energies

Article
Thermodynamic Performance Assessment of a Novel
Micro-CCHP System Based on a Low Temperature
PEMFC Power Unit and a Half-Effect Li/Br
Absorption Chiller
Raffaello Cozzolino ID

Department of Engineering, Niccolò Cusano University, via Don Carlo Gnocchi 3, 00166 Rome, Italy;
[email protected]

Received: 31 December 2017; Accepted: 29 January 2018; Published: 1 February 2018

Abstract: The aim of this work has been to evaluate the energetic feasibility and the performances
of a novel residential micro-Combined Cooling, Heating and Power (CCHP) system, based on low
temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) power unit and half effect lithium bromide
absorption chiller. This integrated system has been designed to produce both electric, thermal and
cooling power by recovering heat from the fuel cell power unit cooling system. The analysis has
been conducted by using numerical simulations: the PEMFC power unit and the absorption chiller
have been modeled by means of one-dimensional and thermochemical models, respectively, and by
means of available experimental and literature reference data, has been performed the validation.
The performance parameters such as: the energy utilization factor (EUF), the exergy utilization
factor (ExUF) and the trigeneration primary energy saving (TPES), have been used to analyzed
the performances of the system. The numerical results showed a good performance in terms of
energy and ExUF, in the whole operating field of the trigeneration system. Furthermore, the highest
ExUF values are obtained for the minimum evaporator temperature (4 ◦ C) and minimum condenser
temperature (27 ◦ C) of the absorption chiller. The calculated values of TPES for the CCHP mode,
ranges from −0.07 to 0.19, thus, the system has good performance in a wide operating range, but the
better performance can be achieved at lower loads.

Keywords: trigeneration; proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell; half-effect absorption chiller;
numerical models; performance coefficients

1. Introduction
In recent years, Combined Cooling, Heating and Power (CCHP) systems have received more
attention, particularly in the field of small-scale power systems for residential applications [1–3].
Trigeneration technologies have significant benefits for the residential sector [4,5], which is a great
energy consumer representing about 40% of global energy consumption [6]. In fact, instead of
satisfying separately the demands on electricity, heat, and cooling, a combined production could
provide significant energy savings and a major emission reduction, as well.
Small scale CCHP systems are very attractive, due both to the energy savings obtained through
the waste heat recovery and to the ability to meet the energy demands of different types of stand-alone
utilities. It is highly active the research in the designing, development and optimization of these
technologies [7–9] and in operational planning according to energy and economic issues [10,11].
A typical trigeneration system includes a prime mover, a heat recovery system, and thermally
activated technologies. As a prime mover, fuel cells produce waste heat when work [12–14], thus are
very suitable for combined heat and power (CHP) and CCHP applications, and helpful to improve
energy utilization efficiency and living condition [15].

Energies 2018, 11, 315; doi:10.3390/en11020315 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 315 2 of 21

Proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) based micro-CHP
systems have been widely studied [16,17]. In particular, the researches are carried out by using both
experimental and numerical approaches. Radulescu et al. [18] conducted an experimental investigation
on five identical CHP units based on 4.5 kW PEMFC fed with hydrogen produced locally from natural
gas. The current influences on fuel cell, steam reformer and system electric efficiency have been
analyzed. The fuel cell performances were fully satisfying varying between 47% and 63%, the system
gross electric efficiency was low, ranging between 26% and 35%, due mostly to the reforming process
and to electric losses, while the global mean value of thermal efficiency was 29%, meaning that heat
recovery must be improved drastically.
An energetic and exergetic analysis on 1.2 kW Nexa proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel
cell unit in a solar-based hydrogen production system, have been carried out by Yilanci et al. [19].
A parametric study on the system and its operating parameters was conducted, in order to evaluate
the efficiencies variations due to temperature, pressure and anodic stoichiometry. The results showed
that the energy and exergy efficiencies increase with pressure by 23% and 15%, respectively.
Jannelli et al. [20] compared a cogeneration power systems based on the integration between
natural gas steam reforming unit and a power unit based on the PEM fuel cell technology, by using
a numerical model. The analysis has been carried out considering a low temperature PEMFC,
and two high temperature PEMFCs. The results showed that the integrated systems based on
the high temperature fuel cells are characterized by high electric efficiency (40%) and cogeneration
efficiency (79%).
Campanari et al. [21] presented an experimental analysis on a 20 kW PEM CHP system integrated
with a natural gas processor. The system, with non-optimized layout, studied and tested showed that
the electrical, thermal and total efficiency were 21%, 55%, and 76% respectively, with a primary energy
saving index of 6%.
A PEMFC-based CHP system model has been developed by Hwang et al. [22], in which the
influence of operating parameters on the system efficiency was investigated. Furthermore, Hwang [23]
studied the performance of improved CHP system with steam reformer, the simulation results showed
that the CHP system has a thermal efficiency of 35%, an electrical efficiency of 45.6%, and a combined
heat and power efficiency of 80.6%.
However, in the summer, when the demand for heating decreases and cooling increases,
unfortunately CHP systems are not able to satisfy all requests, so the CCHP system which is able to
provide electricity, heating and cooling simultaneously, is introduced.
Currently, all work aimed to the study of the CCHP systems, focus on the integration of
cogeneration systems with chillers of different nature, such as electric chiller, absorption chiller
and adsorption chiller.
Chen et al. [24] developed a residential micro-CCHP system model, based on a PEMFC
stack and a single-effect absorption chiller. The influence of operating parameters on the system
performance, and the relationship between stack and absorption chiller performance, have been
studied. The simulation results showed that the maximum efficiency of CCHP system can reaches 70%
in summer, while 82% in winter.
Chang et al. [25] proposed a CCHP system consisting of a PEMFC, an organic Rankine cycle (ORC)
and a vapor compression cycle (VCC). The integrated system based on the high temperature fuel cells
is characterized by an average coefficient of performance (COP) of 1.19, and an exergy efficiency of
46% in summer, while an average COP and exergy efficiency values of 1.42% and 47% in winter under
normal working conditions, respectively.
Chahartaghi et al. [26] performed a thermodynamic analysis for a CCHP system based on PEM
and single effect absorption chiller. This system is investigated from viewpoints of energy, exergy and
fuel energy saving ratio (FESR). The results illustrated that, the energy efficiency, exergy efficiencies
and FESR of the CCHP system are 81.55%, 54.5% and 45% respectively.
Energies 2018, 11, 315 3 of 21

