) or
the temperature lift provided by such a device.
Double effect absorption refrigeration cycles
usually, two single effect cycles are often combined
to increase the thermal efficiency or large operating
ranges of generator temperatures [1, 2].
Thermodynamic analysis of vapor absorp-
tion refrigeration (VAR) system has gained con-
siderable attention over several decades. Recently,
the combined first- and second-law analysis
was applied in order to provide an additional
dimension toward understanding and improve-
ment of the design and performance evaluation
of such systems. Among the topics that received
significant attention is the optimization of refrig-
eration systems for minimum irreversible losses
and hence, least power consumed and improved
COP.
The recent work by Wall [3], Khaliq and
Kaushik [4] and Rosen and Dincer [5] adequately
represent the different directions of development.
With regard to irreversible thermodynamics and
exergy analysis [6–9] applied the second-law
method to determine the magnitude of irreversible
processes in a system and thereby provide an
indicator that points the direction in which
engineers should concentrate their efforts to
improve the thermodynamic performance of an
ARS. Aphornratana and Eames [6] presented a
simple method for calculating the entropy of LiBr–
H2 O solutions, and carried out the second-law
analysis of single effect absorption refrigeration
cycle, which aids insight and understanding of
these factors that mostly affect the performance of
absorption refrigerators. Recently, Khaliq and
Kumar [9] carried out the systematic exergy
analysis of a single effect VAR system using
LiBr–H2 O and NH3 –H2 O as working fluids just
to provide flexibility to the solution. Although
there have been exergetic analysis work, which
focused on the performance of a single effect VAR
system only a few efforts have studied the
thermodynamic performance analysis of a double
effect VAR system by using the concept of entropy
generation and exergy analysis [1, 10, 11].
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ziegler and Alefeld [1] investigated the thermo-
dynamic performance of multistage absorption
cycles by considering the COP as an objective
function, and presented a description of a cycle
synthesis procedure which takes into account the
irreversibilities and characteristics of the working
fluid pair used. They further reported that the
COP of double effect VAR system with LiBr–H2 O
is higher than the COP of a double effect VAR
system which operates on the NH3 –H2 O solution.
Perez-Blanco [10] presented the conceptual design
of multistage absorption refrigeration cycles and
obtained high efficiencies after minimizing the loss
of thermodynamic availability incurred when
transferring the refrigerant between the loops.
Anand and Kumar [11] presented the equations
for the calculation of LiBr–H2 O properties, which
may be used to calculate individual irreversibilities
for all the components of single and double effect
LiBr–H2 O absorption cycles over the complete
range of useful temperatures and concentrations
applicable to the absorption cycles.
It is seen from the literature survey that double
effect VAR has not been analyzed as much as
single effect. Only few papers have been published
focusing on exergy analysis of double effect ARS.
This communication will focus on analyzing from
the combined first and second laws of thermo-
dynamics point of view, the double effect VAR
system using LiBr–H2 O as a working fluid.
Expressions for the energy and exergy changes
have been defined and a comparison between the
energy and exergy analysis has been performed.
The present method can be useful for establishing
the methods for increasing the efficiency of
absorption refrigeration, establishing the most
efficient configuration for a certain case, etc.
2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The refrigerant fluids H2 O for LiBr=H2 O; are
separated in the generator by means of heat given
to the generator1 (G1). The mass flow rate of the
refrigerant depends on the temperature to which
the solution is heated. After the solution has
reached the desired temperature, the refrigerant
passes to condenser1 (C1) and then to evaporator1
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF DOUBLE EFFECT VAR SYSTEM
(E1) through the expansion valve (EV1). Mean-
while the weak solution, which is lean in refriger-
ant goes to heat exchanger1 (HX1) and then to
absorber1 (A1) through the throttling valve1
(TV1). Here, the weak solution absorbs the
refrigerant coming through the evaporator1 (E1),
and a strong solution forms, which as a result of
this absorption is rich in refrigerant. The strong
solution is pumped by pump1 (P1) to the
generator1 (G1) through the heat exchanger1
(HX1), where it is heated by the weak solution
from the generator1 (G1). The heat released in C1
and A1 is rejected to generator2 (G2) by flowing
the water through Pump4 (P4) and Pump3 (P3),
respectively. After reaching the desired tempera-
ture in G2, the refrigerant goes to C2=E1 and then
to evaporator2 (E2) through the expansion valve2
(EV2). The weak solution from the G2 goes to
heat exchanger2 (HX2) and then to A2 through
TV2. Here it absorbs the refrigerant coming from
E2 and is then pumped to G2 by pump2 (P2) via
HX2.
3. ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE ANALYSIS
For the purpose of analysis, the following
assumptions are made for LiBr=H2 O refrigerant
system:
1. Lithium bromide solutions in the generator
and the absorber are assumed to be in
equilibrium at their respective temperatures
and pressures.
2. The refrigerant (water) at condenser and
evaporator exit is in a saturated state.
3. The strong solution of the refrigerant leaving
the absorber and the weak solution of refriger-
ant leaving the generator are saturated.
4. Pressure losses in all the heat exchangers and
the pipelines are neglected.
5. The reference environmental state for the
system is water at an environmental tempera-
ture ðT0 Þ of 258C:
6. To avoid crystallization of the solution, the
temperature of the solution entering the throttle
valve should be at least 7–88C above the
crystallization temperature.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
163
7. The system uses heating water to drive the
generator and it produces chilled water in the
evaporator.
8. The system is in steady state.
9. There is no chemical reaction taking place
between the refrigerant and absorbent. So, only
physical exergy is taken into account.
4. THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS
The second-law analysis, i.e. the exergy analysis,
calculates the system performance based on
exergy, which is defined as the maximum possible
reversible work obtainable in bringing the state of
the system to equilibrium with that of the
environment. In the absence of magnetic, electri-
cal, nuclear, surface tension effects, and consider-
ing the system is at rest relative to the
environment, the total exergy associated with the
work obtainable by bringing a stream of matter
from its initial state to a state that is in thermal
and mechanical equilibrium with the environment.
Mathematically,
’ ¼ m½ðh
E ’
h0 Þ
T0 ðs
s0 Þ ð1Þ
where e ¼ ðh
h0 Þ
T0 ðs
s0 Þ:
The exergy destruction is the amount of exergy
that is lost to the environment and cannot be used
anywhere, e.g. due to system irreversibilities. The
exergy loss represents the amount of exergy that is
transferred from the system to some other
system(s), e.g. cooling water exergy loss. Accord-
ing to the second law of thermodynamics [12]
dS Xn ’i X
Q X
S’ gen ¼

