Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Thermodynamic feasibility of alternative supercritical

CO2 Brayton cycles integrated with an ejector
Ricardo Vasquez Padilla a,⇑, Yen Chean Soo Too a, Regano Benito b, Robbie McNaughton a, Wes Stein a
a
CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 330, Newcastle, NSW 2300, Australia
b
CSIRO Energy Technology, PO Box 136, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

Three S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations assisted by ejector were proposed.

The Recompression with ejector and intercooling showed the best thermal efficiency.

The proposed cycles can achieve a reduction up to 77% in the heater inlet pressure.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle has emerged as an alternative power block for Concentrated Solar
Received 31 July 2015 Thermal (CST) systems and nuclear plants. In order to optimise the thermal performance of the
Received in revised form 15 January 2016 Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles, a combination of high pressure and temperature are required. The high
Accepted 4 February 2016
pressure of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles has a remarkable effect on not only the thermal performance of the
Available online 16 February 2016
cycle but also the thermodynamic and mechanical performance of the solar receiver. In this paper, three
S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations without reheat are proposed by introducing an ejector prior the hea-
Keywords:
ter, which reduces the pressure at the solar receiver.
Power block
CSP
A comprehensive thermodynamic analysis and a multi-objective optimisation were performed to study
Energy analysis the thermodynamic feasibility of the proposed cycles. The effect of the cycle pressure ratios, turbine split
High pressure ratio, turbine inlet temperature and exit pressure of the ejector on the thermal performance and output
parameters of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles assisted by an ejector was analysed. The proposed configurations
were compared with the conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles without reheat and referenced steam
Rankine cycles (projected thermal efficiencies of 0.416–0.47 in 2020–2025). The results showed that
under some operating conditions, the proposed configurations assisted by an ejector can achieve higher
efficiencies than the referenced steam Rankine cycles. As the ejector exit pressure increased, the thermal
performance of the proposed configurations approached the conventional supercritical CO2 Brayton
cycles.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction supercritical conditions reduces the energy required by the

Supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle (S-CO2) has emerged as an
alternative power block for nuclear applications and Concentrated
Solar Thermal (CST) systems. The compactness and higher thermal
efficiencies as compared to conventional steam Rankine cycle
make this power cycle an attractive solution at temperatures
above 400 °C [1]. The thermodynamic behaviour of CO2 under
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4960 6293.
E-mail addresses: Ricardo.Vasquezpadilla@csiro.au (R.V. Padilla), Yenchean@
csiro.au (Y.C.S. Too), Regg.Benito@csiro.au (R. Benito), Rob.Mcnaughton@csiro.au
(R. McNaughton), Wes.Stein@csiro.au (W. Stein).
compression process as compared to other gases [2], however high
pressures are needed to optimise the thermal and exergy perfor-
mance of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles [3–5].
The cycle was initially proposed as power block for nuclear
applications [2,6,7], however due to its high thermal efficiency it
was also proposed as power block for CST applications [5,8,9].
For the case of CST systems, tubular solar receivers have been pro-
posed for direct configurations with S-CO2 as heat transfer fluid
[10,11]. This configuration requires thick pipes which can support
the mechanical stress due to the high pressure of CO2 and the ther-
mal stress generated by the temperature gradient on the receiver
surface due to the heat flux coming from the solar field. Neises