Chen et al. [27] presented a hybrid residential CCHP system consisting of a PEMFC stack, a solar
collector and
Energies double-effect
2018, 11, x absorption chiller. The influence of operating parameters for fuel3 ofcell 20 and
solar collector systems, on the overall system performance are analyzed. The results showed that
the operatingChentemperature
et al. [27] presented
of PEM a hybrid residential
fuel cell CCHP system
has a significant consisting
influence onofthe
a PEMFC
parabolic stack, a solarsolar
trough
collector and double-effect absorption chiller. The influence of operating parameters for fuel cell and
collector (PTSC) performance and that the solar collector the collector is fundamental as it connects the
solar collector systems, on the overall system performance are analyzed. The results showed that the
PEM fuel cell with the chiller. The maximum efficiency of system can reach 80.5%, which is higher than
operating temperature of PEM fuel cell has a significant influence on the parabolic trough solar
conventional
collector CCHP
(PTSC) systems
performance presented
and thatinthe literature, due to
solar collector thethe high efficiency
collector of all as
is fundamental theit subsystems.
connects
Currently,
the PEM fuel most
cell of research
with studies
the chiller. are focused
The maximum on PEMFC-based
efficiency of system can CHP systems,
reach whileisless
80.5%, which analysis
higher
on residential PEMFC-based
than conventional CCHP
CCHP systems systems
presented integrated
in literature, duewith
to thean absorption
high efficiency ofchiller are conducted.
all the subsystems.
In particular, nothing
Currently, thatofstudies
most researchthe integration
studies of a low
are focused temperature CHP
on PEMFC-based PEMFCs withwhile
systems, an advanced
less
analysis on residential PEMFC-based CCHP systems integrated with
half-effect adsorption chiller has been proposed. The half-effect absorption chiller is considered an absorption chiller are for
conducted. In particular, nothing that studies the integration of a low temperature
use when the temperature of heat source is less than the minimum temperature necessary to activate PEMFCs with an
advanced half-effect adsorption chiller has been proposed. The half-effect
single-effect chiller [28], so can be coupled with PEMFCs operating at very low temperatures and absorption chiller is that
considered for use when the temperature of heat source is less than the minimum temperature
in other ways could not be integrated with a single-effect chiller.
necessary to activate single-effect chiller [28], so can be coupled with PEMFCs operating at very low
In this paper, a numerical analysis of a novel residential micro-CCHP, including low temperature
temperatures and that in other ways could not be integrated with a single-effect chiller.
PEMFC power In this unitpaper,anda half effect analysis
numerical lithium of bromide
a novelabsorption
residential chiller, has been
micro-CCHP, carriedlow
including out by
one-dimensional
temperature PEMFC power unit and half effect lithium bromide absorption chiller, has been carried the
and thermochemical models. The main purpose has been to investigate
energetic
out byfeasibility and performances
one-dimensional and thermochemical of whole system
models. Theunder steady-state
main purpose condition,
has been to investigatevarying
the the
energetic
operating feasibility
conditions ofand
the performances of whole system
half-effect absorption chiller.under steady-state
In this paper, the condition,
actual loads varying the
of cooling,
heatingoperating
and power conditions of the half-effect
of a typical residential absorption
user arechiller. In this paper,
not considered, justthe actual
focus onloads of cooling,
the system energy
heating and
utilization efficiency. power of a typical residential user are not considered, just focus on the system energy
utilization efficiency.
2. System Description
2. System Description
The CCHP system investigated in this paper is shown in Figure 1. It consists of a power unit,
The CCHP system investigated in this paper is shown in Figure 1. It consists of a power unit,
a half-effect water/LiBr absorption chiller and a heat storage tank. The power unit is equipped with
a half-effect water/LiBr absorption chiller and a heat storage tank. The power unit is equipped with
five linked Mark
five linked 10301030
Mark V3 V3PEMFC
PEMFC stack
stackseries
series(Ballard, Burnaby,BC,
(Ballard, Burnaby, BC,Canada).
Canada). TheThe electric
electric powerpower
generated is inverted to alternate current (AC) and supplied to the user. The waste
generated is inverted to alternate current (AC) and supplied to the user. The waste heat of PEMFC heat of PEMFC
unit is recovered
unit by abycooling
is recovered system
a cooling systemproducing
producing hot waterthat
hot water thatisisstored
storedin in a storage
a storage tanktank or used
or used
directly as thermal
directly input
as thermal in the
input absorption
in the absorptionchiller.
chiller. Waste heatrecovered
Waste heat recovered can
can be be
usedused entirely
entirely to cover
to cover
the heating
the heating request
request onlyonly
(CHP(CHP mode)ororthrough
mode) through the
the absorption
absorptionchiller
chiller to to
meet thethe
meet cooling request
cooling request
only (combined cooling and power (CCP) mode). Otherwise, a portion of waste heat
only (combined cooling and power (CCP) mode). Otherwise, a portion of waste heat is used to satisfy is used to satisfy
the heating
the heating demand,
demand, andand thethe rest
rest is is suppliedtotoabsorption
supplied absorption chiller
chillerfor
forcooling
cooling (CCHP
(CCHP mode).
mode).

Figure 1. Schematic
Figure of the
1. Schematic Combined
of the Cooling,
Combined Cooling,Heating andPower
Heating and Power(CCHP)
(CCHP) system.
system. PEMFC:
PEMFC: Proton
Proton
exchange membrane fuel cell.
exchange membrane fuel cell.

3. System
3. System Modeling
Modeling
The CCHP system has been studied by using numerical models developed by the author.
The CCHP system has been studied by using numerical models developed by the author.
In particular, the fuel cell stack and the absorption chiller have been modeled by means of one-
In particular, the fuel cell stack and the absorption chiller have been modeled by means of one-dimensional
Energies 2018, 11, 315 4 of 21

and thermochemical models, respectively, and by means of available experimental and literature
reference data, the validation procedure has been performed.

3.1. PEM Fuel Cell

The PEM fuel cell model provide the electric and thermal power of the PEMFC stack fed by
synthetic gas. In particular, it consists of an electrochemical model based on a mechanistic and
semi-empirical approach proposed by Minutillo et al. [29] and a thermal model based on a first law
approach proposed by Cozzolino et al. [30].
The numerical model is developed on the following assumptions:

• steady-state conditions;
• pressure and temperature constant into the fuel cell;
• reactants and products treated as perfect gases;
• product water at the cathode side is assumed to be liquid;
• fully hydration is assumed at the cathode/membrane interface;
• equilibrium between the water vapor and liquid is always assumed;
• humidifying water temperature is the same of the cooling water temperature;
• convective effects are negligible because of small Reynolds numbers.

The chemical reactions can be given as follows:

Anode reaction: H2 → 2H+ + 2e−

Cathode reaction: 2H+ + 2e− + 0.5 O2 → H2 O + heat
Overall reaction: H2 + 0.5 O2 → H2 O + heat + work

The hydrogen and oxygen consumption of the fuel cell can be determined by:

iA
ncons
H2 = Ncell (1)
2FUF

cons iA
nO = Ncell (2)
2 4FU Air
where i is current density (A/cm2 ), A the cell active area (cm2 ), F is the Faraday constant (C mol−1 ),
UF and UAir are the utilization factors of fuel and air respectively and Ncell the number of cells.
The effective cell voltage, Vcell (V), is basically defined as follows:

Vcell = ENernst − Vohmic − Vact,a − Vact,c (3)

ENernst is the Nernst potential, calculated as proposed by Amphlett et al. [31]:

ENernst = 1.229 − 8.15·10−4 ·( T − 298.15) + 4.308·10−5 · T ·ln( PH2 · PO0.52 ) (4)

where PH2 and PO2 are the partial pressures of hydrogen and oxygen at the anode and cathode
catalyst-gas interface (atm), respectively, while T is the cell temperature (K).
Vohmic is the ohmic overpotential loss, related to the electrical resistance losses. Because the
resistance to the flow of electrons can be neglected compared to the resistance to the flow of protons,
the ohmic overpotential loss, can be calculated as Ohm’s law:

Rm ·l
 
Vohmic = I · R = I · (5)
A
Energies 2018, 11, 315 5 of 21

where Rm is the membrane specific resistivity (Ωcm, I the current (A), A the cell active area (cm2 ) and
l the membrane thickness (cm). The membrane specific resistivity has been calculated as proposed
in [32,33]:  
 2
T
181.6· 1 + 0.03(i ) + 0.062 303 ·(i )2.5
Rm = h h  ii (6)
λ − 0.634 − 3(i )exp 4.18 T −T303

The parameter λ, is an empirical parameter that describes the membrane conditions [34], and it
has been assumed equal to 23 as proposed by Jannelli et al. [34].
Vact is the activation overpotential loss. The activation loss can be divided into two different
contributions, the first taking place at the anode side Vact,a , while the second one at the cathode side
Vact,c . In particular, for anode overpotential losses, a chemical model based on Arrhenius equation is
used, while for the cathode activation overpotential a semi-empiric relationship is implemented.
As proposed in ref. [29], the reactions which occur at anode side are considered, Table 1, where M
is the platinum catalyst site where the reaction occur and the factors Kr represent the reaction rate of
the generic reaction r, with r ∈ (1,7).

Table 1. Forward and backward reaction rates.

Reaction Forward Backward

H2 + 2M ↔ 2(M − H) K1 K2
2(M − H) → 2H+ + 2e− + 2M K3 -
CO + M ↔ (M − CO) K4 K5
(M − CO) + H2 O → CO2 + 2H+ + 2e− + M K6 -
CO2 + 2M − H → M − CO + H2 O + M K7 -

The fraction of the catalytic surface area covered by hydrogen (H2 ) or carbon monoxide (CO) may
be thus written as:
Vact,a
K1 · p H2 ·(1 − θ H − θCO )2 − K2 ·θ 2H − K7 · pCO2 ·θ 2H − 2·K3 ·θ H ·sinh =0 (7)
bh

Vact,a
K4 · pCO ·(1 − θ H − θCO ) − K5 ·θCO + K7 · pCO2 ·θ 2H − 2·K6 ·θCO · exp =0 (8)
bc
where θ H and θCO are the fractions of hydrogen and carbon monoxide coverage on the catalyst surface,
while bh and bc represent the backward-to-forward absorption ratios for H and CO, respectively.
For sake of simplicity they may be considered equal one to the other, so that:

2RT
b h = bc = (9)
F

where R is the universal gas constant (J·mol−1 ·K−1 ) and F is the Faraday constant (C·mol−1 ). The total
circulating current density is obtained by summing the current densities for hydrogen—iH —and
carbon monoxide—iCO —electro-oxidations, given by means of Tafel and Bulter-Volmer equations:

Vact,a Vact,a
i = i H + iCO = 2K3 θ H sinh + 2K6 θCO exp (10)
bh bc

All the reaction rates may be evaluated by means of the Arrhenius equation, where the
pre-exponential factor and the activation energy have been retrieved in literature [35]. As one can
observe, the problem results in a non-linear system of equations which may be solved through an
iterative procedure.
For the cathode activation loss, a semi-empirical relationship has been used:


Vact,c = β 1 + β 2 · T + β 3 · T ln cO2 + β 4 · T ln(i ) (11)
Energies 2018, 11, 315 6 of 21

where βi are empirical coefficients calculated as proposed in Reference [36], cO2 is the oxygen
concentration at the cathode membrane/gas interface (mol/cm3 ), and i is the current density (A/cm2 ).
The output voltage of stack can be given as:

Vstack = Vcell · Ncell (12)

After calculating the output voltage, the stack output power is expressed as:

Pel = Vstack · I (13)

During operation, the stack generates power and heat, in order to ensure a stable average cell
temperature, it is necessary to cool the stack by removing the heat that is generated.
In order to evaluate the large amount of energy waste as heat recovery through the stack cooling,
an energy balance has been done as proposed in Reference [30]:
! !
. .
Qth = Pch,cons − ∑ φs,a,out − ∑ φs,a,in − ∑ φs,c,out − ∑ φs,c,in − Pel − Qloss (14)
s s s s

.
Qth is the thermal power recovered by the water coolant in the stack cooling circuit, φs,a,in
φs,a,out φs,c,in φs,c,out are the sensible heat of the single species s at the inlet and outlet of the anode
.
and cathode side respectively, Pel is the electrical power generated, Pch,cons and Qloss are the chemical
power consumed by stack and the heat loss from the stack surface, calculated respectively as:
 
Pch,cons = n H2,in − n H2,out · HHVH2 (15)

where n H2,in and n H2,out are the mole flow rate of hydrogen at the inlet and outlet of the stack:
.
Qloss = h· Astack ·( Text − Troom ) + σ· Astack ·ε·( Text + 273)4 (16)

where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient evaluated according to ref. [37], Astack is the external
surface of the stack (cm2 ), Text is the external stack temperature (◦ C), Troom (◦ C) is the ambient
temperature, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and ε is the emissivity of material (W/m2 ·K4 ) [37].
The cooling water mass flow rate needed to assure the operating temperature in the stack, can be
given as:
.
. Qth
mw = (17)
c p,w ( Tw,out − Tw,in )
where c p,w is the specific heat of water (kJ/kg ◦ C), Tw,out and Tw,in (◦ C) are the water temperatures at
the inlet and outlet of the cooling circuit.
In this study, simulations are carried out using a user-defined model implemented using the
Matlab® software package r2014a (The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).

3.2. Half-Effect Absorption Chiller

The scheme of the half effect absorption cycle is shown in Figure 2. It consists of three pressure
levels, the high and low pressure levels work in a similar way of single effect cycle, while the medium
pressure level is the advanced feature. The cycle works with two solution circuits, one operates between
medium and high pressure level and the other one operates from low to medium pressure level.
The main components are two generators, high generator (HG) and low generator (LG),
two absorbers, high absorber (HA) and low absorber (LA), two heat exchangers (HX1, HX2),
one condenser (CD) and one evaporator (EV). In this cycle, low absorber and evaporator work
 In this study, simulations are carried out using a user-defined model implemented using the
Matlab® software package r2014a (The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).

3.2. Half-Effect Absorption Chiller

Energies 2018, 11, 315 7 of 21
The scheme of the half effect absorption cycle is shown in Figure 2. It consists of three pressure
levels, the high and low pressure levels work in a similar way of single effect cycle, while the medium
pressure level islevel,
at low pressure the advanced feature.
high absorber and The
low cycle works
generator with
work two solution
at medium circuits,
pressure level,one
on operates
the other
between medium and high pressure level and the other one operates
hand high generator and condenser operate at high pressure level. from low to medium pressure level.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Scheme
Schemeof
ofthe
the half
half absorption
absorption chiller.
chiller. HG:
HG:high
highgenerator;
generator;LG:
LG:low
low generator;
generator; HA:
HA: high
high
absorber;LA:
absorber; LA:low
lowabsorber;
absorber;HX:
HX:heat
heatexchanger;
exchanger; CD:
CD: condenser;
condenser; EV:
EV: evaporator.
evaporator.

The refrigerant-rich water/LiBr solution (1) is pumped up to the medium pressure of cycle (2),
then is pre-heated in HX1 by recovering heat from the LiBr rich solution (4) that is throttled back to the
LA. The LG has been simulated by using two components: a heat exchange which through an amount
of heat supplied allows the heating of the solution, and a flash separator in which the refrigerant
vapor (7) is separated from the solution and sent to the HA, where it is absorbed by the solution (13)
coming from HG. The LiBr/water solution formed (8) is pumped up to the high pressure of cycle (9),
then is pre-heated in HX2 by subtracting heat to stream (11) that is the LiBr rich solution throttled
back to the HA. The HG, similarly to LG, has been simulated by using a heat exchanger and a further
flash separator. The refrigerant vapor produced (14) is sent to the CD where it is condensed (15), after
is throttled in the expansion valve (16) and sent to EV where the cooling effect is obtained. Finally,
the refrigerant liquid (17), that is in the vapor phase, in the LA is absorbed by the LiBr rich solution (6)
coming from LG.
The numerical model is developed on the following assumptions:

• steady-state conditions
• the refrigerant at outlet state of the condenser is saturated liquid
• the refrigerant at outlet state of the evaporator is saturated vapor
• the temperature of high and low absorber is equal
• the temperature of high and low generator is equal
• the pressure losses in pipelines and all heat exchanger are negligible
• the expanding process in the throttling valves is isenthalpic
• the reference environmental state is water at T0 of 25 ◦ C and P0 of 1 atm

In order to the thermodynamic analysis of half effect absorption cycle, the principles of mass
conservation and first law of the thermodynamic are applied to each component.
The mass balance in each elemental component can be expressed:
. .
∑ min − ∑ mout = 0 (18)
Energies 2018, 11, 315 8 of 21

. .
∑ −∑ m x



mx in out
=0 (19)
.
where m is the mass flow rate of refrigerant or solution respectively (kg/s), x is concentration of LiBr
and the subscripts in and out denote the inlet and outlet for each component. The energy balance can
be given as:
.
.

 . .  .
∑ m h in − ∑ m h out + ∑ Qin − ∑ Qout + W = 0 (20)
.
where h is the mass specific enthalpy (kJ/kg), Q is the heat entering or leaving the component (kW),
.
W is the work (kW).
The COP of the absorption chiller defined as the evaporator cooling rate to heat input rate (heat
which is transferred from hot working fluid to generator) can be calculated as in [28]:
.
Q EV
COP = . . (21)
Q LG + Q HG

The relevant mass and energy balance and governing equations for the components of the system
are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Mass and energy balance and governing equations for each component.

Component Mass and Energy Balance and Governing Equations.

. . .
m3 = m4 + m7
. .
Low Generator m3 x3 = m4 x4
. . . .
(LG) m3 h3 − m4 h4 − m7 h7 + Q LG = 0
η HXLG = (h18 − h19 )/(h18 − h3 )
. . .
m10 = m11 + m14
. .
High Generator m10 x10 = m11 x11
. . . .
(HG) m10 h10 − m11 h11 − m14 h14 + Q HG = 0
η HXHG = (h20 − h21 )/(h20 − h10 )
. . .
Low Absorber m1 = m6 + m17
. . . .
(LA) m17 h17 + m6 h6 − m1 h1 − Q LA = 0
. . .
High absorber m8 = m7 + m13
. . . .
(HA) m7 h7 + m13 h13 − m8 h8 − Q H A = 0
. .
Condenser m14 = m15
. . .
(CD) m14 h14 − m15 h15 − QCD = 0
. .
Evaporator m16 = m17
. . .
(EV) m16 h16 − m17 h17 + Q EV = 0
. . . .
m2 = m3 ; m4 = m5
Heat exchanger . . . .
m4 h4 − m5 h5 = m2 h2 − m3 h3
(HX1)
η HX1 = ( h4 − h5 )/( h4 − h2 )
. . . .
m9 = m10 ; m11 = m12
Heat exchanger . . . .
m11 h11 − m12 h12 = m9 h9 − m10 h10
(HX2)
η HX2 = ( h11 − h12 )/( h11 − h9 )
.
Coefficient of performance m24 (h24 −h25 )
COP = . .
m18 (h18 −h19 )+m20 (h20 −h21 )
(COP)

In this study, simulations are carried out using a thermochemical model developed by the author
using the Aspen Plus™ software (v11.1, Aspen Technology Inc., Bedford, MA, USA). The model is
based on the numerical approach proposed by Somers et al. [38], based on the electrolyte-non-random
two-liquid model (ELECNRTL) property method in which the electrolyte wizard option has been
used to generate a series of reactions (the relevant reaction is the association/dissociation of lithium
bromide).
The thermochemical model implements a control function in which the generators operate at a
constant temperature (56 ◦ C), in order to guarantee a ∆T between the solution to be heated and the hot
Energies 2018, 11, 315 9 of 21

water coming from the storage (67 ◦ C), and it adapts the mass flow rate of circulating solution according
to the heat exchanged in the heat exchangers of the generators that work with a varying effectiveness
(η HXLG ; η HXHG ) calculated as reported in Table 2. By means of this control, it is ensured to operate at
a defined design temperature, and when the thermal power supplied to the generator varies, the flow
rate of circulating solution varies, and consequently the chiller load varies. Furthermore, the model
also takes into account the influence of temperature variation on the evaporator and condenser
side, respectively.

