Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer (MHMT'23)

Lisbon, Portugal – March 26 – 28, 2023

Paper No. ENFHT 177
DOI: 10.11159/enfht23.177

Parametric Analysis of Heat Source and Sink and Design of Heat

Exchangers for Trilateral Flash Cycle (TFC)
Christina Antonopoulou1, Apostolos Gkountas2, Konstantinos Atsonios1, Panteleimon Bakalis2, Anastasios
Skiadopoulos3, Panagiotis Grammelis1, Dimitrios Manolakos3
1
Centre of Research and Technology Hellas, Chemical Process Engineering Research Institute, Athens, Greece
2
Psyctotherm, R&D Department, Piraeus, Greece
3
Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Natural Resources and Agricultural Engineering, Athens, Greece

Abstract – The utilization of a low-grade heat source (<100 oC) can improve energy conservation and reduce the harmful emissions
contributing effectively to the environment protection. Consequently, the advancement of technologies related to heat-to-power
conversion applications needs to be considered, since large amounts of energy from industrial applications are rejected to the ambient.
Trilateral Flash Cycle (TFC) is a thermodynamic cycle that employs the same components as an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) unit, while
the main difference with the latter is that the working fluid does not evaporate at the heating phase but expands from a saturated liquid
state. The present work aims to achieve primarily the investigation of a TFC unit towards the commercialization if such cycles, focusing
on the heat exchangers and their detailed design, before the manufacturing and the experimental study of the unit. The simulation models
of the TFC unit have been developed employing the commercial software Aspen Plus for process modelling and Aspen Exchanger
Design and Rating (EDR). The Aspen Plus is used to simulate the overall system while heat exchangers are modelled by Aspen EDR.

Keywords: Trilateral flash cycle, waste heat recovery, heat-to-power engines, condenser

1. Introduction
Nowadays, there is a growing debate over the efficiency of the energy systems, since the global climate change has
become an important issue, while the rising fuel prices make the industries to look for innovative solutions that contribute to
operating costs reduction. A comprehensive, high-efficiency and clean utilization of energy is critical for a sustainable
development [1]. Waste heat is usually a 24-hour discharged heat from industrial processes, and approximately 63% of the
rejected heat is considered low-temperature (<100 οC). Efficient reuse of waste heat improves the energy efficiency of the
systems, drives into reduced harmful emissions and improves the cost effectiveness. Among all, the waste heat-to-power
technologies, the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) is considered a mature technology, featuring high reliability and low cost. It
is arguably the most efficient energy conversion solution for low-temperature waste heat power generation at present, while
it is widely proposed to recover industrial waste heat, geothermal energy, biomass heat and solar thermal energy. The
Trilateral Flash Cycle (TFC) system is an alternative solution to low-temperature sites for energy saving, which is relatively
unexplored and may lead to economic benefits compared to conventional technologies, since it is aimed at promoting the
utilization of waste heat in future power generation. In order to maximize the benefits of the system and system optimization
in terms of efficiency, several studies have been conducted exploring components design or favorable working fluids for a
designated heat source, which is one of the most important phases in building TFC and ORC systems [2]. In short, in the
TFC concept, a liquid-liquid heater replaces the evaporator of the ORC engine, since heat gain is achieved without phase
change of the organic working fluid, and the expansion process therefore starts from the saturated liquid state rather than a
vapour phase (Fig. 1). The working fluid is pressurized adiabatically, heated at constant pressure to its saturation point,
expanded adiabatically as a two-phase mixture and eventually condensed at constant pressure [3]. Most of research works
conducted in the field focus on parametric investigations, regarding the net electrical power output (kW), overall energy and
exergy efficiency (%), in order to better understand TFC performance not only by comparing different working fluids [4],
but also by comparing TFC applications with other thermodynamic cycles [2]. The current research work represents the
continuation of the study of Antonopoulou et al. [5], which aimed to elaborate on TFC thermodynamic analysis, highlight
its efficiency and compare the overall cycle performance by using different working fluids.