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.029
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
50 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62
Nomenclature
W net specific net work output (kJ/kgCO2 )
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K)
T temperature (°C, K)
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
Q_ heater heat transfer rate in the heater (kW)
P heat transfer fluid pressure (kPa)
P heat transfer fluid pressure (kPa)
CO2 carbon dioxide
u fluid velocity (m/s)
Phigh high pressure of the cycle (kPa)
Pintercooling intercooling pressure (kPa)
A area (m2)
F force in the control volume (N)
Pin;heater exit pressure of the ejector (kPa)
ra cycle pressure ratio, Phigh =P3
rb cycle pressure ratio, Phigh =P2
rc intercooling pressure ratio, P high =Pintercooling
HTR high thermal recuperator
LTR low thermal recuperator
SR split ratio
et al. [12] performed a stress analysis of tubular receivers using S-
CO2 as heat transfer fluid. Their results showed that if the S-CO2
Brayton cycle operates at high turbine inlet temperatures to
achieve attractive thermal efficiencies, the maximum incident heat
flux must be limited to low values to prevent any mechanical fail-
ure. Therefore, under low uniform heat flux conditions, the solar
receiver operates at lower thermal efficiency [10] and requires lar-
ger surface area whilst if small aperture areas are required the
solar field could have higher spillage losses [13] and lower inter-
ception efficiency [14], which affect adversely the overall thermal
efficiency of the solarised system.
In addition, several studies [15–17] have carried out experi-
mental tests to analyse the impact of the operating conditions of
S-CO2 on the corrosion of alloy metals. Gibbs [15] and Parks [16]
found that at temperatures above 750 °C, the effect of the high
pressure of CO2 on the rate of oxide formation in alloy materials
is pronounced. Firouzdor et al. [17] showed that at high pressures
and temperatures the diffusion rate of CO and CO2 into the oxide
layer are high. This diffuse mechanism impacts on the degree of
carburisation of the alloy metals and increase the possibility of
spallation of the oxide layer, which has an unfavourable impact
on the operational life of the solar receiver.
As mentioned above, for direct configuration the high pressure
of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles has a remarkable effect on not only the
thermal performance of the cycle but also the thermal and
mechanical performance of the solar receiver. Although the high
pressure of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles can be reduced, Dunham
and Iverson [3] demonstrated that there is a significant decrease
in the thermal efficiency of S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle
obtained at 10, 15 and 20 MPa (5–8% in percentage points,
depending on the turbine inlet temperature) with respect to the
configuration operating at 25 MPa. This is due to at pressures
above 20 MPa the compressor inlet conditions are in the supercrit-
ical region for all temperatures studied and therefore CO2 behaves
like a gas with a high density reducing the input power required by
the compression process and higher thermal efficiencies can be
achieved. In order to optimise the CST system, the power block
has to achieve a balance between its thermal efficiency and the
adverse effects that can be produced by its operating conditions
on the thermal performance and operational life of the solar
W _ net;turbine net power from turbines (kW)
W _ net;compressor net input power to compressors (kW)
T in;comp compressor inlet temperature (°C)
M Mach number
c fluid local speed of sound (m/s)
 heat exchanger effectiveness
q fluid density (kg/m3)
gI first law efficiency
gn nozzle efficiency
gd diffuser efficiency
gm mixture efficiency
x entrainment ratio
c specific heat ratio
i input
o output
cv control volume
opt optimum
p primary fluid
s secondary fluid
m mixture
receiver. In this paper three alternative S-CO2 Brayton cycle config-
urations are proposed by keeping the advantage of the compres-
sion process near the critical point of CO2 and introducing an
ejector prior the heater or solar receiver. The main advantage of
adding an ejector to the power cycle is that it can increase the pres-
sure of a stream without any consumption of mechanical energy
[18] and allows the solar receiver to operate at lower S-CO2 pres-
sures. Reducing the high pressure of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle prior
to the heating process has a favourable impact on the thermal effi-
ciency, operational life and cost of the solar receiver and therefore
has the potential to achieve lower Levelized Cost of Electricity
(LCOE) values.
Ejector has been proposed for combined power cycles. Yari and
Mahmoudi [19] proposed two new cycle configurations, in which
the top cycle is an ejector-expansion transcritical cycle and the
bottom cycle is a sub-critical CO2 cycle. Ameri et al. [20] performed
a thermodynamic analysis of a micro-gas turbine cogeneration and
a trigeneration system integrated with a steam ejector refrigera-
tion system and a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). The
results showed that is possible to save fuel consumption up to
23% in summer and 33% in winter in comparison with individual
systems operated to generate heating, cooling and electricity.
Wang et al. [21] studied a combined cooling, heating and power
cycles, which uses solar energy as heat source and integrates a
Brayton cycle with a transcritical CO2 refrigeration cycle with
ejector-expansion device. Jamali et al. [22] analysed a similar con-
figuration based on a Brayton power cycle and a ejector expansion
refrigeration cycle. In this analysis, a multi-objective optimisation
was performed to minimise the heat exchanger area and maximise
the exergy efficiency. Zheng and Weng [23] studied a combined
power and refrigeration cycle, which integrates an Organic Rankine
Cycle and an ejector refrigeration cycle. By using the same config-
uration, Zhang and Mohamed [24] proposed a solar-driven com-
bined cycle, with a recuperator after the turbine and
hydrocarbon as working fluid, operating at temperatures below
150 °C in dry and hot regions. Soroureddin et al. [25] proposed
three configurations to integrate an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
with a ejector refrigeration cycle driven by waste heat from inter-
cooler and pre-cooler of the gas turbine-modular helium reactor.
Wang et al. [26] performed a multi-objective optimisation of a
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62
combined cooling, heating and power system (CCHP) driven by
solar energy. In this analysis, they maximised the average useful
output (power, cooling and heating) and minimised the total heat
transfer area required. Wang et al. [27] proposed a new combined
power and ejector absorption refrigeration cycle which produces
both power output and refrigeration output simultaneously by
using ammonia-water as working fluid and utilising a low grade
heat source. Dai et al. [28] analysed a combined cycle operating
with R123, which combines a cycle a Rankine cycle and a ejector
refrigeration cycle by adding a turbine between the boiler and
the ejector. In addition, ejector has been integrated with Organic
Rankine Cycle (ORC) to reduce the exit pressure of the turbine
and thus increases the net work output and thermal efficiency of
the cycle [29–31].
Alternative cycle layouts have been proposed by integrating
conventional power cycles with ejector. Yuan et al. [32] proposed
an ammonia water power cycle with ejector based on a modified
Kalina cycle. Yuan et al. [33] and Yoon et al. [34] studied power
cycles with ejector for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)
applications. Li et al. [35] analysed a Kalina cycle with ejector;
the results showed that the net work output and thermal efficiency
are higher than the conventional Kalina cycle. Freedman and Lior
[36] proposed a top cycle with a mixture of helium and sodium
assisted by ejector and a conventional Rankine cycle as bottoming
cycle. The new configuration improved the thermal efficiency up to
11% compared to the conventional steam Rankine cycle.
The S-CO2 Brayton cycles configurations proposed in this paper
are: S-CO2 Simple Brayton cycle assisted by ejector (S-EJ), S-CO2
Recompression Brayton cycle assisted by ejector (RC-EJ) and S-CO2
Recompression Brayton cycle with main compression intercooling
assisted by ejector (MC-EJ). These configurations are based on the
combination of the conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles [5] with
the cycle proposed by Stankovic [37,38], which uses an ejector to
increase, under certain operating conditions, the thermal perfor-
mance of a conventional gas turbine cycle. Stankovic showed that
a dramatic increase in the thermal efficiency of his proposed con-
cept is achieved when the gas velocity of the injected stream
(expanded through the turbine) is greater than the velocity of the
jet gas (stream exiting the compressor).
The thermodynamic analysis was validated with previous S-CO2
Brayton cycles models without reheat developed by Turchi et al.
[5] and Kulhánek and Dostál [39]. The ejector simulation was per-
formed based on the model developed by Aly et al. [40] and Eames
et al. [41]. This model was validated with experimental data for
R141b given by Ref. [41].
In this paper a thermodynamic feasibility analysis of the pro-
posed cycles was performed. A multi-objective optimisation was
carried out to maximise either the thermal efficiency or the net
power output of the proposed cycles and minimise the exit pres-
sure obtained by the ejector. The effect of the cycle pressure ratios,
turbine split ratio, turbine inlet temperature and exit pressure of
the ejector on the thermal performance and output parameters
of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles integrated with a ejector was analysed.
The proposed configurations were compared with conventional
steam Rankine cycles for molten salt solar tower systems with pro-
jected thermal efficiencies of 0.416–0.47 in 2010–2025 [42] and
the optimisation was validated with the maximum thermal effi-
ciency achieved by conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles operating
at the same exiting compression pressure (25 MPa).
2. Power cycle
As mentioned above, three S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations
assisted by an ejector were proposed (Fig. 1) in this paper: S-CO2
Simple Brayton cycle assisted by ejector (S-EJ), S-CO2
51
Recompression Brayton cycle assisted by ejector (RC-EJ) and S-
CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle with main compression inter-
cooling assisted by ejector (MC-EJ). The proposed configurations
are similar to the conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles without
reheat, except an ejector is introduced prior the heater. This mod-
ification is based on the cycle proposed by Stankovic (B-EJ) [38,37]
which was analysed for air Brayton cycles. In the Stankovic’s cycle
(Fig. 2), the gas expanding through a secondary turbine T2 (stream
3) is mixed with a compressed gas exiting the compressor (stream
5). The thermal and pressure energy of the stream 3 is transformed
into kinetic energy and mixed in the ejector with the accelerated
stream 5 of the compressed gas [37]. Then the mixture is deceler-
ated in a diffuser hence its thermal and pressure energy are
increased (stream 6) prior the heater. In this cycle, the main tur-
bine T1 follows the same path as a conventional Brayton cycle.
Table 1 shows a comparison of the main characteristics of each
S-CO2 Brayton cycle assisted by ejector proposed in this paper. A
description of the S-CO2 ejector side is presented below.
In order to take advantage of the ejector, for all configurations
(Fig. 3), the CO2 at high temperature leaving the heater (stream
1) is split into two streams. A fraction of this stream (mass fraction
of turbine 1, m _ 1 ) is expanded (stream 2) through the first tur-
_ 2 =m
bine (T1) and then follows the regular path as a conventional S-CO2
Brayton cycle (Simple, RC or MC). A detailed description of the S-
CO2 Brayton cycles is presented by Ref. [43]. The high pressure S-
CO2 recovers some thermal energy in the recuperators (only HTR
for S-EJ configuration) and returns to the ejector (stream 7 for S-
EJ, stream 11 for RC-EJ and stream 13 for MC-EJ). The remaining
fraction is expanded (stream 3) though the second turbine (T2)
and send it directly to the ejector, where it is mechanically com-
pressed (stream 8 for S-EJ, stream 12 for RC-EJ and stream 14 for
MC-EJ). The stream exiting the ejector is heated up in the heater
(stream 1) and the flow path is completed.
The temperature entropy diagram presented in Fig. 3 shows the
thermodynamic differences among S-CO2 Brayton cycle configura-
tions assisted by ejector. The thermal performance of the cycles is
considerably affected by the energy recovered by the recuperators,
low thermal recuperator (LTR) and high thermal recuperator (HTR),
and the input power required for the compression process. When
two recuperators are included, RC-EJ and MC-EJ, more energy is
recovered as compared with the S-EJ configuration. This is evi-
denced by obtaining higher temperatures in the RC-EJ and MC-EJ
configurations at the HTR than the S-EJ configuration operating
at the same conditions. On the other hand, regarding to the com-
pression process, the MC-EJ configuration shows that the intercool-
ing stage reduces substantially the energy required by the main
compressor since the entering stream (8) operates near the critical
point of CO2.
3. Thermodynamic model
In this paper, the thermodynamic modelling of the S-CO2 Brayton
cycle configurations assisted by ejector was divided into two parts:
conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycle components and ejector.
3.1. S-CO2 Brayton cycles
Mass and energy balances were performed in all heat exchang-
ers (coolers and recuperators) and turbomachinery components
(compressors and turbines). Due to the change in thermodynamic
properties of CO2 above critical conditions, all heat exchangers
were discretized [44] to determine whether a temperature pinch
point problem takes place. Fig. 4 shows the conventional S-CO2
Brayton cycles layouts. The high thermal recuperator (HTR) was
modelled by assuming a heat exchanger effectiveness. For
52 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62