3.3. Models Validation

Simulations have been performed with the aim of reproducing the voltage, electrical and thermal
power curves derived from the experimental activity carried out in a test station [30]. The PEMFC
investigated is a pre-commercial stack, Ballard Mark 1030 V3, fed by reformate gas (75 vol % H2 ,
20 vol % CO2 , 3 vol % N2 and 2 vol % CH4 ) that provides up to 1.24 kW at a nominal output voltage of
31 V. Inputs and outputs (at nominal conditions of 40 A) to/from the model are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Input and output to/from the model [30].

Characteristic and Operating Parameter Unit Value

A cm2 200
λ - 23
l cm 0.178
T ◦C 67
Pa atm 1
Pc atm 1
RHa % 100
RHc % 100
UF - 0.8
Model UAir - 0.5
input [30] 75% H2
20% CO2
Fuel mol %
3% N2
2% CH4
h kW/m2 K 6 × 10−3
σ kW/m2 5.67 × 10−11
ε - 0.97
AStack m2 0.15
Troom ◦C 25
Tw,in ◦C 57
Tw,out ◦C 67
Output Unit Value
Vcell V 0.655
Vohmic V 0.0189
Electrochemical Vact,a V 0.0181
model output Vact,c V 0.468
(40 A) VStack V 30.13
Pel kW 1.206
Pch,in kW 3.412
Pch,out kW 0.672
.
Qth kW 1.31
∆φa kW −0.085
Thermal model ∆φc kW 0.216
output (40 A) .
Qloss kW 0.091
.
mw kg/s 0.031

Figure 3 shows the comparison between the calculated and measured curves. It can be noted that
the results of the model match the experimental data with a good agreement. The calculated stack
power and the heat recovered by the water cooling circuit are very close to the measured one, even if a
slight overestimating of heat at high current density values can be observed.
 kg/s 0.031

Figures 3 shows the comparison between the calculated and measured curves. It can be noted
that the results of the model match the experimental data with a good agreement. The calculated
stack power
Energies and
2018, 11, 315 the heat recovered by the water cooling circuit are very close to the measured
10 one,
of 21
even if a slight overestimating of heat at high current density values can be observed.

(a) (b)

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Comparison
Comparison between
between numerical
numerical results
results and
and reference
reference data
data in
in [30]:
[30]: (a)
(a) Voltage and power
Voltage and power
density curves; (b) Electric and thermal power curves.
density curves; (b) Electric and thermal power curves.

The power unit of the CCHP system proposed is equipped with five series stack, which works each
in the same operating range (10–40 A). At nominal operating condition (I 40 A) of each stack, the total
electric and thermal power achieved are equal to 6.03 kW and 6.55 kW, respectively. The developed
model for analyzing the behavior of half effect absorption chiller system has been validated by
comparing the results with the literature available data obtained by Maryami et al. [39], in which a
half effect water/LiBr absorption chiller was modeled by using EES software. Inputs and outputs
to/from the model are summarized in Table 4. The primary inputs include low, medium and high
level pressure, operating temperatures of each component, LiBr concentration for two solution circuits,
heat exchange effectiveness and refrigeration capacity, while the main model outputs, are the heat
entering the generators, heat from the condenser, heat from the absorbers and COP.

Table 4. Input and output to/from the model. COP: coefficient of performance.

Operating Parameter Unit Value

Low pressure kPa 1.228
Medium pressure kPa 2.255
High pressure kPa 5.033
THG = TLG ◦C 58.2
THA = TLA ◦C 33
TCD ◦C 33
Model input TEV ◦C 10
LiBr conc.
% 51.4
(state 1)
LiBr conc.
% 43.1
(state 8)
η HX % 70
.
Q EV kW 300
Reference
Output Unit Model Value Discrepancy %
Value [39]
.
Q EV kW 300 300 -
. .
Model output Q LG + Q HG kW 705.04 685.1 2.82
.
QCD kW 311.42 308.8 0.84
. .
Q LA + Q H A kW 693.55 676.3 2.48
COP - 0.425 0.437 2.74
 kW 311.42 308.8 0.84
+ kW 693.55 676.3 2.48
COP - 0.425 0.437 2.74

As Energies
reported2018, by Somers [38], the predictions by Aspen model respect to EES model,
11, 315 11 ofare
21 within
3% discrepancy for a single effect cycle. For this study, the verification with reference data reveals a
range 0.84–2.82% of discrepancy, Table 4, this indicates that the model provides sufficiently accurate
As reported by Somers [38], the predictions by Aspen model respect to EES model, are within 3%
results. discrepancy for a single effect cycle. For this study, the verification with reference data reveals a range
Figure 4 depicts
0.84–2.82% the comparison
of discrepancy, ofindicates
Table 4, this numerical COP
that the respect
model thesufficiently
provides referenceaccurate
case by varying the
results.
generator temperature. It can be noted that the trend and the values are very close, thusthe
Figure 4 depicts the comparison of numerical COP respect the reference case by varying the model
generator temperature. It can be noted that the trend and the values are very close, thus the model can
can be considered reliable for analyzing the behavior of half-effect absorption chiller.
be considered reliable for analyzing the behavior of half-effect absorption chiller.

Figure 4.Figure 4. Chiller

Chiller performance
performance (COP)
(COP) undervarious
under various generator
generatortemperature: the comparison
temperature: between between
the comparison
the numerical results and the reference data in [39].
the numerical results and the reference data in [39].
4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Trigeneration System Operating Field

The developed models have been used both to define the operating range of the CCHP system in
terms of electric, thermal and cooling power and to forecast its performance varying the operating
parameters of the absorption chiller. Some output data of the fuel cell model are used as input data
for the chiller model. In particular, the cooling water mass flow rate needed to assure the operating
temperature in the stack and its temperature are used as input for the chiller model.
In order to define the ratio of heat rate which enters the half absorption chiller to rate of waste
heat recovered by fuel cell, the trigeneration ratio r has been defined as:
. .
Q LG + Q HG
r= . (22)
Qth
. . .
where Q LG + Q HG is the amount of heat which enters the half absorption chiller, Qth is the waste heat
recovered by PEMFC power unit. When r = 1, all of the waste heat of fuel cells is used for cooling
(CCP mode), when r = 0 all of the waste heat of fuel cells is used for heating (CHP mode), otherwise
if 0 < r < 1 a portion of waste heat is used to satisfy the heating demand, and the rest is supplied to
the absorption chiller for cooling (CCHP mode). In this study, in order to obtain the same quantity of
thermal and cooling power, the trigeneration ratio r for the CCHP mode has been fixed equal to 0.7.
In Tables 5 and 6, the state point results at nominal operating conditions of two half-effect
absorption systems of different size, that operate in CCP mode (r = 1) and in CCHP mode (r = 0.7),
are summarized.
Energies 2018, 11, 315 12 of 21

Table 5. The state point results calculated for the half-effect absorption chiller system that operates at
nominal conditions in combined cooling and power (CCP) mode (THG = 56 ◦ C, TCD = 33 ◦ C, TEV = 10 ◦ C).

State Point Mass Flow (kg/s) T (◦ C) P (kPa) LiBr (%) H2 O (%) Vapor Frac. (–)
1 0.009813 33.48 1.228 51.39 - 0
2 0.009813 33.48 2.255 51.39 - 0
3 0.009813 42.02 2.255 51.39 - 0
4 0.008626 56.0 2.255 58.47 - 0
5 0.008626 45.55 2.255 58.47 - 0
6 0.008626 44.89 1.228 58.47 - 0.00066
7 0.001878 56 2.255 - 100 1
8 0.009668 33.72 2.255 42.9 - 0
9 0.009668 33.72 5.083 42.9 - 0
10 0.009668 42.05 5.083 42.9 - 0
11 0.008480 56 5.083 49.02 - 0
12 0.008480 45.76 5.083 49.02 - 0
13 0.008480 41.01 2.255 49.02 - 0
14 0.001187 56 5.083 - 100 1
15 0.001187 33.09 5.083 - 100 0
16 0.001187 9.91 1.228 - 100 0.039
17 0.001187 9.91 1.228 - 100 1
18 0.080260 67 101.325 - 100 0
19 0.080260 57 101.325 - 100 0
20 0.078602 67 101.325 - 100 0
21 0.078602 57 101.325 - 100 0
22 0.139957 25 101.325 - 100 0
23 0.139957 30 101.325 - 100 0
24 0.135069 18 101.325 - 100 0
25 0.135069 13 101.325 - 100 0
26 0.155518 25 101.325 - 100 0
27 0.155518 30 101.325 - 100 0
28 0.157056 25 101.325 - 100 0
29 0.157056 30 101.325 - 100 0

Table 6. The state point results calculated for the half-effect absorption chiller system that operates at
nominal conditions in CCHP mode (THG = 56 ◦ C, TCD = 33 ◦ C, TEV = 10 ◦ C).