’ þ
ms ’
ms50 ð2Þ
dt i¼0
Ti in out
According to Gouy–Stodola theorem, the exergy
destruction rate can be defined as
’ D ¼ T0 S’ gen
E ð3Þ
Each component of the ARS shown in Figure 1 is
modeled through a set of parameters which
characterize the mass, heat and exergy transfer
equation. The enthalpy and entropy values of LiBr
=H2 O solution are taken from Chua et al. [13]. The
various heat transfer rates are expressed as
follows.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
164 A. KHALIQ AND R. KUMAR

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of double effect vapor absorption refrigeration system.

Condenser: Absorber:
’ r1 ðh11
h12 Þ
qC1 ¼ m ð4Þ ’ r1 h14 þ ðm
qA1 ¼ m ’ s1
m
’ r1 Þh20
m
’ s1 h15 ð8Þ

’ r2 h5 þ ðm
qA2 ¼ m ’ s2
m
’ r2 Þh10
m
’ s2 h6 ð9Þ
’ r2 ðh2
h3 Þ
qC2 ¼ m ð5Þ
Evaporator: Generator:
’ r1 ðh14
h13 Þ
qE1 ¼ m ð6Þ ’ r1 h11 þ ðm
qG1 ¼ m ’ s1
m
’ r1 Þh18
m
’ s1 h17 ð10Þ

’ r2 ðh5
h4 Þ
qE2 ¼ m ð7Þ ’ r2 h2 þ ðm
qG2 ¼ m ’ s2
m
’ r2 Þh8
m
’ s2 h1 ð11Þ

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF DOUBLE EFFECT VAR SYSTEM 165

For each individual component of the ARS, the G2:

energy balance and exergy destruction equations m ’ r2 h2
ðm
’ s2 h1
m ’ s2
m
’ r2 Þh8 þ m
’ ef ðhf
he0 Þ
are written as follows:
’ cd ðhd0
hc Þ ¼ 0
þm ð24Þ