HTR
4
Ejector
6 7
Cooler 8
Heater 3
1

C1 T1 T2

(a)

LTR HTR
5 4
Ejector
8 10 11

Cooler 12
Heater 3
1

6 7 9
2

C1 C2 T1 T2

(b)

LTR HTR
5 4
Ejector
10 12 13

Cooler 14
Heater 3
Intercooler 1

6 7 8 9 11
2

C1 C2 C3 T1 T2

(c)
Fig. 1. S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations assisted by ejector. (a) S-CO2 Simple Brayton cycle assisted by ejector (S-EJ) (b) S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle assisted by
ejector (RC-EJ) (c) S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle with main compression intercooling assisted by ejector (MC-EJ).
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62 53

6
Heater 3
1

C1 T1 T2

Cooler

4 2

Fig. 2. Brayton cycle with inverse mixing ejector proposed by Stankovic [38,37].

Table 1
Modifications introduced by the S-CO2 Brayton cycles assisted by ejector. B-EJ:
Brayton cycle with inverse mixing ejector proposed by Stankovic [38,37].

Parameter Cycle
B-EJ S-EJ RC-EJ MC-EJ
High thermal recuperator (HTR) — U U U
Low thermal recuperator (LTR) — — U U
Compressor intercooling — — — U
Recompressor — — U U
Ejector U U U U

configurations with low thermal recuperator (LTR), an effective-

ness factor was considered for the total hot stream [45]:

h2  h4
hot;stream ¼
h2  h4@T c ;P4
where h2 and h4 are the specific enthalpy of the hot stream entering
the HTR and leaving the LTR, respectively, while h4@T c ;P4 is the
specific enthalpy at stream 4 (Fig. 4) calculated at the minimum
temperature that the hot stream leaving the LTR could reach [46].
For S-CO2 Brayton cycles with LTR, another important parameter is
the split ratio (SR), which is defined as the ratio of the mass flow rate
of the cold stream entering the low thermal recuperator and the
mass flow rate of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle. The SR is determined by
applying an energy balance on the LTR and is used to calculate the
power input to the compression process.
The first law efficiency of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles is given by:
ð1Þ
Fig. 3. Temperature entropy diagram for the proposed S-CO2 Brayton cycles.
Operating conditions: T in;turbine ¼ 700 °C, P high ¼ 25 MPa, DP HX ¼ 0:0 kPa. S-EJ: S-CO2
Simple Brayton cycle assisted by ejector, RC-EJ: S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle
assisted by ejector and MC-EJ: S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle with main
compression intercooling assisted by ejector.
3.2. Ejector
Ejector proposed in the S-CO2 Brayton cycles works as a com-
pressor or pump by increasing the pressure of a secondary fluid
without having moving parts, hence it requires less maintenance
[41]. The ejector was modelled by dividing into 4 zones [41]:

_ net;turbine  W
W _ net;compressor
Nozzle section
gI ¼ _
ð2Þ

Mixing section
Q heater

Constant area section

Diffuser section
3.1.1. Validation of S-CO2 Brayton cycles
The mass and energy balances were written in Python 2.7 [47] The ejector modelling is based on the work presented by Aly
and REFPROP 9.1 [48] was used to calculate the thermodynamic et al. [40] and Eames et al. [41]. In order to model the ejector,
properties of carbon dioxide (CO2) based on the model developed the following equations based on adiabatic process and steady
by Span and Wagner [49]. state conditions are used.
The authors previously validated the energy model proposed by Energy balance:
X   X  
this paper [43] with the numerical models proposed by Kulhánek _ i hi þ u2i =2 ¼
m _ o ho þ u2o =2
m ð3Þ
and Dostál [39] and Turchi et al. [5]. The results showed that the
proposed model has a good agreement with the published models, Momentum balance:
with a maximum relative difference within ±2.0% for all configura- X I X X
tions and therefore, the modelling of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle com- F¼ A dP ¼ _ o uo 
m _ i ui
m ð4Þ
ponents can be used with confidence in the configurations assisted
by ejector. Continuity:
54 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62