State Point Mass Flow (kg/s) T (◦ C) P (kPa) LiBr (%) H2 O (%) Vapor Frac. (–)
1 0.006853 33.48 1.228 51.39 - 0
2 0.006853 33.48 2.255 51.39 - 0
3 0.006853 42.02 2.255 51.39 - 0
4 0.006024 56.0 2.255 58.47 - 0
5 0.006024 45.55 2.255 58.47 - 0
6 0.006024 44.89 1.228 58.47 - 0.00066
7 0.000829 56 2.255 - 100 1
8 0.006758 33.72 2.255 42.9 - 0
9 0.006758 33.72 5.083 42.9 - 0
10 0.006758 42.05 5.083 42.9 - 0
11 0.005928 56 5.083 49.02 - 0
12 0.005928 45.76 5.083 49.02 - 0
13 0.005928 41.01 2.255 49.02 - 0
14 0.000830 56 5.083 - 100 1
15 0.000830 33.09 5.083 - 100 0
16 0.000830 9.91 1.228 - 100 0.039
17 0.000830 9.91 1.228 - 100 1
18 0.056053 67 101.325 - 100 0
19 0.056053 57 101.325 - 100 0
20 0.054907 67 101.325 - 100 0
21 0.054907 57 101.325 - 100 0
22 0.097834 25 101.325 - 100 0
23 0.097834 30 101.325 - 100 0
24 0.094420 18 101.325 - 100 0
25 0.094420 13 101.325 - 100 0
26 0.108710 25 101.325 - 100 0
27 0.108710 30 101.325 - 100 0
28 0.109749 25 101.325 - 100 0
29 0.109749 30 101.325 - 100 0
Energies 2018, 11, 315 13 of 21

Figure 5, depicts the trigeneration system operating field in terms of electrical, thermal and
cooling power, when the chiller works under the above mentioned operating conditions (THG = 56 ◦ C,
TCD = 33 ◦ C, TEV = 10 ◦ C). In Figure 5, it is possible to identify 3 operating areas:

− “area ABC” (CCHP mode) in which a portion of waste heat recovered is used to satisfy the
heating demand and the rest is supplied to absorption chiller for cooling. The electric, thermal
and cooling power range are 1.92–6.03 kWe, 0.33–1.97 kWt and 0.33–1.97 kWc, respectively.
− “area DEF” (CCP mode) in which all the waste heat recovered is used entirely as thermal input in
the absorption chiller to meet the cooling request only. The electric and cooling power range are
1.92–6.03 kWe and 0.48–2.82 kWc, respectively.
− “area GHI” (CHP mode) in which all the waste heat recovered is used entirely to cover
the heating request only. The electric and thermal power range are 1.92–6.03 kWe and
1.13–6.55 kWt, respectively.

Obviously varying the operating conditions of the absorption chiller (in particular the evaporator
and condenser temperature), consequently changes the trigeneration system operating field.
In Figure 5, it can be noted that the system operating in CHP mode has a maximum electric and
thermal power with very close values, which give hope for a good operation in residential applications
in hot climate zones, when electrical and thermal load peaks are comparable due to the low winter
temperatures. Differently, in CCP and CCHP operating mode, a significant imbalance between the
electric, thermal
Energies 2018, 11, x and cooling power, is highlighted. On these operating modes, the system does not
13 of 20
reflect a typical residential loads, but considering the possibility to couple the CCHP system with
system
an with system
auxiliary an auxiliary system (e.g., thermodynamic
(e.g., thermodynamic solarthe
solar panel) surely panel) surely the
gap between thegap between the
cooling/heating
cooling/heating
production production
and user’s demand andwill
user’s demand will be filled.
be filled.

Trigeneration system operating field in terms of electric, thermal and cooling power, at fixed
Figure 5. Trigeneration
operating conditions ◦ C, T = 33 ◦°C, TEV ◦ C). CHP: combined
conditions for
forthe
thechiller
chiller(T(THG
HG =
= 56
56 °C, TCD
CD = C, T EV ==10
10°C). CHP: combined heat and
power;
power; CCP:
CCP: combined
combined cooling
cooling and
and power;
power; CCHP:
CCHP: combined
combined Cooling,
Cooling, Heating
Heating and
and Power.
Power.

In this
In this study,
study, the
theactual
actualloads
loadsofofcooling,
cooling,heating
heating and
andpower
power of aoftypical residential
a typical useruser
residential are not
are
considered, just focus on the system energy utilization efficiency. Obviously,
not considered, just focus on the system energy utilization efficiency. Obviously, an analysis that an analysis that
investigate the
investigate thefeasibility
feasibilityofofthe system
the systemforfor
a real casecase
a real study, going
study, to consider
going two predominant
to consider usage
two predominant
scenarios,
usage summer
scenarios, and winter,
summer withwith
and winter, or without thethe
or without integration
integrationofofauxiliary
auxiliarysystems,
systems,provides
provides an
an
outlined and complete behavior of the
outlined and complete behavior of the system. system.

4.2. Trigeneration System Performance

The analysis of the trigeneration system behavior has been carried out by using some operating
and performance parameters.
The electric and thermal efficiency of PEMFC power unit and absorption chiller efficiency,
referred to the HHV of hydrogen, have been calculated according to the following equations:

= (23)
Energies 2018, 11, 315 14 of 21

4.2. Trigeneration System Performance

The analysis of the trigeneration system behavior has been carried out by using some operating
and performance parameters.
The electric and thermal efficiency of PEMFC power unit and absorption chiller efficiency, referred
to the HHV of hydrogen, have been calculated according to the following equations:

Pel
η FC el = (23)
n H2,in · HHVH2
.
Energies 2018, 11, x
Qth 14 of 20
η FC th = (24)
n H2,in · HHVH2
Furthermore, as expected if the evaporator temperature . increases (chilled water temperature
Q EV
increases) or the condenser temperatureηdecreases Ch = (ambient temperature decreases), then the chiller (25)
n H2,in · HHVH2
efficiency shows an improvement. In fact, at nominal operating condition (40 A), the chiller efficiency
reachesFigure 6a shows value
its minimum the dependence
(15.2%), and of thermal,
its maximum electrical, and for
(17.1%), cooling (or chiller)and
an evaporator efficiencies
condenseron
current intensity, for the CHP and CCP mode. As expected
temperature pair of values equal to 4°C/39 °C and 16°C/27°C, respectively. when the current rises, the FC electrical
efficiency
Figure(η6b el ) decreases,
FCshows due to theofhigher
the dependence thermal,ohmic losses,and
electrical, whereas theefficiency
cooling FC thermal on efficiency (ηFC th )
current intensity,
is always
for the CCHPincreasing
mode. The fromelectrical,
partial tothermal
full loads.
andAt nominal
cooling operating
efficiency show condition
the same(40 A), the
trend fromelectrical
partial
efficiency
to achieves
full loads, as inits theminimum
CHP and value
CCP35.8%,
mode. and the thermal efficiency
Nevertheless, its maximum
both thermal efficiencyvalue,
that equal
coolingto
39.4%. In order
efficiency suffers toaevaluate
reduction thedue
influence of the
to the fact ambient
that and chilled
the thermal power water temperatures
is used on the efficiency
partly for heating and the
remainder forthe
of the chiller, theevaporator
cooling. At nominal
and condenser operating condition
temperatures therange
in the thermal
4–16 ◦ C and 27–39
efficiency ◦ C have
is equal to 11.8%,
been
while
varied.the
In cooling
Figure 6a, efficiency
it can bereaches
noted thatits minimum
for all the value (10.6%),
operating and itsofmaximum
conditions the chiller,(11.9%), for an
the calculated
evaporator and condenser
efficiency increase temperature
as the current pairrises.
intensity of values equal to 4 °C/39 °C and 16 °C/27 °C, respectively.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 6.6.The dependence
The dependenceof thermal, electrical,
of thermal, and cooling
electrical, efficiencies
and cooling on current
efficiencies on intensity. (a) The
current intensity.
CHP and CCP mode; (b) The CCHP mode.
(a) The CHP and CCP mode; (b) The CCHP mode.