ENFHT 177-1
 Fig.1: Thermodynamic cycle (a), and configuration (b) of Trilateral Flash Cycle.

Parametric investigations of the TFC cycle were performed to determine the optimal operation aspects in terms of
net power output, gross and net thermal efficiency, exergy, and total recovery efficiency. This paper aims to elucidate
the accurate design of the heat exchangers of the trilateral application, as the research team tends to manufacture, install
and test a TFC system on a real biogas power plant. Among the objectives of this study is to provide comparative results
of different working fluids selection in TLC system for utilizing low heat sources, studying both 4th generation
refrigerants with low GWP and conventional HFCs with proved performance but eliminated eco-friendliness. Table 1
presents the selected refrigerants along with their key thermophysical properties.

Table 1: Characteristics and properties of the examined working fluids.

Working fluid Generation Formula Molecular Mass Tcrit (oC) GWP
(kg/kmol) (100 years)
HFO-1234yf 4 C3F4H2 114.04 94.7 4
HFO-1234ze(E) 4 C3F4H2 114.04 109.4 6
HFO-1233zd(E) 4 C3H2ClF3 130.50 165.5 1
HFC-245fa 3 C3F5H3 134.05 154.0 1020
HFC-134a 3 C2F4H2 102.03 101.1 1320

2. Modelling and Parametric Analysis

To investigate the impact of heat source and sink temperatures, a simulation model has been developed using the
commercial tool Aspen Plus, which is specialized in process modelling and employs blocks for each cycle’s component,
namely the pump, the two-phase expander, the heater and the condenser. For the heater and the condenser, a HeatX
block is selected, while a pump and an expander from the pressure changers blocks are also used. The simulation tool
employs the Nist REFPROP database [6] to estimate the thermophysical properties of the working fluids, whereas
IAPWS-95 and Peng-Robinson for the water and air properties, respectively [7, 8]. The operating conditions and
constant parameters used in the analysis are presented in Table 2.

ENFHT 177-2
 Table 2: Operating conditions and basic constant parameters summary.
Heat source Heat sink parametric
parametric analysis analysis
Working fluid mass flow rate 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓 (kg/s) 3.5
Hot carrier-liquid water mass flow rate 𝑚𝑚̇ℎ (kg/s) 8
Cold carrier-vapor water mass flow rate 𝑚𝑚̇𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 (kg/s) 8
Cold carrier-vapor air mass flow rate 𝑚𝑚̇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (kg/s) - 28
Cold carrier- liquid water temperature 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑐𝑐 ( oC) - 90
Hot carrier- liquid water temperature 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,ℎ ( oC) 28 -
Hot carrier pressure, 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,ℎ (bar) 2 1
Cold carrier pressure 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑐𝑐 (bar) 1
Working fluid temperature change in the condenser, 𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥𝑓𝑓,𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (oC) 5
Working fluid temperature in heater outlet, 𝑇𝑇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓,ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (oC) - 80
Temperature difference between heat source and refrigerant at 10 -
heater outlet, 𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥 (oC)
Heat transfer coefficient, U (W/m2 oC) 850
Pump isentropic efficiency, 𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 0.8
Expnder isentropic efficiency, 𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 0.75

2.1. Working fluid investigation based on heat source temperature

The heat source inlet temperature is studied in the range 70 - 110 oC, corresponding to varying saturation pressure for
each refrigerant, which in turns leads to different pumping work. Table 3 presents the temperature and pressure values at the
saturated liquid state for each working fluid that are obtained by the REFPROP method in Aspen Plus [6]. As expected, the
required pressure rise gets higher as the heat source temperature, corresponding to the heating temperature of the refrigerant,
increases from 60 oC to 100 °C, taken under consideration the temperature difference between heat source and refrigerant
that is stated in Table 2.