HTR
3

Cooler
6

Heater
4 5
2
1

C1 T1

(a)

LTR HTR
4 3

7 9
Cooler
10

Heater
5 6 8
2
1

C1 C2 T1

(b)

LTR HTR
4 3

9 11
Cooler
12
Intercooler
Heater

5 6 7 8 10
2
1

C1 C2 C3 T1

(c)
Fig. 4. Convectional S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations without reheat. (a) Simple Brayton cycle (Simple) (b) S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle (RC) (c) S-CO2
Recompression Brayton cycle with main compression intercooling (MC).
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62 55

X X
qi ui Ai ¼ qo uo Ao ð5Þ m_ p and m_ s are the mass flow rate of the primary and secondary
fluid, respectively. up1 and us1 are the velocity at Section 1 of the pri-
The description and detailed model of each section of the ejec- mary and secondary fluid, respectively, while u2 is the velocity of
tor is presented below. A schematic diagram showing cross- the mixture at Section 2. Introducing a mixing efficiency, gm , and
sections of the ejector with respect to its velocity and pressure using the constant pressure approach (P 2 ¼ P m ¼ P1 ), the momen-
relationship is given in Fig. 5. tum equation is simplified as:
 
Nozzle section (0–1) up1 þ xus1
u2 ¼ gm ð9Þ
In this section of the ejector, the primary fluid passes through a 1þx
nozzle where the fluid is accelerated generating high velocity at
  where x is the entrainment ratio, m
_ s =m
_ p . The energy balance on
the exit up1 . As a result of the increase in velocity, the down-
this section is given by:
stream pressure decreases ðP1 Þ.
The primary fluid velocity leaving the nozzle exit at Section 1 is u22 xhs þ hp
h2 þ ¼ ð10Þ
calculated by: 2 1þx
u2p1  
¼ gn hp  hp1;s ð6Þ
2 3.2.2. Constant area section (2–3)
      After the fluids are well mixed, the mixture passes through a
with hp ¼ h T p ; P p ; sp ¼ s T p ; P p and hp1;s ¼ h P 1 ; sp . hp and sp are
the specific enthalpy and entropy of the primary fluid and hp1;s is the constant area section. If the mixture reaches supersonic velocity,
specific enthalpy of the primary fluid at Section 1 calculated at con- then a shock wave takes place in this section and the downstream
stant specific entropy sp and gn is the nozzle’s efficiency. For the sec- pressure is increased. The velocity after the shock wave, u3 , can be
determined by:
ondary fluid, the velocity at Section 1 is calculated as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  
u2s1 2 2c
¼ ðhs  hs1;s Þ ð7Þ u3 ¼ c3 M 22 þ M22 1 ð11Þ
2 c1 c1
with hs ¼ hðT s ; P s Þ; ss ¼ sðT s ; P s Þ and hs1;s ¼ hðP1 ; ss Þ. hs and ss are the
where c3 is the local speed of sound at Section 3, M2 is the local
specific enthalpy and entropy of the secondary fluid and hp1;s is the
Mach number of the mixture at Section 2 and c is the average ratio
specific enthalpy of the secondary fluid at Section 1 calculated at
of specific heats. The energy balance in this section is as follows:
constant specific entropy ss .
u23 u2
3.2.1. Mixing section (1–2) h3 þ ¼ h2 þ 2 ð12Þ
2 2
Due to the lower pressure at the exit of the nozzle ðP 1 Þ, the sec-
ondary fluid enters the mixing section and is well mixed with the where h3 is the specific enthalpy of the mixture at Section 3. The
primary fluid. During this process, the secondary fluid passes continuity equation at Section 3 is given by:
through a converging cross sectional area where the mixed fluid u2
is accelerated until its pressure reaches the exit nozzle pressure
q3 ¼ q2 ð13Þ
u3
ðP1 Þ.
The momentum balance in this section is given by: where q2 and q3 are the density of the mixture at Sections 2 and 3,
X I respectively. The pressure downstream is calculated as:
 
F¼ A dP ¼ m _ s u2  m
_ pþm _ p up1  m
_ s us1 ð8Þ P3 ¼ Pðh3 ; q3 Þ. If the velocity at point 2 is subsonic, then the process
is considered as isentropic.

Nozzle Mixing Constant area section Diffuser section

section section

Shock

Primary fluid

m s

0 Secondary
fluid 1 2 3 4
p
Pressure

s
Velocity

Fig. 5. Variation of pressure and velocity though the ejector. Adapted from Ref. [41,50].
56 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62

Diffuser section (3–4)

Finally, the mixture flows through a diffuser where the entering
enthalpy and kinetic energy is transformed into a high pressure
stream with zero kinetic energy.
The isentropic enthalpy and the enthalpy at the diffuser exit are
calculated as:

u23
h4s ¼ h3 þ ð14Þ
2gd

u23
h4 ¼ h3 þ ð15Þ
2

where h4 is the specific enthalpy of the mixture at Section 4, h4s is

the specific enthalpy of the mixture at Section 4 evaluated at con-
stant specific enthalpy s3 and gd is the diffuser’s efficiency. The exit
pressure P4 and temperature T 4 are determined as:

P4 ¼ Pðh4s ; s4 ¼ s3 Þ ð16Þ Fig. 6. Validation of the ejector model with experimental data for R141b [54].

T 4 ¼ T ðh4s ; P4 Þ ð17Þ 4. Multi-objective optimisation

The aim of this paper is to show the thermodynamic feasibility

with s3 ¼ sðh3 ; q3 Þ. In this model the value of P1 is calculated itera-
tively until the exit pressure of the ejector, P4 , is maximised. A
detailed flow diagram of the model can be found in Ref. [50].
In order to implement the ejector in the proposed S-CO2 Bray-
ton cycles, the ejector model was validated. CO2 has been widely
used as working fluid in refrigeration cycles and experimental data
is available for ejector with liquid–gas mixing flow only [51–53].
The ejector model proposed by this paper requires gas–gas mixing
flow, which has no experimental data available for CO2 in the liter-
ature. Hence, the validation of the ejector model was performed
with experimental data available for R141b [54]. Due to the ther-
modynamic behaviour (dry fluid), R141b remains in the gas region
during the experimental analysis [54] and therefore the ejector
model proposed can be implemented. Table 2 shows the input
parameters used in the validation of the ejector model. The theo-
retical results showed that the performance of the ejector is sensi-
tive to changes in the mixing efficiency values as reported by
Huang et al. [54], thus the mixing efficiency was assumed to be
0.92 [50] to match the experimental data. The results showed