The parameters introduced for evaluating the performance of trigeneration system are the
The reason is due to the fact that the thermal power increases with the raising of the current,
Energy Utilization Factor (EUF) and the Exergy Utilization Factor (ExUF) [8]. The first one takes into
consequently the greater recovered waste heat, involves a greater cooling capacity of chiller.
account the efficiency in the conversion of the primary energy into work, heat and cool. However,
Furthermore, as expected if the evaporator temperature increases (chilled water temperature
this performance coefficient does not discriminate between the electric power and the thermal and/or
increases) or the condenser temperature decreases (ambient temperature decreases), then the chiller
cooling power, while ExUF considers the quality difference between work and heat and/or cool at
efficiency shows an improvement. In fact, at nominal operating condition (40 A), the chiller efficiency
different temperatures (heat at low temperature from water tank storage and cool at different water
reaches its minimum value (15.2%), and its maximum (17.1%), for an evaporator and condenser
chilled temperatures). These parameters are defined as follows:
temperature pair of values equal to 4◦ C/39 ◦ C and 16◦ C/27◦ C, respectively.
+
Figure 6b shows the dependence of thermal, + ∙ efficiency on current intensity,
electrical, and cooling
= ; = (26)
for the CCHP mode. The electrical, thermal
,
∙ and cooling efficiency show
,
∙ the same trend from partial to

+ + ∙
= ; = (27)
,
∙ ,
∙

+ 1− ∙ + + 1− ∙ ∙ + ∙
= ; = (28)
,
∙ ,
∙
Energies 2018, 11, 315 15 of 21

full loads, as in the CHP and CCP mode. Nevertheless, both thermal efficiency that cooling efficiency
suffers a reduction due to the fact that the thermal power is used partly for heating and the remainder
for the cooling. At nominal operating condition the thermal efficiency is equal to 11.8%, while the
cooling efficiency reaches its minimum value (10.6%), and its maximum (11.9%), for an evaporator and
condenser temperature pair of values equal to 4 ◦ C/39 ◦ C and 16 ◦ C/27 ◦ C, respectively.
The parameters introduced for evaluating the performance of trigeneration system are the
Energy Utilization Factor (EUF) and the Exergy Utilization Factor (ExUF) [8]. The first one takes
into account the efficiency in the conversion of the primary energy into work, heat and cool. However,
this performance coefficient does not discriminate between the electric power and the thermal and/or
cooling power, while ExUF considers the quality difference between work and heat and/or cool at
different temperatures (heat at low temperature from water tank storage and cool at different water
chilled temperatures). These parameters are defined as follows:
. .
Pel + Qth Pel + ϑ · Qth
EUFCHP = ; ExUFCHP = (26)
n H2,in · HHVH2 n H2,in · HHVH2
. .
Pel + Q EV P + ψ· Q EV
EUFCCP = ; ExUFCCP = el (27)
n H2,in · HHVH2 n H2,in · HHVH2
. . . .
P + (1 − r )· Qth + Q EV P + (1 − r )·ϑ · Qth + ψ· Q EV
EUFCCHP = el ; ExUFCCHP = el (28)
n H2,in · HHVH2 n H2,in · HHVH2
.
where Pel is the electric power (the auxiliaries power consumption has not been considered), Qth is the
.
thermal power recovered by the fuel cell (FC) power unit, Q EV is the evaporator cooling rate, r is the
trigeneration ratio, ϑ. and ψ are parameters whose value changes between 0 and 1. These parameters
are calculated by applying the following equations:

Ta Ta
ϑ = 1− ; ψ= −1 (29)
Tx(heating) Tx(chilled)

where Ta is the ambient temperature (reference temperature), Tx(heating) and Tx(chilled) are the
temperatures at which the heat and cooling are available, respectively. These temperatures are
calculated as the logarithmic mean temperature difference between the inlet and outlet temperatures
of the heating source and water chilled. The calculated values of ϑ and ψ are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. ϑ and ψ parameter related to heating and cooling production temperatures.

61.97 - -
Tx(heating) (◦ C)
ϑ
CHP 0.11 - -
CCP - - -
CCHP 0.11 - -
9.49 15.49 21.49
Tx(chilled) (◦ C)
ψ
CHP - - -
CCP 0.064 0.042 0.020
CCHP 0.064 0.042 0.020

In Figure 7 the EUF and ExUF are shown as function of electric power for the CHP mode.
As expected, when the electric power increases, EUF increases and ExUF decreases; at nominal
operating conditions, the highest EUF value (75.0%) is obtained, while the lowest ExUF (40.0%) is
achieved. Furthermore, it can be noted that the trend of EUF is in accordance with the trend of
thermal efficiency. Differently the trend of ExUF is similar to the trend of electric efficiency, because
 CCHP 0.064 0.042 0.020

In Figure 7 the EUF and ExUF are shown as function of electric power for the CHP mode. As
expected, when the electric power increases, EUF increases and ExUF decreases; at nominal operating
conditions, the highest EUF value (75.0%) is obtained, while the lowest ExUF (40.0%) is achieved.
Energies 2018, 11, 315 16 of 21
Furthermore, it can be noted that the trend of EUF is in accordance with the trend of thermal
efficiency. Differently the trend of ExUF is similar to the trend of electric efficiency, because the
exergy
the exergydestruction increases
destruction duedue
increases to to
thethe
ohmic irreversibilities
ohmic irreversibilitiesrise
risethat
thatoccurs
occurswhen
when the current
the current
density
density increases.
increases.

Figure 7.
Figure Energy Utilization
7. Energy Utilization Factor
Factor (EUF)
(EUF) and
and Exergy
Exergy Utilization
Utilization Factor
Factor (ExUF)
(ExUF) vs.
vs. electric
electric power
power for
for
CHP mode.
CHP mode.

EUF andand ExUF

ExUFfor forCCPCCPmodemodeare depicted
are depictedin Figure 8. When
in Figure 8. When the electric power
the electric increases
power from
increases
1.92
fromkW 1.92tokW6.03tokW,6.03thekW,EUFthedecreases from 56%
EUF decreases to 53%,
from 56% due to the
to 53%, duefacttothat
the electrical
fact that efficiency
electrical
decreases rapidly while
efficiency decreases rapidly thewhile
chiller
theefficiency grows grows
chiller efficiency slowlyslowly
as theascurrent density
the current increases.
density At
increases.
Energies
nominal 2018, 11, x
operating conditions, the highest EUF value (53%) is obtained for the
At nominal operating conditions, the highest EUF value (53%) is obtained for the maximum evaporatormaximum 16 of
evaporator 20
temperature (16 °C) ◦ C) and minimum condenser temperature (27 °C). ◦ C). The ExUF shows a rapid decrease
At nominal
when the operating
electric power conditions,
increases, the highest
because the ExUFdestruction
exergy value (37%) is obtained
increases due for the minimum
the electric power increases, because the exergy destruction increases due toto
thethe exergy
exergy losses
losses of
evaporator
of chiller temperature
generator. (4 °C) and minimum condenser temperature (27 °C).
chiller generator.
Unlike the EUF, it can be seen that better ExUF of the system is achieved at lower evaporator
and condenser temperatures. In particular, ExUF increases by decreasing evaporator temperature for
a given generator temperature, while showing an overlap when condenser temperature decreases.

Figure 8. EUF
Figure 8. EUF and
and ExUF
ExUF vs.
vs. electric
electric power
power for
for CCP
CCP mode.
mode.