Table 3: Temperature and pressure values of the working fluid at the saturated liquid state.
Working fluid 𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐,𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉 60 oC 70 oC 80 oC 90 oC 100 oC
HFO-1234ze(Ε) 12.8 bar 16.15 bar 20.1 bar 24.76 bar 30.27 bar
HFC-245fa 4.63 bar 6.1 bar 7.9 bar 10.06 bar 12.65 bar
HFO-1234yf 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 16.42 bar 20.45 bar 25.2 bar 30.82 bar -
HFC-134a 16.85 bar 21.18 bar 26.35 bar 32.6 bar 39.72 bar
HFO-1233zd(E) 3.95 bar 5.12 bar 6.58 bar 8.35 bar 10.45 bar

Based on the above mentioned parametric analysis, the impact of the heat source inlet temperature on the net thermal
efficiency and the overall exergy efficiency was investigated. It was revealed that regardless of the working fluid, the increase
of the heat source temperature improves the thermal efficiency of the cycle, achieving an efficiency about 3.5% for 90 °C
(Fig. 2), while the exergy efficiency is estimated slightly higher than 20% when HFC-1233zd(E) is employed at 90 °C.

ENFHT 177-3
 HFO-1234ze(Ε) HFC-245fa HFO-1234ze(Ε) HFC-245fa
HFO-1234yf HFO-1233zd(Ε) HFO-1234yf HFO-1233zd(Ε)
HFC-134a HFC-134a
Net Thermal Efficiency (%)

Overall Exergy Efficiency (%)

7% 35%
6% 30%
5% 25%
4% 20%
3% 15%
2% 10%
1% 5%
0% 0%
70 80 90 100 110 70 80 90 100 110
Heat inlet temperature (oC) Heat inlet temperature (oC)
Fig.2: Impact of the heat source temperature on net thermal Fig. 3: Impact of the heat source temperature on overall
efficiency. exergy efficiency.

2.2. Working fluid investigation based on heat sink temperature

Apart from the hot source temperature, the temperature of the cooling medium was also investigated, as it may be
varied from the kind of application and significantly affects the size of the heat exchanger. This study initially focused
on the nature of the sink to define the condenser type that would ultimately be designed and manufactured (water-cooler
or air-cooled engine). The total exergy destruction (kW) was investigated for varying water and air inlet temperature
from 18 oC to 30 oC, illustrating that in both cases the exergy destruction at the condenser slightly decreases as the sink
carrier temperature increases. In addition, the analysis pointed out that in the case of air the exergy destruction is slightly
lower than the case of water-cooled engine. Therefore, an air cooler would probably be a beneficial condenser type
choice. In addition, for the whole working fluid sorting procedure, the results demonstrate that HFOs could achieve
competitive overall cycle performance, compared to more common refrigerants such as HFCs that do not comply with
F-Gas regulation.
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 present the condenser surface (m2) and the overall heat transfer coefficient, (kW/oC), respectively,
as the air inlet temperature increases. As it is expected, as the air inlet temperature increases, the heat exchanger surface
(m2) gets higher, while the overall heat transfer coefficient increases too for each working fluid.

ENFHT 177-4
 HFO-1234ze(Ε) HFC-245fa HFO-1234ze(Ε) HFC-245fa

HFO-1234yf HFO-1233zd(Ε) HFO-1234yf HFO-1233zd(Ε)

HFC-134a HFC-134a

Total Exergy Destruction (kW)

Total Exergy Destruction (kW)

100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
18 22 26 30 18 22 26 30
Air temperature inlet (oC) Water temperature inlet (oC)
Fig. 4: Impact of the heat sink temperature on the total Fig.5: Impact of the heat sink temperature on the total
exergy destruction (kW) for cooling air. exergy destruction (kW) for cooling water.