C1:
’ r2 s2
m
ðDED ÞG2 ¼ T0 ½m ’ s2 s1
ðm
’ s2
m
’ r2 Þs8
’ r1 ðh11
h12 Þ þ m
m ’ cd ðhc
hd Þ ¼ 0 ð12Þ
’ ef ðse0
sf Þ þ m
þm ’ cd ðsc
sd0 Þ ð25Þ
HX1:
’ r1 ðs12
s11 Þ þ m
ðDED ÞC1 ¼ T0 ½m ’ cd ðsd
sc Þ ð13Þ
’ s1
m
ðm ’ r1 Þðh18
h19 Þ þ m
’ s1 ðh16
h17 Þ ¼ 0 ð26Þ
C2/E1:
m ’ r1 ðh13
h14 Þ þ m
’ r2 ðh2
h3 Þ þ m ’ mn ðhm
hn Þ ¼ 0 ð14Þ
’ s1
m
ðDED ÞHX1 ¼ T0 ½ðm ’ r1 Þðs19
s18 Þ
’ s1 ðs17
s16 Þ
þm ð27Þ
’ r2 ðs3
s2 Þ þ m
ðDED ÞC2=E1 ¼ T0 ½m ’ r1 ðs14
s13 Þ
HX2:
’ mn ðsn
sm Þ
þm ð15Þ
’ s2
m
ðm ’ r2 Þðh8
h9 Þ þ m
’ s2 ðh7
h1 Þ ¼ 0 ð28Þ
E2:
’ r2 ðh4
h5 Þ þ m
m ’ kl ðhk
hl Þ ¼ 0 ð16Þ
’ s2
m
ðDED ÞHX2 ¼ T0 ½ðm ’ r2 Þðs9
s8 Þ
’ s2 ðs1
s7 Þ
þm ð29Þ
’ r2 ðs5
s4 Þ þ m
ðDED ÞE2 ¼ T0 ½m ’ kl ðsl
sk Þ ð17Þ
EV1:
A1:
’ r1 ðh12
h13 Þ ¼ 0
m ð30Þ
’ r1 h14 þ ðm
m ’ s1
m
’ r1 Þh20
m
’ s1 h15
’ ef ðhe
hf Þ ¼ 0
þm ð18Þ
’ r1 ðs13
s12 Þ
ðDED ÞEV1 ¼ T0 ½m ð31Þ
EV2:
’ s1 s15
ðm
ðDED ÞA1 ¼ T0 ½m ’ s1
m
’ r1 Þs20
’ r2 ðh3
h4 Þ ¼ 0
m ð32Þ
’ r1 s14 þ m

m ’ mn ðsf
se Þ ð19Þ
A2: ’ r2 ðs4
s3 Þ
ðDED ÞEV2 ¼ T0 ½m ð33Þ
m ’ s2
m
’ r2 h5 þ ðm ’ r2 Þh10
m
’ s2 h6 þ m
’ ij ðhi
hj Þ ¼ 0 ð20Þ
TV1:
’ s1
m
ðm ’ r1 Þðh19
h20 Þ ¼ 0 ð34Þ
’ s2 s6
ðm
ðDED ÞA2 ¼ T0 ½m ’ s2
m
’ r2 Þs10
’ r2 s5 þ m

m ’ ij ðsj
si Þ ð21Þ ’ s1
m
ðDED ÞTV1 ¼ T0 ½ðm ’ r1 Þðs20
s19 Þ ð35Þ
G1: TV2:
’ s1 h17
m
m ’ r1 h11
ðm
’ s1
m
’ r1 Þh18 ’ s2
m
ðm ’ r2 Þðh9
h10 Þ ¼ 0 ð36Þ
’ ab ðha
hb Þ ¼ 0
þm ð22Þ
’ s2
m
ðDED ÞTV2 ¼ T0 ½ðm ’ r2 Þðs10
s9 Þ ð37Þ
’ r1 s11 þ ðm
ðDED ÞG1 ¼ T0 ½m ’ s1
m
’ r1 Þs18 P1:
’ s1 s17 þ m

