Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 1337 1343

68th Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering Association, ATI2013

Thermodynamic analysis of ORC for energy production from

Abstract
This study concerns a thermodynamic analysis of Organic Rankine Cycles for energy conversion from geothermal resources. A
numerical flow-chart tool based on a lumped parameters approach is adopted to compute values of thermodynamic variables
during each transformation composing the cycle. The equation of state is expressed by the Peng-Robinson formulation. The
different plant components are outlined by single blocks, linked each other by connections through balance equations. Analyses
are carried-out considering two working fluids (isopentane and isobutane). Results are obtained for several sets of operating
parameters, such as the evaporation and condensation pressure for the working fluid, the mass flow rate of the geothermal fluid
and the cooling water temperature. From results, thermodynamic cycles are built-up in the T-s plan, allowing to quantify
effectiveness and energy benefit related to the investigated functional scenarios.
2013
2013The
TheAuthors.
Authors.
Published
Elsevier

Published
by by
Elsevier
Ltd.Ltd.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selectionand
andpeer-review
peer-review
under
responsibility
of ATI
NAZIONALE.
Selection
under
responsibility
of ATI
NAZIONALE
"Keywords: ORC, geothermal, numerical"

1. Introduction
The organic Rankine cycle (ORC) is a promising process for conversion of low and medium temperature heat to
electricity. Unlike the traditional steam Rankine cycle, the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) uses a high molecular mass
organic fluid. It allows heat recovery from low temperature sources such as industrial waste heat, geothermal heat,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 095 738 2452

1876-6102 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ATI NAZIONALE

1338

Giuliano Cammarata et al. / Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 1337 1343

solar ponds, etc. The low temperature heat is converted into useful work, that can itself be converted into electricity.
Organic Rankine Cycles seem to be a promising technology in the perspective of a decrease in plant size and
investment costs. They can work at lower temperatures, and the total installed power can be reduced down to the kW
scale. The market for ORC's is growing at a rapid pace. At the present, Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) raises
considerable interest as it makes it possible to produce electricity from cooler geothermal sources, typically within
the 100130 C temperature range, exceptionally down to 9095 C, often available from below 1000 m deep
production well increasing the number of geothermal reservoirs in the world that can potentially be used for
generating electricity. Among the literature studies concerning this topic, Franco [1] presented an overview of
current R&D in the field of small-scale ORC for the exploitation of geothermal sources with reduced temperature
below 130 C. He analyzed the performance of such those new cycles and to consider the potential improvements
that will result in higher cycle performance or lower resource utilization and lower cost of electricity generation. He
showed that the geothermal power plant with a regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle is an interesting and promising
option, in particular the benefit gained by adding a regenerative heat exchanger which provides some of the
preheating heat from the vapor exiting the turbine. Ghasemi et al. [2] provided numerical models for an existing
commercial ORC operating by a regenerative cycle and using isobutane as working fluid. The condensation system
was of air-cooled type. From their simulation results, validated by comparison with experimental data, it appears that
at high ambient temperatures, the net power output of the ORC is limited by the capacity of condenser system. They
also observed that at low ambient temperatures, the inlet of turbine should be in a saturated vapor state and the
maximum feasible pressure as suggested by previous studies. However, as the ambient temperature increases, this
conclusion does not hold anymore and a significant superheat is required to obtain the maximum in net power output
of the ORC. This was considered a consequence of the off-maximum operation of the turbines and consequently
variable isentropic efficiency. It means that at high ambient temperatures, the condenser system should be at full
capacity for the optimal operation, but at low ambient temperatures, the cooling capacity of the condenser system
need to be adjusted to obtain the optimal operation. A theoretical analyses of 12 natural and conventional working
fluids-based transcritical Rankine power cycles driven by low-temperature geothermal sources have been carried out
by Guo et al. [3] with the methodology of pinch point analysis using computer models. Their calculated results
include the optimum turbine inlet pressure and the corresponding thermodynamic mean heating temperature, the net
power output, thermal efficiency, heat transfer capacity as well as the real expansion rate in the turbine. From those
parameters they were able to strike a balance about the more suitable working fluid depending functional conditions.
Similar analyses were carried-out by Saleh et al. [4] and by Hung et al. [5]. In [4] the BACKONE equation of state is
used for screening 31 pure component working fluids for ORC applications. A pinch point analysis for the external
heat exchanger is also performed and results are discussed with relation to the optimization of the heat source. In [5]
the suitability of several working fluids in terms of system efficiency is otherwise analyzed in relation to low-grade
energy sources, such as solar pond and ocean thermal energy conversion systems. Quoilin et al. [6] developed a
thermodynamic model of a waste heat recovery ORC in order to compare both the thermodynamic and the thermoeconomic performance of several typical working fluids for low to medium temperature-range ORCs. Recently, a
systematic comparison of ORC configurations by means of comprehensive performance indexes was proposed by
Branchini et al. [7]. In the present framework, this paper reports a thermodynamic analysis of ORC applications for
generating energy by exploiting geothermal resources. Results are carried-out for different working fluids and
several operational and environmental conditions.
Nomenclature
p
R
Q
T
V