(Fig. 6) that the ejector model has a reasonable good agreement
with the experimental data for R141b with a relative difference
within ±15%, which is similar to the results obtained by the 1-D
ideal gas ejector model developed by Huang et al. [54]. The results
show that the simplicity of the ejector model used by this paper
leads to some discrepancies with experimental results since geo-
metrical parameters were not taken into account.
Since the ejector model showed satisfactory results, the multi-
objective analysis of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles assisted by ejector
can be performed by integrating the modelling of the S-CO2
Brayton cycle components with the ejector.
of alternative S-CO2 Brayton cycle integrated with an ejector
which could get reasonable either thermal efficiency or net work
output while reducing the high pressure at the heater. In order
to find optimum operating conditions of the S-CO2 Brayton cycles
configurations assisted by ejector, a Multi-objective optimisation
is performed. The multi-objective optimisation approach is based
on the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) pro-
posed by Deb et al. [55]. Any solution of the Pareto optimal set
may be considered as optimal, since no improvement may be
found for an objective without degrading another objective value
[56]. In order to analyse the optimal operating conditions of the
supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles assisted by ejector, two different
variable sets, each including two objectives parameters, are consid-
 
ered individually: P1in;heater ; gI and P in;heater ; W net . Where gI is the
1
cycle first law efficiency, P in;heater is the exit pressure obtained by
the ejector and W net is the net work output from the proposed
cycles. The input variable vector for this simulation was

d¼ m _ 1 ; Phigh P 3 ; P high =P2 ; Phigh =Pintercooling . Table 3 shows the
_ 2 =m
range of input values and constraints used in the optimisation
approach. In order to show the maximum achievable thermody-
namic performance of the proposed cycles, the following assump-
tions were used [5]:

Pressure losses in the pipes and heat exchanger are neglected

All components of the cycle are well insulated

Expansion and compression processes are adiabatic

The cycle operates under steady state conditions

Carbon dioxide always achieves the minimum and maximum
temperature and pressure of the cycle.

Table 2 Table 3
Input parameters used in the validation of the ejector model with R141b. Input parameters and constrains used for the multi-objective optimisation.

Parameter Value Ref. Parameters Value

P p (kPa) 400, 465, 538, 604 [54] Turbine split fraction, m _ 2 =m

_1 0.05–0.99
P s (kPa) 40, 47 ra ; P high =P 3 1.2–15.0
P 1 (kPa) Ps rb ; P high =P 2 1.2–15.0
T s (K) T sat ðP s Þ rc ; P high =P intercooling 1.2–15.0
 
T p (K) T sat P p
Constraints
gn 0.85 [41] W T1 ; W T2 ; W net , Q heater P0
gm 0.92 [50] W Compressor 60
gd 0.85 [41] gI ½0; 1
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62 57

Table 4 (Simple, RC and MC). The optimum operating conditions of the

Input parameters for multi-objective analysis. conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles configurations were obtained
Parameter Value Reference by optimising only the cycle first law efficiency (OPTg) using the
Turbine efficiency 93% [5] Sequential Least Squares Programming (SLSQP) approach [58]. In
Turbine inlet temperature, T 1 550, 650, 750, 850 °C addition, the S-CO2 Brayton cycles assisted by ejector were also
Heat exchanger effectiveness 95% compared with referenced steam Rankine cycles efficiencies (Ref)
Minimum DT pinch 5 °C proposed by Turchi et al. [42], which were used as projected cycle
Cycle high pressure, P high 25 MPa
efficiencies (0.416–0.47) for molten salt solar tower systems in the
Pressure drop in heat exchangers, DP HX 0 kPa
period of 2020–2025.
Compressor efficiency 89 % 
in;heater ; gI
Fig. 7 showed the Pareto front obtained for the pair P 1
Compressor inlet temperature 32 °C
Compressor inlet pressure P high =r b MPa
at different turbine inlet temperatures. For all configurations, the
Nozzle efficiency, gn 0.90 [50]
simulated results showed that higher exit ejector pressure
Mixture efficiency, gm 0.95
Diffuser efficiency, gd 0.90 ðP in;heater Þ can improve the cycle thermal efficiency (gI ), although
this increase is not linear due to the thermodynamic behaviour
of the ejector and the S-CO2 cycle components. In addition, Fig. 7
showed that as the ejector exit pressure approaches the cycle high
The previous assumptions consider that the proposed cycles
pressure (25 MPa), the cycle thermal efficiency of the S-CO2 config-
operate on an ideal case. Under more realistic operating conditions,
urations assisted by ejector approaches the thermal efficiency of
the thermal efficiency of the proposed cycles will be lower than the
the conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles (OPTg).
values obtained in this paper, since the performance of the cycles is
As seen in Fig. 7, at turbine inlet temperatures in the range of
adversely affected by the thermodynamic losses of the different
550–650 °C the RC-EJ configuration has higher thermal perfor-
components.
mance than the S-EJ and MC-EJ configurations, although the ther-
Table 4 shows the input parameters used in the thermal mod-
mal performance for RC-EJ and MC-EJ is similar at 650 °C for
elling of the proposed cycles. The multi-objective optimisation
cycle thermal efficiencies greater than 0.42. Whilst at turbine inlet
was performed with a population size of 100 with crossover prob-
temperatures above 750 °C, the MC-EJ configuration achieves
ability and mutation probability of 0.9 and 0.1, respectively. The
higher thermal performance than the S-EJ and RC-EJ configura-
optimisation process was carried out by using Inspyred [57] devel-
tions. This is explained by the thermodynamic performance of
oped in Python 2.7.
the ejector and the thermodynamic behaviour of the net work out-
put and heat input of the S-CO2 cycles proposed.
5. Results The thermodynamic performance of the ejector is highly
affected by the thermodynamic state of the cold stream leaving
The optimum parameters obtained for the S-CO2 Brayton cycles the thermal recuperators and the stream exiting the second tur-
assisted by ejector (S-EJ,R-EJ and MC-EJ) were compared and vali- bine (T2). Mass flow rate also plays an important role on the ther-
dated with the conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations modynamic performance of the ejector, since this parameter


in;heater ; gI for different turbine inlet temperatures (T 1 ) and S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations assisted by ejector. OPTg: Optimisation of the
Fig. 7. Pareto front of the pair P 1
cycle first law efficiency at cycle high pressure of 25 MPa. Ref: Projected steam Rankine cycle efficiencies (0.416–0.47) for molten salt solar tower systems [42].
58 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62

Fig. 8. Effect of the ejector entrainment ratio (m _  1) on the cycle thermal efficiency (gI ) for different turbine inlet temperatures (T 1 ) and S-CO2 Brayton cycle
_ 1 =m
 2
in;heater ; gI . Ref: projected steam Rankine cycle efficiencies (0.416–0.47) for molten salt solar tower systems [42].
configurations assisted by ejector. Optimised pair: P 1

affects both the entrainment ratio and the compression ratio. Fig. 8 the turbine split ratio approaches one, the entrainment ratio
shows the effect of the entrainment ratio ðm _ 2  1Þ on the ther-
_ 1 =m approaches zero and the compression ratio ðP 4 =P e Þ increases,
mal efficiency of the S-CO2 configurations assisted by ejector. As therefore higher pressure at the exit of the ejector is obtained.