In Figure
Unlike the9,EUF,
the it
EUF
canand ExUFthat
be seen arebetter
shown as function
ExUF of electric
of the system power for
is achieved the CCHP
at lower mode.
evaporator
It can
and be noted
condenser that the EUF
temperatures. increases and
In particular, ExUFdecreases
increases sweetly, as theevaporator
by decreasing electric power increases.
temperature for
aIngiven
particular, at thetemperature,
generator evaporator and condenser
while showingtemperature
an overlap of 16 °Ccondenser
when and 27 °C,temperature
respectively,decreases.
when the
electric
At power
nominal increases
operating from 1.92
conditions, thekW to 3.61
highest kW,value
ExUF the EUF
(37%)grows slightly
is obtained forfrom 60.5% to 61.0%,
the minimum then
evaporator
drops until to
temperature ◦
(4 59.6% at minimum
C) and 6.03 kW. As in the case
condenser of the CCP
temperature ◦
(27mode,
C). the ExUF shows a rapid decrease
from 46% to 37.7%, when the electric power increases until full load, because the exergy destruction
increases due to the exergy losses of chiller generator. Furthermore, the ExUF increases by decreasing
evaporator temperature for a given generator temperature, while showing an overlap when
condenser temperature decreases. At nominal operating conditions, the highest ExUF value is
obtained for the minimum evaporator temperature (4 °C) and minimum condenser temperature
(27 °C).
 Figure 8. EUF and ExUF vs. electric power for CCP mode.
Energies 2018, 11, 315 17 of 21

In Figure 9, the EUF and ExUF are shown as function of electric power for the CCHP mode.
It can
In be noted
Figure that
9, the theand
EUF EUF increases
ExUF are shownandasdecreases
function ofsweetly,
electric as the for
power electric power
the CCHP increases.
mode. It can
In
be particular,
noted that atthethe evaporator
EUF increasesandandcondenser
decreasestemperature
sweetly, as theof 16 °C andpower
electric 27 °C,increases.
respectively, when the
In particular,
electric power increases
at the evaporator from 1.92
and condenser kW to 3.61ofkW,
temperature 16 ◦the
C and ◦ C, respectively,
EUF27grows slightly from 60.5%
when the to 61.0%,
electric then
power
drops until
increases to 59.6%
from 1.92 kWat 6.03 kW.
to 3.61 Asthe
kW, in the
EUFcase of the
grows CCP mode,
slightly the ExUF
from 60.5% shows
to 61.0%, a rapid
then dropsdecrease
until to
from
59.6%46% to 37.7%,
at 6.03 kW. As when
in thethecase
electric power
of the CCPincreases
mode, the until
ExUFfullshows
load, because
a rapid the exergyfrom
decrease destruction
46% to
increases due to the exergy losses of chiller generator. Furthermore, the ExUF increases
37.7%, when the electric power increases until full load, because the exergy destruction increases due by decreasing
evaporator
to the exergytemperature
losses of chillerfor generator.
a given generator temperature,
Furthermore, while showing
the ExUF increases an overlap
by decreasing when
evaporator
condenser temperature decreases. At nominal operating conditions, the highest
temperature for a given generator temperature, while showing an overlap when condenser temperature ExUF value is
obtained for the minimum evaporator temperature (4 °C) and minimum condenser
decreases. At nominal operating conditions, the highest ExUF value is obtained for the minimum temperature
(27 °C).
evaporator temperature (4 ◦ C) and minimum condenser temperature (27 ◦ C).

Figure 9. EUF and ExUF vs. electric power for CCHP mode.

Figure
Figure 10 10 shows
shows the the CHP, CCHP and
CHP, CCHP and CCP
CCP energy
energy and
and ExUF
ExUF comparison,
comparison, atat fixed
fixed operating
operating
conditions
conditions of of each
eachfuelfuelcell
cellstack
stack(I(I2020A)A)and
and absorption
absorption chiller
chiller (Tev16;
(Tev16; Tcd27).
Tcd27). TheThe system
system in CHP
in CHP and
and CCP mode is similar to the CCHP mode, with the difference that the trigeneration
CCP mode is similar to the CCHP mode, with the difference that the trigeneration ratio r is equal ratio r is equal
to 0
to
and0 and
1, for
Energies 1,the
2018,for the
11,first
x first
and and the second
the second one operating
one operating mode,
mode, respectively.
respectively. 17 of 20

Figure 10.
Figure 10. EUF
EUF &
& ExUF
ExUF comparison
comparison for
for the
the proposed
proposed system
system operating
operating modes.
modes.

As it can be seen, the best operational mode from EUF viewpoint is the CHP one. This is due
As it can be seen, the best operational mode from EUF viewpoint is the CHP one. This is due
because the waste heat recovered is totally used as thermal power in the CHP mode, differently in
because the waste heat recovered is totally used as thermal power in the CHP mode, differently
CCHP the waste heat is partly used as thermal power and partly is converted to cooling power with
in CCHP the waste heat is partly used as thermal power and partly is converted to cooling power
low conversion efficiency. The CCP mode presents the lower EUF because all the waste heat is
with low conversion efficiency. The CCP mode presents the lower EUF because all the waste heat
converted into cooling power by means the absorption chiller. By analyzing the ExUF, the same
behavior is observed for the three operating modes, even if the margins between the calculated values
are greatly reduced. However, comparing the performances obtained with those presented in
literature for systems based on PEM fuel cell stack and single-effect absorption chiller, it is possible
to appreciate how these values do not differ greatly [24,26].
Furthermore, in order to evaluate the fuel saving that can be achieved with the co-production of
Energies 2018, 11, 315 18 of 21

is converted into cooling power by means the absorption chiller. By analyzing the ExUF, the same
behavior is observed for the three operating modes, even if the margins between the calculated values
are greatly reduced. However, comparing the performances obtained with those presented in literature
for systems based on PEM fuel cell stack and single-effect absorption chiller, it is possible to appreciate
how these values do not differ greatly [24,26].
Furthermore, in order to evaluate the fuel saving that can be achieved with the co-production
of electric, thermal and cooling powers, a performance indicator called trigeneration primary energy
saving (TPES), has been calculated, as proposed in ref. [40]. Unlike the PES (Primary Energy Saving),
the TPES which takes into account the cooling power also, as well as the reference efficiencies for
comparison with the separate energy production, is defined as:

F SP − FCCHP FCCHP
TPES = = 1−  . . (30)
F SP     
Pel (1−r )· Qth Q EV
ηeSP
+ ηtSP + ηeSP ·COPSP

where FCCHP and F SP are the total fuel energy input to the trigeneration system and the total fuel
energy input required for the separate production of the same energy vectors (work, heat and cool),
respectively. Furthermore, the coefficients ηeSP , ηtSP and COPSP are the separate production reference
efficiencies that have been assumed equal to 0.4, 0.9 and 4 (COP of an equivalent compression electric
refrigerator group) respectively, as suggested in ref. [40]. It has been chosen to estimate the TPES in
the extreme working points of the CCHP operating mode (“area ABC”), Figure 5. Thus, the analysis
has been carried out considering the power values and not the annual energy values.
In Table 8, the calculated values of TPES ranges from −0.07 to 0.19, are summarized. The negative
value is obtained at low thermal and cooling powers (0.33 kW) and when the fuel consumption in the
CCHP system is high due to maximum electric load (6.03 kW). In fact, it happens that at maximum
electric load the hydrogen consumption of fuel cell stacks is high, but for reasons of needs related
to the user, not all the waste heat of the stacks is recovered and converted in heating and cooling
power, but only a part, this involves a non-saving in primary energy if compared with a separate
production systems calibrated on the user’s demands. Obviously, this extreme condition rarely occurs,
so it can be stated that the CCHP system has good performance in a wide operating range, but the
better performance in terms of primary energy saving can be achieved at lower loads.

Table 8. The trigeneration primary energy saving (TPES) values calculated for the operating points of
the CCHP mode.

Points A B C
FCCHP (kW) 4.30 16.84 16.84
Pel (kW) 1.92 6.03 6.03
.
Qth (kW) 0.33 0.33 1.97
.
Q EV (kW) 0.33 0.33 1.97
TPES 0.19 −0.07 0.09

5. Conclusions
In this paper the energetic feasibility and the performances of a novel residential micro-CCHP,
including low temperature PEMFC power unit and half effect lithium bromide absorption chiller,
have been evaluated by means numerical simulations.
The power unit and the absorption chiller have been modeled by using one-dimensional and
thermochemical codes respectively. The models, validated by experimental data for PEMFC and
literature reference data for half effect absorption chiller, have been integrated in order to evaluate
the operating field in terms of electric, thermal and cooling powers and the performances of the
trigeneration system.
Energies 2018, 11, 315 19 of 21