Pressure
Ideal gas constant
Mass flow rate
Temperature
Volume

Greek symbols
Z
Acentric factor

1339

Giuliano Cammarata et al. / Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 1337 1343


Subscripts
c
Critical state
2. Modelling
Numerical models are built-up by a lumped parameters approach. Modelling workflow is based on the following
steps. Firstly, a flow-sheet is created: in this step the working fluids and their physical properties are chosen and
implemented. The following step concerns the mathematical model applied for computations. It lies on the
formulation of the equation of state as proposed by Peng-Robinson [8], reading as follows:

(1)

where is the molar volume and coefficients are expressed as reported below:

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

A workspace can then be produced, where the plant elements are introduced. Links joining the different symbolic
objects are then defined in respect of the mass and energy balances during the process. Boundary conditions and
environmental parameters for the systems are set also. A schematic representation of the studied system in the
workspace is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Schematic outline of plant components / system flow-chart (left side) and saturation curves in the T-s diagram for the considered working
fluids (right side).

1340

Giuliano Cammarata et al. / Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 1337 1343

The same figure shows the saturation curves in the T-s diagram for the considered working fluids (Isopentane and
Isobutane). From a thermodynamic point of view, the functional principle of the organic Rankine cycle is the same
as that of the Rankine cycle: the working fluid is pumped to a boiler where it is evaporated, passes through a turbine
and is finally condensed. In the real cycle, the presence of irreversibilities lowers the cycle efficiency. These
irreversibilities mainly occur during the expansion, in the heat exchangers and in the pump. The studied cycle is
improved by using a regenerator: since the fluid has not reached the two-phase state at the end of the expansion, its
temperature at this point is higher than the condensing temperature. The related enthalpy is exploited to preheat the
liquid before it enters the evaporator, so that the power required from the heat source is therefore reduced and the
efficiency is increased.

3. Results
In running simulations, the inlet temperature of geothermal fluid (GEO_in branch in Fig. 1) is fixed at value 120
C. Therefore, the evaporation pressure corresponds to value 888 kPa (T=110.2 C) for the isopentane and 2390 kPa
(T=109.9 C) for the isobutane. The cooling water temperature at the condenser (WATER_in branch in Fig. 1) is
set at 18 C for winter season and 27 C for summer one. Mass flow rate considered in computations for geothermal
fluid (Q GEO) is 110 kg/s for both working fluids. Mass flow rate of working fluid (Q WF) is otherwise 27 kg/s for
the isobutane and 18 kg/s for the isopentane. Simulations are carried-out for working conditions listed in Table 1.
Figures 2-3 report an extract of thermodynamic results (Simulation #3) obtained for both working fluids.
Thermodynamic cycles are plotted in the T-s diagram also.
Table 1. Pressure and temperature values at the condenser (outRIG-inCOND) for both working fluids.
Isopentane
p [kPa]

T [C]

p [kPa]

T [C]

300

63.7

650

48.1

250

57.1

550

41.6

170

43.9

490

37.2

outCOND-inPOMP

T
[C]
39.00
51.85
79.30
109.90
109.90
109.90
109.90
109.90
56.83
39.00
37.21
37.21
37.21
37.21
37.21
37.21

T
Molar Entropy Entropy
[K]
[kJ/kgmoleK] [kJ/kgK]
312.15
90.79
1.56
325.00
96.81
1.67
352.45
110.00
1.89
383.05
126.70
2.18
383.05
130.00
2.24
383.05
140.00
2.41
383.05
145.00
2.49
383.05
153.90
2.65
329.98
156.70
2.70
312.15
150.70
2.59
310.36
150.10
2.58
310.36
145.00
2.49
310.36
125.00
2.15
310.36
105.00
1.81
310.36
90.54
1.56
310.36
90.53
1.56