Fig. 9. Effect of ejector exit pressure on the specific

 net work output and specific heat input for different turbine inlet temperatures (T 1 ) and S-CO2 Brayton cycle
in;heater ; gI .
configurations assisted by ejector. Optimised pair: P 1
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62
Fig. 10. Effect of ejector exit pressure on specific work of turbines and compressors
at
 turbine inlet temperature of 750 °C for MC-EJ configurations. Optimised pair:
in;heater ; gI .
P 1
Fig. 8 also showed that the S-EJ configuration requires higher tur-
bine split ratio (lower entrainment ratio) than RC-EJ and MC-EJ
configurations to achieve the same thermal efficiency.
Fig. 9 shows the effect of the reciprocal ejector exit pressure

P1
in;heater on the net work output and heat input of the S-CO2 Bray-
ton cycle configurations assisted by ejector at different turbine
 ratios needed to increase the ejector exit pressure and obtaining
in;heater ; gI . As seen in
inlet temperatures for the optimised pair P1
Fig. 9, an increment in the ejector exit pressure increases both
work output and heat input of the cycle. Higher ejector exit
Fig. 11. Effect of ejector exit pressure
 on the turbine pressure ratios (r p;T1 and r p;T2 ) for different turbine inlet temperatures (T 1 ) and S-CO2 Brayton cycles assisted by ejector
configurations. Optimised pair: P 1 in;heater ; gI .
59
pressures are achieved by increasing the turbine split ratio, which
is more favourable for the power generated by the turbine T1 but
affects adversely the turbine T2 (Fig. 10). Although more power
input is required by the compressors as the ejector exit pressure
increases (Fig. 9), this increase is compensated by the work gener-
ated by the turbine T1. As a result, the net work output of the
cycles is improved accordingly at higher ejector exit pressure.
Fig. 9 also shows that the RC-EJ configuration has the lowest net
power output among the three configurations studied, whilst
MC-EJ configuration has the highest net work output for all turbine
inlet temperatures. This result is explained by the turbine pressure
ratios (Fig. 11).
In general, the pressure ratio in the turbine T1 (Fig. 11)
increases as the ejector exit pressure increases. As mentioned
above, the pressure ratio of the turbine T1 increases in order to
compensate the reduction in the power generated by the turbine
T2 as a consequence of the lower turbine split ratio needed to
increase the ejector exit pressure. The RC-EJ configuration has
the lowest turbine T1 pressure ratios, hence this configuration gen-
erates lower net power output than the other configurations. In
contrast, the MC-EJ has the highest turbine T1 pressure ratios
resulting in more power generating by the turbines than the other
configurations. In addition, the MC-EJ configuration has an inter-
cooling stage, which reduces the power consumption during the
compression process and increases the net power output of the
cycle. Fig. 11 also shows that for all configurations the pressure
ratio of the turbine T2 remains almost constant up to ejector exit
pressures of 20 MPa to improve the thermal performance of the
ejector. At ejector exit pressures above 20 MPa, the pressure ratio
of the turbine T2 increases to compensate for the low entrainment
positive power output.
Regarding to the heat input, as the ejector exit ratio and the
pressure ratios of the turbine T1 increase, the temperature of the
60 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62

Table 5
_ 2 =m
Minimum ejector exit pressure (Pin;heater in MPa), turbine pressure ratios ðr T1 ; r T2 Þ and turbine split ratio ððm _ 1 ÞÞ to achieve a referenced steam Rankine cycle efficiency of 0.416
and 0.470 [42] for different S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations assisted by ejector.

T 1 (°C) gI ¼ 0:416 gI ¼ 0:470

P in;heater DP red (%) r T1 r T2 ðm _ 1Þ
_ 2 =m P in;heater DP red (%) r T1 r T2 ðm _ 1Þ
_ 2 =m

S-EJ
550 – – – – – – – –
650 23.0 8.0 3.65 1.81 0.995 – – –
750 15.5 38.0 3.15 1.24 0.485 – – –
850 11.3 54.8 3.45 1.23 0.356 22.8 8.6 6.73 1.90 0.995
RC-EJ
550 16.1 35.6 2.10 1.22 0.465 24.4 2.4 3.16 1.21 0.995
650 12.8 48.8 1.69 1.24 0.375 21.1 15.7 2.76 1.43 0.886
750 11.6 53.6 1.52 1.3 0.389 17.9 28.2 3.10 1.25 0.574
850 9.8 60.8 2.30 1.20 0.271 14.1 43.7 2.47 1.20 0.373
MC-EJ
550 22.1 11.6 5.10 1.85 0.976 – – –
650 11.5 54.0 4.48 1.22 0.342 20.9 16.4 2.75 1.40 0.873
750 7.6 69.6 3.23 1.22 0.260 12.7 49.2 4.95 1.20 0.358
850 5.7 77.2 2.46 1.21 0.220 8.6 65.5 3.71 1.25 0.305

stream exiting the turbine T1 decreases, therefore less energy is
recovered by the recuperators. As a result, the heat input required
by the cycles increases as it is shown in Fig. 9. The results showed
that the RC-EJ configuration has the lowest heat input as conse-
quence of its low turbine T1 pressure ratios as compared with
the S-EJ and MC-EJ configurations. As shown in Fig. 9, the MC-EJ
configuration has the highest heat input, which is compensated
by the highest net work output and therefore attractive thermal
efficiencies can be achieved by this configuration.
It is worth mentioning that some results, specially the
cycle parameters and pressure ratios (Figs. 9 and 11), showed
some scatter as consequences of the constraints proposed by the
multi-objective optimisation (Table 3) and the variation of the
thermodynamic properties of CO2 near its critical point. For pres-
sures below 20 MPa the transition is smooth since the operating
conditions (temperature, pressure ratios) of the proposed cycle
make CO2 behaves approximately as an ideal gas. While at pres-
sures above 20 MPa, the compression inlet conditions approaches
to the critical point of CO2 and therefore a rapid variation of the
thermodynamic properties of CO2 affects its thermodynamic per-
formance as working fluid and the optimisation process as well.
The results showed that the proposed cycles cannot achieve
higher efficiencies than the conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycle con-
figurations for the operating conditions studied in this paper
(Fig. 7). However, it is thermodynamically feasible to achieve ther-
mal efficiencies higher than the projected steam Rankine cycles