HFO-1234ze(Ε) HFC-245fa HFO-1234ze(Ε) HFC-245fa

HFO-1234yf HFO-1233zd(Ε) HFO-1234yf HFO-1233zd(Ε)
HFC-134a
Condenser heat exchanger surfacce

HFC-134a
70 70
60 60
UA (kW/oC)

50 50
40 40
(m2)

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
18 22 26 30 18 22 26 30

Air temperature inlet (oC) Air temperature inlet (oC)

Fig.6: Impact of the cooling air inlet temperature on the Fig 7: Impact of the cooling air inlet temperature on
condenser surface (m2). the overall heat transfer (kW/°C).

3. Heat Exchangers Detailed Design

After determining basic design parameters, a heat exchanger design procedure is proposed for both heat exchangers to
calculate the heat transfer area and determine heat exchanger geometrical characteristic that fulfils all design specifications
provided by the thermodynamic cycle at design condition. The heat exchangers geometry configuration and the design results
are taken by Aspen EDR (Exchanger Design & Rating) software that is a reliable tool for exchanger design, already used by
previous studies on thermodynamic cycles [1, 9, 10]. The design fully meets the following criteria:
• Design Code: ASME Code Sec VIII Div 1

ENFHT 177-5
 • Service class: Normal
• TEMA class: R-refinery service
• Material standard: ASME
The heater is selected as a shell and tube heat exchanger with vertical baffles, while the air-cooled condenser is selected as
a plate-fin heat exchanger, where the organic refrigerant fluids through the tubes. Following, the specifications of the design
for each heat exchanger type are presented.
3.1. Heater specifications
The heat exchanger was modeled as a shell and tube heat exchanger, where the HFO-1234ze(E) passes through the
shell, while the hot water flows through the tubes side. The type of heat exchanger was selected as shell and tube instead
of plate heat exchanger, since the heater has a two-phase fluid at the outlet and it is proposed for such applications. The
inlet and outlet conditions, as well as the refrigerant mass flow, are determined by the thermodynamic modelling of the
cycle. The horizontal shell and tube heat exchanger type was estimated as a BEM type, namely bonnet bolted or integral
with tube sheet, having one pass shell and bonnet type heads being the most common for use in applications where the
head does not have to be removed frequently. Figure 8 presents the sketch of the heater with the basic geometric
characteristics.

Table 4: Specifications of the shell & tube heater.

Fluid allocation Shell Side Tube Side
Fluid name HFO-1234ze(E) H2O
Fluid quantity (kg/s) 2.6 7.7
ΙΝ OUT ΙΝ OUT
Vapor (kg/s) 0 0
Liquid (kg/s) 2.6 7.7
Temperature (oC) 25.6 80 90 83.3
Pressure (bar) 20.07 20.05 5 4.84
Density (kg/m3) 1168.9 929.8 965.5 969.8
Viscosity (mPa s) 0.195 0.093 0.314 0.34
Special heat (kJ/kg K) 1.37 1.8 4.2 4.2
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 0.075 0.057 0.673 0.663
Latent heat (kJ/kg) 110.2 110.4
Pressure drop (bar) 0.1 0.04 0.4 0.17
Velocity mean/max (m/s) 0.23 / 0.29 1.5 / 1.29
Reynolds Number 8141 17000 31083 31015.5
Prandtl Number 3.56 2.96 1.96 2.13
Heat exchanged (kW) 215.9
Transfer rate (W/m2 K) 759.4
Clean U (W/m2 K) 1207.2

As stated in Table 4, the heat exchanged is 215.9 kW and the transfer rate 759.4 W/ m2 K. Table 5 presents the
results of the Aspen Plus simulations, covering the required conditions of the designed thermodynamic cycle. The total
number of tubes will be 276, the effective tube length is 1500 mm and the effective surface area per shell 12.4 m2.

ENFHT 177-6
 Fig. 8: Geometry of the shell and tube heat exchanger designed as heater.

Table 5: Proposed Shell & Tube detailed design data.