WATER_in
WATER_out

27.00
37.31

300.15
310.46

54.22
56.85

3.01
3.16

GEO_in
GEO_out

120.00
99.87

393.15
373.02

75.34
71.15

4.18
3.95

outPRE-inEVA

outEVA-inTURB
outTURB-inRIG
outRIG-inCOND

T
in 312.15
310.36
310.36
310.36
310.36
310.36
out 310.36
Pump
in 310.36
out 312.15
Rigenerator in 312.15
out 325.00
Preheater
in 325.00
352.45
out 383.05
Evaporator
in 383.05
383.05
383.05
383.05
out 383.05
Turbine
in 383.05
out 329.98
|Rigenerator| in 329.98
out 312.15
Condensator

s
2.59
2.58
2.49
2.15
1.81
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.67
1.67
1.89
2.18
2.18
2.24
2.41
2.49
2.65
2.65
2.70
2.70
2.59

393.15

373.15

353.15

T [K]

Simulation #3
490kPa|1236 kW
outPOMP-inRIG
outRIG-inPRE

Isobutane

Simulation #

333.15

313.15
Condensator
Rigenerator
Turbine
Evaporator

293.15

Pump
Preheater
|Rigenerator|

273.15

1.5

2.0

Fig. 2. Thermodynamic results carried-out by simulation #3 for isobutane.

2.5
s [kJ/kgK]

3.0

1341

Giuliano Cammarata et al. / Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 1337 1343

outCOND-inPOMP

T
[C]
44.37
68.65
87.46
106.00
110.30
110.20
110.20
110.20
76.25
44.38
43.87
43.86
43.86
43.86
43.86
43.86

T
Molar EntropyEntropy
[K]
[kJ/kgmoleK] [kJ/kgK]
317.52
47.11
0.65
341.80
59.99
0.83
360.61
70.00
0.97
379.15
80.00
1.11
383.45
82.35
1.14
383.35
100.00
1.39
383.35
125.00
1.73
383.35
131.80
1.83
349.40
135.00
1.87
317.53
122.30
1.70
317.02
122.10
1.69
317.01
100.00
1.39
317.01
70.00
0.97
317.01
60.00
0.83
317.01
47.01
0.65
317.01
47.01
0.65

WATER_in
WATER_out

27.00
43.83

300.15
316.98

54.22
58.46

3.01
3.25

GEO_in
GEO_out

120.00
106.10

393.15
379.25

75.34
72.47

4.18
4.02

outPRE-inEVA

outEVA-inTURB
outTURB-inRIG
outRIG-inCOND

T
in 317.53
317.02
317.01
317.01
317.01
317.01
out 317.01
Pump
in 317.01
out 317.52
Rigenerator in 317.52
out 341.80
Preheater
in 341.80
360.61
379.15
out 383.45
Evaporator
in 383.45
383.35
383.35
out 383.35
Turbine
in 383.35
out 349.40
|Rigenerator| in 349.40
out 317.53
Condensator

s
1.70
1.69
1.39
0.97
0.83
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.83
0.83
0.97
1.11
1.14
1.14
1.39
1.73
1.83
1.83
1.87
1.87
1.70

393.15

373.15

353.15

T [K]

Simulation #3
170 kPa| 830.0 kW
outPOMP-inRIG
outRIG-inPRE

333.15

313.15
Condensator
Rigenerator
Turbine
Evaporator

293.15

Pump
Preheater
|Rigenerator|

273.15
0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

s [kJ/kgK]

Fig. 3. Thermodynamic results carried-out by simulation #3 for isopentane.

For the previous listed simulations, Table 2 reports the obtained results in terms of supplied and generated power
(Power_in and Power_out), thermal condition of the geothermal fluid at outlet (T GEO_out), mass flow rate of
cooling water (Q WATER) needed at the condensation section and cycle efficiency (K).
Table 2. Results obtained for Simulation #1-3 for both considered working fluids.
Isopentane
Simulation #

Power_in [kW]

Power_out [kW]

T GEO_out [C]

Q WATER [kg/s]

23.34

541.4

107.3

36

8.0%

24.98

634.2

106.9

45

8.3%

28.04

830.0

106.1

82

10.8%

Cycle efficiency

Isobutane
Simulation #

Power_in [kW]

Power_out [kW]

T GEO_out [C]

Q WATER [kg/s]

117.3

1002

101.1

92

9.9%

123.2

1141

100.3

135

10.8%

126.3

1237

99.87

195

11.2%

Further analyses are then developed in order to investigate on influence of the vaporisation pressure (pv) and the
mass flow rate of the geothermal fluid (Q GEO). Main results are reported in Figures 4 and Table 3.
From results some items can be globally pointed-out. Decreasing in pressure level at the condensation section
(simulations from #1 to #3) allows to improve the thermodynamic performance in terms of generated power
(+53.3% for isopentane, +23.4% for isobutane) and efficiency (+2.8% for isopentane, +1.3% for isobutane).
Temperature of the geothermal fluid at output does not change significantly (less than 2 C in any case); on the other
hand, a higher mass flow rate of cooling water is needed for the process (+127.7% for isopentane, +111.9% for
isobutane).