Fig. 12. Pareto front of the pair P 1
in;heater ; W net for different turbine inlet temperatures (T 1 ) and S-CO2 Brayton cycles assisted by ejector configurations. OPTg: Optimisation of
the cycle first law efficiency at cycle high pressure of 25 MPa.
 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62 61

Table 6 conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles. Table 6 shows the optimum

Optimum operating conditions of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle configurations assisted by operating conditions required by the S-CO2 Brayton cycles assisted
ejector to achieve the same net work output as the thermally optimised conventional
S-CO2 Brayton cycles.
by ejector to achieve the same net work output as the thermally
optimised conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles.
T 1 (°C) P in;heater (MPa) r T1 r T2 _ 2 =m
ðm _ 1Þ

S-EJ
550 – – – – 6. Conclusions
650 – – – –
750 21.4 12.5 2.24 0.995
A multi-objective thermodynamic optimisation of supercritical
850 19.9 11.6 2.60 0.995
CO2 Brayton cycle configurations assisted by ejector was per-
RC-EJ
formed. Three configurations were analysed: S-CO2 Simple Brayton
550 – – – –
650 – – – – cycle assisted by ejector (S-EJ), S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle
750 – – – – assisted by ejector (RC-EJ) and S-CO2 Recompression Brayton cycle
850 22.6 6.4 1.97 0.995 with main compression intercooling assisted by ejector (MC-EJ).
MC-EJ The components of the supercritical Brayton cycles and the ejector
550 – – – – were modelled and validated.
650 – – – – The S-CO2 Brayton cycles configurations assisted by ejector did
750 18.6 7.88 2.74 0.983
850 18.8 9.05 2.84 0.995
not achieve thermal efficiencies higher than the conventional
S-CO2 Brayton cycles. However, they can achieve under certain
operating conditions thermal efficiencies higher than the conven-
tional steam Rankine cycles (0.416–0.47). The MC-EJ configuration
(0.416–0.47) [42] under certain operating conditions. For the case showed the best thermodynamic performance among the configu-
of the S-EJ configuration, this cycle can achieve attractive thermal rations with ejector studied, achieving thermal efficiencies higher
efficiency and heater pressures for turbine inlet temperatures than the referenced steam Rankine cycles (projected values of
above 750 °C, while for the MC-EJ configuration the optimum oper- 0.416–0.47 in 2020–2025) at turbine inlet temperatures above
ating region is above 650 °C. For the RC-EJ cycle, this configuration 650 °C and with a heater pressure reduction by 77% at 850 °C.
showed reasonable thermal performance for all the range of tur- The RC-EJ configuration achieved similar thermal performance as
bine inlet temperatures studied. compared with the MC-EJ at temperatures below 750 °C, while
Table 5 shows the minimum ejector exit pressure, turbine pres- the S-EJ configuration achieved attractive thermal efficiencies at
sure ratios and turbine split ratio needed for each S-CO2 configura- temperatures above 750 °C. Due to the potential heater pressure
tion assisted by ejector to achieve a referenced efficiency of 0.416 reduction, the proposed cycles can be an alternative power block
and 0.470 [42]. It is noted that thermal performance of the ejector for CST systems, since could reduce the manufacturing costs of
and the configurations studied is highly dependent of the turbine the solar receiver and extended its operational life.
inlet temperature. Table 5 also shows the potential heater pressure
reduction (DP red ) for each configuration. With a thermal efficiency
of 0.416, the heater pressure can be reduced more than 50% for Acknowledgement
the RC-EJ and MC-EJ at turbine inlet temperatures above 650 °C,
and more than 38% for the S-EJ at turbine temperatures above This paper was produced with funding support from ARENA.
750 °C. At higher thermal efficiencies, the heater pressure increases ARENA was established by the Australian Government as an inde-
and therefore the reduction is decreased. For a thermal efficiency pendent agency on 1 July, 2012 to make renewable energy tech-
of 0.470 at temperatures above 750 °C, the RC-EJ and MC-EJ nologies more affordable and increase the amount of renewable
showed a heater pressure reduction greater than 28% and 49% energy used in Australia. ARENA invests in renewable energy pro-
respectively. The MC-EJ configuration showed the highest heater jects, supports research and development activities, boosts job cre-
pressure reduction for both thermal efficiencies whilst the S-EJ ation and industry development and increases knowledge about
achieved the lowest pressure reduction. This significant reduction renewable energy.
in the heater pressure is beneficial for the integration of the pro- Authors would like to thank Dr. Jin-Soo Kim for his comments
posed cycles with CST systems. The lower heater pressures reduce and suggestions during the elaboration of this manuscript.
the manufacturing costs and increase the operational service life of
the solar receiver, which compensates for the lower thermal effi-
ciencies as compared with the conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles. References
On the other hand, Fig. 12 showed the Pareto front obtained for
 [1] Wright SA, Radel RF, Fuller R. Engineering performance of supercritical CO2
the pair P 1
in;heater ; W net . The results showed that the net work out-
Brayton cycles. In: International congress on advances in nuclear power plants
2010, ICAPP 2010, vol. 1; 2010. p. 400–8. ISBN 9781617386435.
put increases monotonically with the reciprocal ejector exit pres- [2] Dostál V. A supercritical carbon dioxide cycle for next generation nuclear
sure. For all turbine inlet temperatures analysed, the RC reactors. Ph.D. thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2004.
[3] Dunham MT, Iverson BD. High-efficiency thermodynamic power cycles for
configuration has the lowest net work output, which agrees with concentrated solar power systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30
the results previously explained, whilst the MC configurations (0):758–70.
has the highest net work output. This confirms that the intercool- [4] Dyreby J, Klein S, Nellis G, Reindl D. Design considerations for supercritical
carbon dioxide Brayton cycles with recompression. J Eng Gas Turb Power
ing stage included in the MC configuration not only has a favour- 2014;136(10):101701.
able effect on the thermal efficiency but also reduce the input [5] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Neises TW, Wagner MJ. Thermodynamic study of advanced
power required by the compression and allows higher pressure supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power