m ’ ab ðsb
sa Þ ð23Þ m ’ P1 ¼ 0
’ s1 ðh16
h15 Þ
W ð38Þ

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
166 A. KHALIQ AND R. KUMAR

’ s1 ðs16
s15 Þ
ðDED ÞP1 ¼ T0 ½m ð39Þ the exergy of G1 incoming water, the COP and the
exergetic coefficient of performance (ECOP) have
P2: been calculated within the temperature limits given
m ’ P2 ¼ 0
’ s2 ðh7
h6 Þ
W ð40Þ below.
The energy balance for double effect ARS is
given in Table I, and the corresponding exergy
’ s2 ðs7
s6 Þ
ðDED ÞP2 ¼ T0 ½m ð41Þ balance for the same system is given in Table II,
P3: respectively. The dimensionless exergy destruction
’ P3 ¼ 0 of each component of double effect VAR system is
’ ef ðhe
he0 Þ
W
m ð42Þ
calculated at the same working condition and
shown in Figures 2–6 for the G1, G2, C1, C2, A1,
’ ef ðse
se0 Þ
ðDED ÞP3 ¼ T0 ½m ð43Þ A2, E1, E2, HX1, HX2, EV1, EV2. The effects of
G1, C1, A1, G2, and E2 temperature (refrigeration
P4: temperature) on total exergy destruction, COP and
m ’ P4 ¼ 0
’ cd ðhd0
hd Þ
W ð44Þ ECOP for double effect VAR system have also
been observed in Figures 7–11.
A characteristic curve for the double effect VAR
’ cd ðsd0
sd Þ
ðDED ÞP4 ¼ T0 ½m ð45Þ system between the 1=COP and 1=Cooling Capa-
The COP and ECOP of the VAR system can be city is also shown in Figure 12 to clearly illustrate a
defined as fundamental trade-off in the system performance
using the two approaches, i.e. endoreversible
’ E2
Q model (finite-time model) and our thermodynamic
COP ¼
’ G1 þ W
Q ’ P1 þ W
’ P2 model (exergy destruction model).
’k
Q ’ lÞ Figures 2–6 show the exergy destruction in each
ðQ
¼ ð46Þ component as a percentage of the G1 heating
’a
Q
ðQ ’ bÞ þ W
’ P1 þ W
’ P2
water exergy change over a range of operating
temperatures: Ta ¼ 1808C; Tb ¼ 1708C; Tc ¼ Te ¼
ðE’ l
E’ k Þ 758C; Td ¼ Tf ¼ 858C; Ti ¼ Tk ¼ Tm ¼ 278C; Tj
ECOP ¼ ð47Þ ¼ Tn ¼ 308C; Tl ¼ 108C; TG1 ¼ 15521658C; TG2
’ a
E’ b Þ þ E
ðE ’ P1 þ E
’ P2
¼ 652758C; TA1 ¼ 87:52928C; TC1 ¼ 87:52938C;
TE2 ¼ 2:527:58C; TA2 ¼ 308C; TE1 ¼ TC2 ¼ 358C:
The effectiveness of heat exchangers can be defined
as
ðh17
h16 Þ ðh1
h7 Þ
EHX1 ¼ ; EHX2 ¼ ð48Þ
ðh18
h16 Þ ðh8
h7 Þ
Table I. First-law analysis of a double stage absorption
refrigeration cycle using Lithium bromide–water
(TG1 ¼ 1608C; TC1 ¼ 87:58C; TA1 ¼ 87:58C; TE1=C2 ¼
358C; E1 ¼ 60%; TG2 ¼ 708C; TA2 ¼ 308C; TE2 ¼ 58C;
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION E2 ¼ 60%).
Component Energy change (%)
Energetic and exergetic performance calculations
for the double effect VAR system with LiBr=H2 O Energy input
Generator1 heat 100
solutions are shown below. In the following, the Evaporator2 heat 112.32
mass flow rate, enthalpy, entropy and exergy of Total energy input 212.32
the mixture for different working conditions are Energy rejected
calculated. Using these parameters, the dimension- Evaporator1/condenser2 heat 63.18
less exergy destruction of each component that is Absorber2 heat 149.14
Total energy rejected 212.32
defined as the ratio of exergy loss to the change in

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF DOUBLE EFFECT VAR SYSTEM 167

The solid lines in Figures 2–6 represent the exergy represent the exergy change of water in the
destruction in the component while the dashed lines absorber, condenser, and evaporator.
It can be seen from Figures 2–6 that the G2
irreversibilities make up between 15 and 22% of
Table II. Second-law analysis of a double stage absorp-
the exergy change in G1 heating water, and the G1
tion refrigeration cycle using Lithium bromide–water irreversibilities make up between 11 and 16% of
(TG1 ¼ 1608C; TC1 ¼ 87:58C; TA1 ¼ 87:58C; TE1=C2 ¼ the exergy change in G1 heating water. The total
358C; E1 ¼ 60%; TG2 ¼ 708C; TA2 ¼ 308C; TE2 ¼ 58C; exergy destruction in both the generators make up
E2 ¼ 60%). between 30 and 35% of the exergy change in the
Exergy change G1 heating water. The largest exergy destruction is
Component (%) found in generators because of the largest tem-
Generator1 water exergy change 100 perature difference in generators and external fluid
Evaporator1/condenser 2 water
1.357 which leads to a much higher finite time heat
exergy change transfer irreversibilities. The generator irreversi-
Absorber2 water exergy change
3.2044 bilities can be reduced by increasing generator
Evaporator2 water exergy change
9.818 effectiveness, which in turn will reduce the
Total exergy input 85.6206
Generator1 irreversibility 13.62 temperature difference between the heating water
Condenser1 irreversibility 4.051 and solution, and it can be further reduced by
Evaporator1/condenser2 irreversibil- 2.005 decreasing the solution circulation ratio and using
ity a more effective solution heat exchanger.
Absorber1 irreversibility 9.142 The A1 irreversibilities are around 9–15% of the
HX1 irreversibility 7.565
Throttling valve1 irreversibility 1.228 exergy change in G1 heating water, and A2
Generator2 irreversibility 20.808 irreversibilities are 3–8% of the exergy change in
Evaporator2 irreversibility 16.564 G1 heating water. The total exergy destruction in
Absorber2 irreversibility 3.858 absorbers is around 12–18% of the total exergy
HX irreversibility 5.787 change in G1 heating water. The irreversibilities in
Throttling valve2 irreversibility 0.9926
Total exergy output 85.6206 the absorber are significant because larger entropy
generation occurs due to the mixing of two fluids