1342

Giuliano Cammarata et al. / Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 1337 1343

12,00%
10,00%
490 kPa

8,00%

550 kPa
6,00%

650 kPa
170 kPa

4,00%

250 kPa
2,00%

300 kPa

0,00%
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

pv [kPa]

Fig. 4. Cycle efficiency as a function of the vaporization pressure for several values of pressure at the condenser section: filled and not-filled
symbols corresponds to isobutane and isopentane results, respectively.

Table 3. Main system parameters variation with respect to the mass flow of the geothermal fluid.
Q GEO

Power_in

[kg/s]

Power_out

[kW]

T GEO_out

[kW]

Q WATER

[C]

Isobutane

Isopentane

Isobutane

Isopentane

110

127.9

28.92

1236.8

100

112.2

24.93

1100.2

90

102.9

21.81

80

88.9

70

79.5

60

Q WF

[kg/s]

[kg/s]

Isobutane

Isopentane

Isobutane

Isopentane

Isobutane

Isopentane

830.1

99.9

106.1

195

82

27

18

744.2

100.2

106.3

177

74

24

16

1008.5

651.2

99.8

106.7

162

65

22

14

20.25

870.6

604.7

100.4

106.1

140

60

19

13

17.14

778.9

511.6

99.9

106.6

125

51

17

11

65.5

14.02

641.5

418.6

100.7

107.2

103

42

14

50

56.1

12.46

549.8

372.1

100.2

106.3

89

37

12

40

42.1

9.35

412.4

279.1

101.4

107.2

67

28

30

32.7

6.23

320.7

186.1

100.7

108.6

52

19

Increasing in vaporisation pressure level also determinates a sensible benefit on the cycle efficiency. In relation to
the simulations carried-out, increasing in efficiency is in the range 7.27.8 in percentage points for the isopentane;
for the isobutane it is 3.64.3 in percentage points. Focusing attention on the effect of the geothermal mass flow rate
on the generated power, it is to notice that reduction of the first one determinates an almost proportional decreasing
on the second one. The same quasi-proportional relationship can be deducted for the geothermal fluid mass flow rate
with respect to both the cooling water and the working fluid mass flow rate.
4. Conclusions
A thermodynamic analysis of Rankine cycles of two organic fluids exploiting a geothermal primary source is
performed by using a flow-chart numerical tool based on a lumped parameters approach. As result, we have been
able to draw the several transformations composing the cycle in the T-s plan. From post-processing, cycle efficiency
and energy benefit have been quantified in several operating conditions. Influence of vaporization and condensation
pressures, cooling water temperature and mass flow rate of the geothermal fluid on thermodynamic performances

Giuliano Cammarata et al. / Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 1337 1343

1343

has been then highlighted. The potential of the numerical tools in predicting the cycle performance in several
operating conditions is highlighted.

References
[1] Franco A. Power production from a moderate temperature geothermal resource with regenerative Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy for
Sustainable Development 2011; 15:411-419.
[2] Ghasemi H, Paci M, Tizzanini A, Mitsos A. Modeling and optimization of a binary geothermal power plant. Energy 2013; 50:412-428.
[3] Guo T, Wang H, Zhang S. Comparative analysis of natural and conventional working fluids for use in transcritical Rankine cycle using lowtemperature geothermal source. Int. J. Energy Research 2011; 35:530-544.
[4] Saleh B, Koglbauer G, Wendland M, Fisher J. Working fluids for low-temperature organic Rankine cycles. Energy 2007; 32:1210-1221.
[5] Hung TC, Wang SK, Kuo CH, Pei BS, Tsai KF. A study of organic working fluids on system efficiency of an ORC using low-grade energy
sources. Energy 2010; 35: 1403-1411.
[6] Quoilin S, Declaye S, Tchanche BF, Lemort V. Thermo-economic optimization of waste heat recovery Organic Rankine Cycles. Applied
Thermal Engineering 2011; 31: 2885-2893
[7] Branchini L, De Pascale A, Peretto A. Systematic comparison of ORC configurations by means of comprehensive performance indexes.
Applied Thermal Engineering 2013; 61: 129-140.
[8] Peng DY, Robinson DB. A New Two-Constant Equation-of-state, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 1976; 15:5964.