Shell & Tube - Basic Geometry
Tubes - Geometry Baffles -Geometry
Type Plain Type Single segmental
Total number of tubes 276 Number 14
Tube length actual (mm) 1500 Spacing (center – center) (mm) 90
Tube length effective (mm) 1435 Spacing at inlet (mm) 132.48
Tube passes 1 Spacing at outlet (mm) 132.47
Outside diameter (mm) 10 End lengthof the front head (mm) 165
Inside diameter (mm) 7 End length of the rear head (mm) 165
Wall thickness (mm) 1.5 Actual Baffle cut (%diameter) 24
Tube pitch (mm) 13 Cut orientation Horizontal
Tube pattern (mm) 30 Cut thickness (mm) 3.18
Material Carbon Steel
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 50.8
Bundle - Geometry
Shell ID to center 1st tube row:
From top (mm) 67.44
From bottom (mm) 67.44
From right (mm) 6.73
From left (mm) 6.73
Gross surface area per shell (m )
2
13
Effective surface area per shell (m2) 12.4

ENFHT 177-7
3.2. Condenser- Air cooler heat exchanger detailed design
The condenser was simulated also with the commercial Aspen Plus and EDR. It was designed for forced air
configuration, employing copper tubes. The design was based on manufacturing restrictions given by the manufacturer.
6 presents the operating conditions of the refrigerant and air for the condenser, while Table 7 presents the basic
of the air cooler. The heat exchanged was calculated 284.6 kW, while the bundle face area of 7.5 m2, which is listed in
7, seems to be relatively high due to the high value of 159 kJ/kW of latent heat, based on the thermodynamic cycle

Table 6: Performance of the Air Cooler unit.

Fluid allocation Tube Side Χ-Side
Fluid name HFO-1234ze(E) Air (50% humidity)
Total flow (kg/s) 2.6 39.6
ΙΝ OUT ΙΝ OUT
Vapor(kg/s) 1.74 0 39.6 39.6
Liquid (kg/s) 0.86 2.6 0
Condensed (kg/s) 1.74 0
Temperature (oC) 34.98 32.84 20 27.16
Pressure (bar) 6.67 6.61 0.1 0.1
Velocity (m/s) 0.9 0.04 8.08 8.28
Liquid/ Vapor
Density (kg/m3) 1129.4 / 35.25 1136.7 1.19 1.16
Viscosity (mPa s) 0.168 /0.01 0.172 0.0182 0.0186
Specific heat (kJ/kg K) 1.421 /1.023 1.413 1.003
Thermal Conductivity 0.0709 / 0.0145 0.0716 0.0256 0.0261
(W/m K)
Reynolds No 1366.9 / 36269.4 4025.8 8361.7 8207.8
Prandtl No 3.37 / 0.91 3.41 0.71
Latent heat (kJ/kg) 159
Heat exchanged (kW) 284.6
Clean U (W/m2 K) 686.6

Table 7: Proposed air cooler’s basic geometrical data.

Air Cooler Basic Geometry
Bays per unit 1
Bundles per bay 1
Bay width (m) 3.37
Bundle width (m) 3.15
Unit length (m) 2.95
Unit height (m) 2.45
Bundle - Geometry Fins - Geometry
Tubes per bundle 320 Type Tube-in-plate
Tubes rows per bundle 4 Material Aluminum 1060
Tubes per row per bundle 80 Tip diameter (mm) 140
Tube passes per bundle 1 Fin height (mm) 13.17
Total tube length (m) 2.42 Mean fin thickness (mm) 0.22
Effective tube length (m) 2.3442 Fin frequency (#m) 400

ENFHT 177-8
 Tubesheet thickness (mm) 31.75 Conductivity (W/m K) 232.61
Tube support width (mm) 25 Density kg/m 3
2768
Bundle face area (m2) 7.5 Circular tubes - Geometry
Tube row arrangement Staggered-even OD (mm) 15.875
rows to right
Tube transverse pitch (mm) 40 ID (mm) 14.875
Tube row longitudinal pitch (mm) 35 Wall thickness (mm) 0.5
Layout angle (degrees) 30