25 G1
C1
% exergy destruction

20 E1
A1
15
HX1

10 EV1
G2
5 E2
A2
0
155 157 159 161 163 165 HX2
G1 temperature(TG1) EV2
C2 water exergy change
A2 water exergy change
E2 water exergy change
Figure 2. Variation of % exergy destruction in each component with the change in generator1 (G1) temperature.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
168 A. KHALIQ AND R. KUMAR

25 G1
C1
20
% exergy destruction
E1
A1
15
HX1

10 EV1
G2
5 E2
A2
0
87.5 88.5 89.5 90.5 91.5 92.5 HX2
C1 temperature(TC1)
EV2
C2 water exergy change
A2 water exergy change
E2 water exergy change
Figure 3. Variation of % exergy destruction in each component with the change in condenser1 (C1) temperature.

G1
25
C1
E1
% exergy destruction

20
A1
15 HX1
EV1
10 G2
E2
5
A2
HX2
0
87.5 88.5 89.5 90.5 91.5 EV2
A1 temperature(TA1) C2 water exergy change
A2 water exergy change
E2 water exergy change
Figure 4. Variation of % exergy destruction in each component with the change in absorber1 (A1) temperature.

in the absorber. The absorber irreversibility can be
reduced by decreasing the solution circulation
ratio and using a more effective solution heat
exchanger. The exergy loss at the absorber is
further reduced by using the heat rejected during
the absorption process to preheat the solution
before it enters the solution heat exchanger. The
solution circulation ratio can be reduced by
increasing the concentration of solution in the
generator or decreasing the concentration of
solution when the temperature increases or the
pressure decreases and vice versa. This solution
circulation ratio is low when the system is operated
at high generator and evaporator temperatures, or

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF DOUBLE EFFECT VAR SYSTEM 169

25 G1
C1
% exergy destruction 20 E1
A1
15
HX1
EV1
10
G2

5 E2
A2
0 HX2
65 67 69 71 73 75 EV2
G2 temperature(TG2)
C2 water exergy change
A2 water exergy change
E2 water exergy change
Figure 5. Variation of % exergy destruction in each component with the change in generator2 (G2) temperature.

G1
25 C1
E1
% exergy destruction

20 A1
HX1
15
EV1
G2
10
E2

5 A2
HX2
0 EV2
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
C2 water exergy change
E2 temperature(TE2)
A2 water exergy change
E2 water exergy change
Figure 6. Variation of % exergy destruction in each component with the change in evaporator2 (E2) temperature.

at low absorber and condenser temperatures. heating water. The total irreversibilities in HXs
When the solution circulation ratio is reduced, amount to 11–20% of the exergy change in the
the heat input to the generator and the heat output generator heating water. The HX irreversibilities
at the absorber are both increased, thereby are due to the large temperature difference between
improving the COP. the two streams of fluid which leads to a much
The HX1 irreversibility make up between 8 and higher finite-time heat transfer irreversibilities.
11% of the exergy change in the generator heating The irreversibilities in the C-1, C-2(E-1), EV-1,
water, and HX2 irreversibilities make up between EV-2, TV-1, TV-2, P1 and P2 are relatively small,
5 and 13% of the exergy change in the generator i.e. within the range of 1–5%.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
170 A. KHALIQ AND R. KUMAR

1450
10 1190
10 1400
1350 1180
8

COP & ECOP(%)

8
COP & ECOP(%)

COP
1300

T.E.D.(kW)
ECOP (%) 1170

T.E.D(kW)
T.E.D. COP
6 6
1250 ECOP(%)
T.E.D.(kW) 1160
1200 4
4
1150
1150
2 1100 2 1140
1050
0 0 1130
155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 3 4 5 6 7
Generator1(G1) Temperature(TG1) Evaporator2(E2)Temperature(TE2)

Figure 7. Variation of COP, ECOP and T.E.D. (kW) Figure 10. Variation of COP, ECOP and T.E.D. (kW)
with the change in generator1 (G1) temperature. with the change in evaporator2 (E2) temperature.

1200
10 1350
10
1190
1300
8
COP & ECOP(%)

8
COP & ECOP(%)

COP 1180
T.E.D.(kW)

ECOP(%) 1250 COP

T.E.D.(kW)
6 T.E.D. ECO P(%) 1170
6 T.E.D.(kW)
1200
1160
4 4
1150
1150
2 1100 2
1140
0 1050 0 1130
88 89 90 91 92 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Absorber1(A1) Temperature(TA1) Generator2(G2)Temperature(TG2)
Figure 8. Variation of COP, ECOP and T.E.D. (kW) Figure 11. Variation of COP, ECOP and T.E.D. (kW)
with the change in absorber1 (A1) temperature. with the change in generator2 (G2) temperature.