The trigeneration ratio r defined for the analysis, has highlighted that the trigeneration system
can operates under three different modes, CHP mode (r = 0) in which all of waste heat recovered by
FC power unit is used for heating, CCP mode (r = 1) in which all of waste heat is used for cooling
purpose and CCHP mode (0 < r < 1) in which a portion of waste heat is used to satisfy the heating
demand, and the rest is supplied to absorption chiller for cooling.
The performance analysis has been carried out by introducing some performance parameters
such as: EUF, ExUF and TPES. The numerical results showed a good performance and a different
behavior for the three operating mode. In particular, at nominal operating conditions the CHP mode
achieved the highest EUF value (75.0%) but the lowest ExUF (40.0%). The CCP and CCHP modes
showed a quasi-similar behavior, highlighting the highest EUF (56% and 61%) and ExUF (45% and
46%) values at lower loads. Furthermore, both for CCP than CCHP modes, the highest ExUF values
are obtained for the minimum evaporator temperature (4 ◦ C) and minimum condenser temperature
(27 ◦ C) of the absorption chiller.
The calculated values of TPES for the CCHP mode, ranges from −0.07 to 0.19, thus, the CCHP
system has good performance in a wide operating range, but the better performance can be achieved
at lower loads. Obviously, a future analysis that will investigate the feasibility of the system for a
residential real case study, going to consider two predominant usage scenarios, summer and winter,
with or without the integration of auxiliary systems, will provide an outlined and complete behavior
of the system.
The paper has highlighted that the numerical models can be useful tools in designing and
optimization of energy conversion systems allowing to investigate on their behavior in different
operating points and thus to assist to the experimental activities.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Wu, D.W.; Wang, R.Z. Combined cooling, heating and power: A review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2006, 32,
459–495. [CrossRef]
2. Mingxi, L.; Yang, S.; Fang, F. Combined cooling, heating and power systems: A survey. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 1–22.
3. Cho, H.; Smith, A.D.; Mago, P. Combined cooling, heating and power: A review of performance improvement
and optimization. Appl. Energy 2014, 136, 168–185. [CrossRef]
4. Jradi, M.; Riffat, S. Tri-generation systems: Energy policies, prime movers, cooling technologies,
configurations and operation strategies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 396–415. [CrossRef]
5. Rong, A.; Su, Y. Polygeneration systems in buildings: A survey on optimization approaches. Energy Build.
2017, 151, 439–454. [CrossRef]
6. Sibilio, S.; Rosato, A.; Ciampi, G.; Scorpio, M.; Akisawa, A. Building-integrated trigeneration system:
Energy, environmental and economic dynamic performance assessment for Italian residential applications.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 62, 920–933. [CrossRef]
7. Abdollahi, G.; Sayyaadi, H. Application of the multi-objective optimization and risk analysis for the sizing
of a residential small-scale CCHP system. Energy Build. 2013, 60, 330–344. [CrossRef]
8. Jannelli, E.; Minutillo, M.; Cozzolino, R.; Falcucci, G. Thermodynamic performance assessment of a small
size CCHP (combined cooling heating and power) system with numerical models. Energy 2014, 65, 240–249.
[CrossRef]
9. Li, M.; Mu, H.; Li, N.; Ma, B. Optimal design and operation strategy for integrated evaluation of CCHP
(combined cooling heating and power) system. Energy 2016, 99, 202–220. [CrossRef]
10. Gu, W.; Lu, S.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J. Residential CCHP microgrid with load aggregator: Operation
mode, pricing strategy, and optimal dispatch. Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 173–186. [CrossRef]
11. Lozano, M.A.; Carvalho, M.; Serra, L.M. Operational strategy and marginal costs in simple trigeneration
systems. Energy 2009, 34, 2001–2008. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 315 20 of 21

12. Pei, H.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Yu, Y.; Tu, Z.; Wan, Z.; Liu, W. In situ measurement of temperature distribution in
proton exchange membrane fuel cell I a hydrogen-air stack. J. Power Sources 2013, 227, 72–79. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, X.; Li, W.; Gong, G.; Wan, Z.; Tu, Z. Parametric analysis and optimization of PEMFC system for
maximum power and efficiency using MOEA/D. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 121, 400–409. [CrossRef]
14. Tu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Luo, Z.; Liu, J.; Wan, Z.; Pan, M. Evaluation of 5 kW proton exchange membrane fuel cell
stack operated at 95 ◦ C under ambient pressure. J. Power Sources 2013, 222, 277–281. [CrossRef]
15. Schicktanz, M.D.; Wapler, J.; Henning, H.M. Primary energy and economic analysis of combined heating,
cooling and power systems. Energy 2011, 36, 575–585. [CrossRef]
16. Elmer, T.; Worall, M.; Wu, S.; Riffat, S.B. Fuel cell technology for domestic built environment applications:
State of-the-art review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 913–931. [CrossRef]
17. Barelli, L.; Bidini, G.; Gallorini, F.; Ottaviano, A. An energetic exergetic comparison between PEMFC and
SOFC-based micro-CHP systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 3206–3214. [CrossRef]
18. Radulescu, M.; Lottin, O.; Feidt, M.; Lombard, C.; Le Noc, D.; Le Doze, S. Experimental results with a natural
gas cogeneration system using a polymer exchange membrane fuel cell. J. Power Source 2006, 159, 1142–1146.
[CrossRef]
19. Yilanci, A.; Dincer, I.; Ozturk, H. Performance analysis of a PEM fuel cell unit in a solar–hydrogen system.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 7538–7552. [CrossRef]
20. Jannelli, E.; Minutillo, M.; Perna, A. Analyzing microcogeneration systems based on LT-PEMFC and
HT-PEMFC by energy balances. Appl. Energy 2013, 108, 82–91. [CrossRef]
21. Campanari, S.; Valenti, G.; Macchi, E.; Lozza, G.; Ravidà, N. Development of a micro cogeneration laboratory
and testing of a natural gas CHP unit based on PEM fuel cells. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 71, 714–720.
[CrossRef]
22. Hwang, J.; Wang, P.; Kuo, J. Simulation and experiment of a cogeneration system based on proton exchange
membrane fuel cell. Fuel Cells 2012, 12, 326–334. [CrossRef]
23. Hwang, J.; Lin, C.; Kuo, J. Performance analysis of fuel cell thermoelectric cogeneration system with methanol
steam reformer. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 14448–14459. [CrossRef]
24. Chen, X.; Gong, G.; Wan, Z.; Luo, L.; Wan, J. Performance analysis of 5 kW PEMFC-based residential
micro-CCHP with absorption chiller. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 10647–10657. [CrossRef]
25. Chang, H.; Wan, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Chen, X.; Shu, S.; Tu, Z.; Chan, S.H.; Chen, R.; Wang, X. Energy- and
exergy-based working fluid selection and performance analysis of a high-temperature PEMFC-based micro
combined cooling heating and power system. Appl. Energy 2017, 204, 446–458. [CrossRef]
26. Chahartaghi, M.; Kharkeshi, B.A. Performance analysis of a combined cooling, heating and power system
with PEM fuel cell as a prime mover. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 128, 805–817. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, X.; Gong, G.; Wanb, Z.; Zhang, C.; Tu, Z. Performance study of a dual power source residential CCHP
system based on PEMFC and PTSC. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 119, 163–176. [CrossRef]
28. Herold, K.E.; Radermacher, R.; Klein, S.A. Absorption Chillers and Heat Pumps; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2016.
29. Minutillo, M.; Perna, A. Behaviour modelling of a PEMFC operating on diluted hydrogen feed. Int. J.
Energy Res. 2008, 32, 1297–1308. [CrossRef]
30. Cozzolino, R.; Cicconardi, S.P.; Galloni, E.; Minutillo, M.; Perna, A. Theoretical and experimental
investigations on thermal management of a PEMFC stack. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 8030–8037.
[CrossRef]
31. Amphlett, J.C.; Baumert, R.M.; Mann, R.F.; Peppley, B.A.; Roberge, P.R.; Harris, T.J. Performance Modelling
of Ballard Mark IV Solid Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1995, 142, 1–8. [CrossRef]
32. Mann, R.F.; Amphlett, J.C.; Hooper, M.A.I.; Jensen, H.M.; Peppley, B.A.; Roberge, P.R. Development and
application of a generalised steady-state electrochemical model for a PEM fuel cell. J. Power Sources 2000, 86,
173–180. [CrossRef]
33. Fowler, M.W.; Mann, R.F.; Amphlett, J.C.; Peppley, B.A.; Roberge, P.R. Incorporation of voltage degradation
into a generalised steady-state electrochemical model for a PEM fuel cell. J. Power Sources 2002, 106, 274–283.
[CrossRef]
34. Jannelli, E.; Minutillo, M.; Galloni, E. Performance of a PEM fuel cell system fuelled with hydrogen generated
by a fuel processor. J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol. 2007, 4, 435–440. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 315 21 of 21

35. Ferguson, A.; Ugursal, V.I. Fuel cell modelling for building cogeneration applications. J. Power Sources 2004,
137, 30–42. [CrossRef]
36. Tribioli, L.; Cozzolino, R.; Chiappini, D.; Iora, P. Energy management of a plug-in fuel cell/battery hybrid
vehicle with on-board fuel processing. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 140–154. [CrossRef]
37. Kreith, F. Principles of Heat Transfer; Brooks/Cole: Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
38. Somers, C.; Mortazavi, A.; Hwang, Y.; Radermacher, R.; Rodgers, P.; Al-Hashimi, S. Modeling water/lithium
bromide absorption chillers in ASPEN Plus. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 4197–4205. [CrossRef]
39. Maryami, R.; Dehghan, A.A. An exergy based comparative study between LiBr/water absorption
refrigeration systems from half effect to triple effect. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 124, 103–123. [CrossRef]
40. Chicco, G.; Mancarella, P. Trigeneration primary energy saving evaluation for energy planning and policy
development. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 6132–6144. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).