4. Conclusion
The analysis performed showed that regardless of the working fluid, increasing the heat source temperature improves
the net thermal and the overall exergy efficiency of the TFC cycle. Investigating the nature of the cooling medium nature
showed that the total exergy destruction (kW) for varying water and air inlet temperature slightly decreases as the sink carrier
temperature increases. As in the case of air, the exergy destruction value is slightly lower than in the case of a water-cooled
engine, an air cooler is considered a beneficial condenser type choice. In addition, the temperature of the air cooling medium
was also investigated and shown to significantly affects the size of the heat exchanger. The results of the working fluid
screening process indicate that HFOs could achieve competitive overall cycle performance, compared to more common
refrigerants such as HFCs that do not comply with F-Gas regulation. The heat exchanger design proposed for both heat
exchangers to calculate the heat transfer area and determine heat exchanger geometrical characteristic that fulfils all design
specifications provided by the thermodynamic cycle at design conditions will be used as a valuable basis for the TFC unit
manufacture and the respective cost analysis and techno-economic assessment.

Acknowledgements
This research has been co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union and Greek
national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call
RESEARCH – CREATE – INNOVATE (project code: Τ2ΕΔΚ-00351).

References
[1] Meng, F., E. Wang, B. Zhang, F. Zhang, and C. Zhao, Thermo-economic analysis of transcritical CO2 power cycle and
comparison with Kalina cycle and ORC for a low-temperature heat source. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019.
195: p. 1295-1308.
[2] Lai, K.-Y., Y.-T. Lee, M.-R. Chen, and Y.-H. Liu, Comparison of the Trilateral Flash Cycle and Rankine Cycle with
Organic Fluid Using the Pinch Point Temperature. Entropy, 2019. 21(12): p. 1197.
[3] McGinty, R., G. Bianchi, O. Zaher, S. Woolass, D. Oliver, C. Williams, and J. Miller, Techno-economic survey and
design of a pilot test rig for a trilateral flash cycle system in a steel production plant. Energy Procedia, 2017. 127: p.
281-288.
[4] Bianchi, G., R. McGinty, D. Oliver, D. Brightman, O. Zaher, S. A. Tassou, J. Miller, and H. Jouhara, Development and
analysis of a packaged Trilateral Flash Cycle system for low grade heat to power conversion applications. Thermal
Science and Engineering Progress, 2017. 4: p. 113-121.
[5] Antonopoulou, C., K. Atsonios, P. Grammelis, D. Manolakos, A. Skiadopoulos, and P. Bakalis, Thermodynamic of
Trilateral Flash Cycle (TFC) for low grade heat to power generation using different working fluids. 6th International
Seminar on ORC Power Systems, October 11 - 13, 2021, Munich, Germany, 2021.
[6] Lemmon, E. W., I. H. Bell, M. L. Huber, and M. O. McLinden, NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference
Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP, Version 10.0,. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg, 2018.

ENFHT 177-9
[7] Peng, D.-Y. and D.B. Robinson, A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Fundamentals, 1976. 15: p. 59-64.
[8] Wagnera, W. and A. Pruß, The IAPWS Formulation 1995 for the Thermodynamic Properties of Ordinary Water
Substance for General and Scientific Use. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 2002. 31.
[9] Shu, G., P. Liu, H. Tian, X. Wang, and D. Jing, Operational profile based thermal-economic analysis on an Organic
Rankine cycle using for harvesting marine engine’s exhaust waste heat. Energy Conversion and Management, 2017.
146: p. 107-123.
[10] Janaun, J., N. H. Kamin, K. H. Wong, H. J. Tham, V. V. Kong, and M. Farajpourlar, Design and simulation of heat
exchangers using Aspen HYSYS, and Aspen exchanger design and rating for paddy drying application. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2016. 36: p. 012056.
[11] Aspen Plus user’s guide
[12] Aspen EDR user’s guide

ENFHT 177-10