10 1350

1300
8
COP & ECOP(%)

COP
T.E.D.(kW)

ECOP(%) 1250
6 T.E.D.(kW)
1200
1/COP
4 our thermodynamic model
1150

2 1100
endoreversible model
0 1050
88 89 90 91 92
Condenser1(C1)Temperature(TC1) 0 1/(useful effect)

Figure 9. Variation of COP, ECOP and T.E.D. (kW) Figure 12. A plot of 1=COP and 1=(useful effect) for
with the change in condenser1 (C1) temperature. double effect vapor absorption refrigeration system.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF DOUBLE EFFECT VAR SYSTEM
Figures 7–11 show the COP, ECOP and total
exergy destruction of the system over a range of
operating temperatures as previously mentioned.
Figure 7 shows that the COP and ECOP of the
system increase while the total exergy destruction
decreases with an increase in the temperature of
the G1. As is clear from ideal vapor absorption
system, the COP increases with an increase in the
temperature of the generator. The increase in the
ECOP and the decrease in the total exergy
destruction are due to a decrease in the tempera-
ture difference between the inlet water temperature
and G1 temperature.
Figure 8 shows that COP and ECOP decreases
while the total exergy destruction increases with an
increase in the temperature of A1. COP decreases
due to a larger heat rejection from the absorber.
Decrease in ECOP and increase in total exergy
destruction is because of the large entropy
generation due to the mixing of two fluids.
In Figure 9, COP decreases with an increase in
the C1 temperature due to a larger heat rejection
to the G1. A decrease in ECOP and an increase in
total exergy destruction is due to an increase in the
difference between the C1 temperature and the C1
cooling water temperature.
Figure 10 shows that COP and ECOP increases
while the total exergy destruction decreases with
the increase in E2 temperature. The increase in
COP with E2 temperature can be understood as
the COP of ideal vapor absorption is directly
proportional to evaporator temperature. The
increase in ECOP and decrease in total exergy
destruction with an increase in the E2 temperature
is due to decrease in temperature difference
between the E2 temperature and the temperature
of water being cooled ðTk‘ Þ:
Figure 11 shows that the COP and ECOP
increases while total exergy destruction decreases
with an increase in G2 temperature. This is due to
the fact that as the G2 temperature increases,
the temperature difference between the heat
coming from C1 (and A1) and G2 temperature
decreases.
Figure 12 shows a plot of 1=COP against
1=Cooling Capacity ðQE2 Þ: At low values of QE2 ;
entropy generation dominates and the curve is
linear. At high values of QE2 ; heat transfer
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
171
irreversibilities dominate and COP decreases
rapidly as QE2 increases. Maximum COP occurs
at the point of optimum trade-off. For absorption
system, there is the additional point of the
maximum cooling capacity ðQE2 Þ; due to the heat
exchange bottleneck at the generator. For the
upper part of the curve, generator heat transfer
irreversibilities dominate. The endoreversible mod-
el curve is also shown. It fails to account for the
existence of maximum COP conditions, and it falls
well below the actual curve for realistic operating
conditions [14].
6. CONCLUSION
The study presented in this paper amply demon-
strates the application of the exergy-based thermo-
dynamic method to analyze a double effect LiBr–
H2 O vapor absorption refrigeration (VAR) system
for air-conditioning purposes. The exergy method
used here is found to be a powerful and systematic
tool in optimizing the performance of such
complex refrigeration systems. Moreover, it is
observed that the exergy method of a system
analysis is able to provide suggestions about
potential thermodynamic performance improve-
ments which is not possible through mathematical
or numerical techniques.
The exergy analysis of double effect VAR
system leads to the following conclusions:
1. The total exergy destruction in both the
generators of VAR system make up between
30 and 35%, and total exergy destruction in
heat exchangers amounts to 11–20%, while the
total exergy destruction in absorber is around
12–18% of the exergy change in the generator
heating water.
2. The COP and ECOP of the system increases
while total exergy destruction decreases with
increase in temperature of the generator1.
3. The COP and ECOP of the system decreases
while total exergy destruction increases with
increase in temperature of the absorber1.
4. The COP decreases with increase in the
temperature of C1.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
172 A. KHALIQ AND R. KUMAR

5. The COP and ECOP of the system increases From Equations (A5) and (A6)
while the total exergy destruction decreases with h1 ¼ 112:04 kJ kg
1 ; t1 ¼ 52:028C; s1 ¼ 0:3446 kJ kg
1 K
1
increase in the temperature of E2.

