Exergoeconomic Performance Comparison and Optimization of Single-Stage Absorption Heat Transformers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three single-stage absorption heat transformer (SSHT) configurations are modeled, analyzed and compared from the viewpoints of thermodynamics and economics, using the Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software. In addition, a multi-objective optimization is carried out for the three configurations to specify the optimal design point considering the second law efficiency and the product unit cost as two objective functions. The configurations differ from one another considering the number of heat exchangers used in them. The results show that the coefficient of performance (COP) and exergy coefficient of performance (ECOP) for configuration 3 are around 35% and 30% higher than the corresponding values for configuration 1, respectively. Also, configuration 2 is found to be more economic with a product unit cost of about 21% and 5% lower than those for configurations 1 and 3, respectively. Furthermore, it is observed that relatively higher absorber temperatures can be achieved by configurations 2 and 3 compared to configuration 1. It is concluded from the multi-objective optimization that the conditions at which the evaporator, condenser and absorber temperatures are 86.51 °C, 39.03 °C and 123.1 °C, respectively, represents an optimal solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".