Concen-
Tem- tration Enthalpy Entropy Mass
APPENDIX A perature of LiBr ðkJ ðkJ kg
1 flow rate
State ð8CÞ (x; %)
1
Kg Þ K
1 Þ ðkg s
1 Þ
A sample calculation is given for [TG1 ¼ 1608C;
18 160 66 367.01 0.7674 21
TC1 ¼ 87:58C; TA1 ¼ 87:58C; TE1=C2 ¼ 358C; 15, 16 87.5 63 220.953 0.46285 22
E1 ¼ 60%; TG2 ¼ 708C; TA2 ¼ 308C; TE2 ¼ 58C; 19, 20 116.5 66 288.9785 0.5777 21
E2 ¼ 60%]. The mass flow rate of refrigerant 17 127.73 63 295.437 0.65919 22
ðH2 OÞ in upper vapor absorption refrigeration 11 160 0 2798.74 7.8883 1
cycle is assumed to be 1:0 kg s
1 ðm ’ r1 ¼ 1 kg s
1 Þ: 12 87.5 0 366.41 1.16335 1
The specific enthalpy ðhÞ; specific entropy ðsÞ and 13 87.5 0 366.41 1.2182 1
concentration ðxÞ of the state points (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14 35 0 2565.3 8.3531 1
8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, a, b, c, d, d0 ; e, e0 ; f, i, j, 8 70 55 154.75 0.43 32.99
k, l, m, n) are found out by using a p–t–x chart of 6, 7 30 52 65.266 0.19576 34.893
9, 10 46 55 105.276 0.2804 32.99
Chua et al. [13] and a steam table at assumed
1 52.02 52 112.04 0.3446 34.893
values of temperatures.
2 70 0 2631.46 8.6068 1.9038
The properties of the remaining points are 3 35 0 146.68 0.5053 1.9038
calculated as follows: 4 35 0 146.68 0.5279 1.9038
5 5 0 2510.6 9.0257 1.9038
ðt18
t19 Þ
EHX1 ¼ 0:6 ¼ ) t19 ¼ 116:58C ðA1Þ a 180 0 763.22 2.1396 91.032
ðt18
t16 Þ b 170 0 719.21 2.0419 91.032
c, c0 75 0 313.9 1.015 57.885
So, h19 ¼ h20 ¼ 288:9785 kJ kg
1 ; s19 ¼ s20 ¼ 0: d 85 0 355.92 1.1343 57.885
5777 kJ kg
1 K
1 e, e0 75 0 313.9 1.015 89.78
f 85 0 355.92 1.1343 89.78
’ s1
m x18
¼ ¼ 22 ðA2Þ i 27 0 113.25 0.3954 476.462
’ r1 ðx18
x17 Þ
m j 30 0 125.79 0.4369 476.462
k 27 0 113.25 0.3954 63.165
’ s1
m
ðm ’ r1 Þðh18
h19 Þ þ m
’ s1 ðh16
h17 Þ ¼ 0 ðA3Þ l 30 0 125.79 0.4369 63.165
m 27 0 113.25 0.3954 201.845
From Equations (A2) and (A3) n 30 0 125.79 0.4369 201.845
h17 ¼ 295:437 kJ kg
1 ; t17 ¼ 127:738C
’ r1 ¼ 1 kg s
1 Þ
Energy balance: For ðm

1
1
s17 ¼ 0:65919 kJ kg K
’ G1 ¼ 4006:33 kW;
Q ’ E1 ¼ 2198:89 kW
Q
ðt8
t9 Þ ’ C1 ¼ 2432:33 kW; ’ A1 ¼ 3772:88 kW
EHX2 ¼ 0:6 ¼ ) t9 ¼ 468C ðA4Þ Q Q
ðt8
t7 Þ
’ ab ¼ 91:032 kg s
1 ; m
m ’ cd ¼ 57:885 kg s
1
So, h9 ¼ h10 ¼ 105:276 kJ kg
1 ; s9 ¼ s10 ¼ 0:2804
kJ kg
1 K
1 ’ ef ¼ 89:787 kg s
1
m

’ s2
m x8
¼ ¼ 18:33 ðA5Þ ’ 0r2 ¼ 1 kg s
1 Þ;
For ðm
’ r2 ðx8
x6 Þ
m
’ 0 ¼ 3259:58 kW;
Q ’ 0 ¼ 2484:780 kW
Q
G2 C2

’ s2
m
ðm ’ r2 Þðh8
h9 Þ þ m
’ s2 ðh7
h1 Þ ¼ 0 ðA6Þ ’ 0E2 ¼ 2363:920 kW;
Q ’ 0A2 ¼ 3138:707 kW
Q

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGY ANALYSIS OF DOUBLE EFFECT VAR SYSTEM 173

But heat rejected in G2 is coming from C1&A1 Subscripts

’ G2 ¼ m
Q ’0 ¼Q
’ 0r2 Q ’ C1 þ Q
’ A1 a, b, c, . . . ¼ see Figure 1
G2

’ r2 ¼ 1:903 kg s :
So, m
1 A1&A2 ¼ absorbers
’ ’ C2 ¼ 4730:027 kW C1&C2 ¼ condensers
QG2 ¼ 6204:944 kW; Q
D ¼ destruction
’ E2 ¼ 4499:900 kW;
Q ’ A2 ¼ 5974:842 kW
Q E1&E2 ¼ evaporators
EV1&EV2 ¼ expansion valves
From these values gen ¼ generation
’ mn ¼ 201:845 kg s
1 ;
m ’ ij ¼ 476:462 kg s
1
m G1&G2 ¼ generators
HX1&HX2 ¼ heat exchangers
’ kl ¼ 63:165 kg s
1
m P1&P2 ¼ pumps
By using these values of enthalpy, entropy and r ¼ refrigerant
mass flow rates, we can find out the exergy s ¼ solution
destruction in each component, COP, ECOP, etc. TV1&TV2 ¼ throttling valves
0 ¼ environmental condition
1, 2, 3 . . . ¼ see Figure 1
NOMENCLATURE

A1&A2 ¼ absorbers
C1&C2 ¼ condensers
COP ¼ coefficient of performance REFERENCES
e ¼ specific exergy or
1. Ziegler F, Alefeld G. Coefficient of performance of multi-
availability ðkJ kg
1 Þ stage absorption cycles. International Journal of Refrigera-
E’ ¼ exergy rate ðkJ s
1 Þ tion 1987; 10:285–295.
E1&E2 ¼ evaporators 2. Cook FB. Double effect absorption heat pump. Final
Report No. 5084-242-0985, Gas Research Institute, 1985.
ECOP ¼ exergetic coefficient of 3. Wall G. Exergy tools. Proceedings of the Institution of
performance Mechanical Engineers Part A: Journal Power and Energy
EV1&EV2 ¼ expansion valves 2003; 217:125–136.
4. Khaliq A, Kaushik SC. Thermodynamic performance
G1&G2 ¼ generators evaluation of combustion gas turbine cogeneration
h ¼ specific enthalpy ðkJ kg
1 Þ system with reheat. Applied Thermal Engineering 2004; 24:
HX1&HX2 ¼ heat exchangers 1785–1795.
5. Rosen MA, Dincer I. Survey of thermodynamic methods to
’
m ¼ mass flow rate ðkg s
1 Þ improve the efficiency of coal-fired electricity generation.
P1, P2, P3, P4 ¼ pumps Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
’
Q ¼ heat flux (kW) Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 2003; 217:63–73.
6. Aphornratana S, Eames IW. Thermodynamic analysis
R ¼ universal gas constant of absorption refrigeration cycles using the second law of
ðkJ kmol
1 K
1 Þ thermodynamics method. International Journal of Refrig-
s ¼ specific entropy eration 1995; 18(4):244–252.
7. Ataer O, Gogus Y. Comparative study of irreversibilities
ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ in an aqua-ammonia absorption refrigeration system.
T ¼ temperature ð8CÞ International Journal of Refrigeration 1991; 14:86–92.
T.E.D. ¼ total exergy destruction 8. Mishra RD, Sahoo PK, Sahoo S. Thermodynamic optimi-
zation of a single effect Water/LiBr vapor absorption
(kW) refrigeration system. International Journal of Refrigeration
TV1&TV2 ¼ throttling valves 2003; 26(1):158–169.
’
W ¼ work (kW) 9. Khaliq A, Kumar R. Exergetic analysis of solar powered
absorption refrigeration system using LiBr–H2 O and NH3
Greek symbol 2H2 O as working fluids. International Journal of Exergy
2006; 4(1):1–18.
E1 &E2 ¼ effectiveness of heat 10. Perez-Blanco H. Conceptual design of high efficiency
absorption cooling cycle. International Journal of Refrig-
exchangers eration 1993; 16(6):429–433.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er
174 A. KHALIQ AND R. KUMAR
11. Anand DK, Kumar B. Absorption machine irreversibility
using new entropy calculations. Solar Energy 1987;
39(3):243–256.
12. Bejan A. Fundamentals of exergy analysis, entropy
generation minimization, and the generation of flow
architecture. International Journal of Energy Research
2002; 26:545–565.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
13. Chua HT, Toh HK, Malek A, Ng KC, Srinivasan K.
Improved thermodynamic property fields of LiBr–H2 O solu-
tions. International Journal of Refrigeration 2000; 23:412–429.
14. Bhardwaj PK, Kaushik SC, Jain S. Finite-time optimiza-
tion of an endoreversible and irreversible vapor absorption
refrigeration system. Energy Conversion and Management
2003; 44(5):1131–1144.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:161–174
DOI: 10.1002/er