systems. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135(4):041007.
ratios which has a favourable impact on the net work output of
[6] Dostál V, Hejzlar P, Driscoll MJ. High-performance supercritical carbon dioxide
the cycle. Fig. 12 also showed that, under certain operating condi- cycle for next-generation nuclear reactors. Nucl Technol 2006;154(3):265–82.
tions, it is possible to achieve higher net work output than the [7] Dostál V, Hejzlar P, Driscoll MJ. The supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle:
optimised conventional S-CO2 Brayton cycles, although due to comparison to other advanced power cycles. Nucl Technol 2006;154
(3):283–301.
the higher heat input required by the configurations assisted by [8] Iverson BD, Conboy TM, Pasch JJ, Kruizenga AM. Supercritical CO2 Brayton
ejector, it is not possible to achieve higher efficiencies than the cycles for solar-thermal energy. Appl Energy 2013;111(0):957–70.
62 R.V. Padilla et al. / Applied Energy 169 (2016) 49–62
[9] Le Roux WG, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Operating conditions of an open and
direct solar thermal Brayton cycle with optimised cavity receiver and
recuperator. Energy 2011;36:6027–36.
[10] Ho CK, Iverson BD. Review of high-temperature central receiver designs for
concentrating solar power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:835–46.
[11] Kelly BD. Advanced thermal storage for central receivers with supercritical
coolants. Tech rep. DE-FG36-08GO18149, Abengoa Solar, Inc; 2010.
[12] Neises TW, Wagner MJ, Gray AK. Structural design considerations for tubular
power tower receivers operating at 650 °C. In: ASME 2014 8th international
conference on energy sustainability collocated with the ASME 2014 12th
international conference on fuel cell science, engineering and
technology. ASME; 2014. V001T02A045.
[13] Salomé A, Chhel F, Flamant G, Ferrière A, Thiery F. Control of the flux
distribution on a solar tower receiver using an optimized aiming point
strategy: application to THEMIS solar tower. Sol Energy 2013;94:352–66.
[14] Besarati SM, Goswami DY, Stefanakos EK. Optimal heliostat aiming strategy for
uniform distribution of heat flux on the receiver of a solar power tower plant.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;84:234–43.
[15] Gibbs JP. Corrosion of various engineering alloys in supercritical carbon
dioxide. Ph.D. thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2010.
[16] Parks CJ. Corrosion of candidate high temperature alloys in supercritical
carbon dioxide. Master’s thesis. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Carleton University;
2013.
[17] Firouzdor V, Sridharan K, Cao G, Anderson M, Allen T. Corrosion of a stainless
steel and nickel-based alloys in high temperature supercritical carbon dioxide
environment. Corros Sci 2013;69:281–91.
[18] Abdulateef JM, Sopian K, Alghoul Ma, Sulaiman MY. Review on solar-driven
ejector refrigeration technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:1338–49.
[19] Yari M, Mahmoudi S. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of novel
ejector-expansion TRCC (transcritical CO2) cascade refrigeration cycles (novel
transcritical CO2 cycle). Energy 2011;36(12):6839–50.
[20] Ameri M, Behbahaninia A, Tanha A. Thermodynamic analysis of a tri-
generation system based on micro-gas turbine with a steam ejector
refrigeration system. Energy 2010;35(5):2203–9.
[21] Wang J, Zhao P, Niu X, Dai Y. Parametric analysis of a new combined cooling,
heating and power system with transcritical CO2 driven by solar energy. Appl
Energy 2012;94:58–64.
[22] Jamali A, Ahmadi P, Mohd Jaafar M. Optimization of a novel carbon dioxide
cogeneration system using artificial neural network and multi-objective
genetic algorithm. Appl Therm Eng 2014;64(1–2):293–306.
[23] Zheng B, Weng Y. A combined power and ejector refrigeration cycle for low
temperature heat sources. Sol Energy 2010;84(5):784–91.
[24] Zhang T, Mohamed S. Conceptual design and analysis of hydrocarbon-based
solar thermal power and ejector cooling systems in hot climates. J Sol Energy
Eng 2015;137(2):021001.
[25] Soroureddin A, Mehr S, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M. Thermodynamic analysis of
employing ejector and organic Rankine cycles for GT-MHR waste heat
utilization: a comparative study. Energy Convers Manage 2013;67:125–37.
[26] Wang M, Wang J, Zhao P, Dai Y. Multi-objective optimization of a combined
cooling, heating and power system driven by solar energy. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;89:289–97.
[27] Wang J, Dai Y, Zhang T, Ma S. Parametric analysis for a new combined power
and ejector-absorption refrigeration cycle. Energy 2009;34(10):1587–93.
[28] Dai Y, Wang J, Gao L. Exergy analysis, parametric analysis and optimization for
a novel combined power and ejector refrigeration cycle. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29(10):1983–90.
[29] Li X, Huang H, Zhao W. A supercritical or transcritical Rankine cycle with
ejector using low-grade heat. Energy Convers Manage 2014;78:551–8.
[30] Li X, Zhao C, Hu X. Thermodynamic analysis of organic Rankine cycle with
ejector. Energy 2012;42(1):342–9.
[31] Li X, Li X, Zhang Q. The first and second law analysis on an organic Rankine
cycle with ejector. Sol Energy 2013;93:100–8.
[32] Yuan H, Mei N, Li Y, Yang S, Hu S, Han Y. Theoretical and experimental
investigation on a liquid–gas ejector power cycle using ammonia–water. Sci
China Technol Sci 2013;56(9):2289–98.
[33] Yuan H, Mei N, Zhou P. Performance analysis of an absorption power cycle for
ocean thermal energy conversion. Energy Convers Manage 2014;87:199–207.
[34] Yoon JI, Son CH, Seol Sh, Kim HU, Ha SJ, Jung SH, et al. Performance analysis of
OTEC power cycle with a liquid–vapor ejector using R32/R152a. Heat Mass
Transf 2015:1–9.
[35] Li X, Zhang Q, Li X. A Kalina cycle with ejector. Energy 2013;54:212–9.
[36] Freedman BZ, Lior N. A novel high-temperature ejector-topping power cycle. J
Eng Gas Turb Power 1994;116(1):1–7.
[37] Stankovic B. Brayton or Brayton–Rankine combined cycle with hot-gas
recirculation and inverse mixing ejector. In: ASME turbo expo 2002: power
for land, sea, and air. ASME; 2002. p. 571–80.
[38] Stankovic B. Brayton or Brayton–Rankine combined cycle with hot-gas
recirculation and inverse mixing ejector; 2000 [WO Patent App PCT/CA2000/
000,307]. <https://wwwgooglecomau/patents/WO2000060226A1?cl=en>.
[39] Kulhánek M, Dostál V. Thermodynamic analysis and comparison of
supercritical carbon dioxide cycles. In: Proceedings of supercritical CO2
power cycle symposium; 2011.
[40] Aly NH, Karameldin A, Shamloul M. Modelling and simulation of steam jet
ejectors. Desalination 1999;123(1):1–8.
[41] Eames I, Aphornratana S, Haider H. A theoretical and experimental study of a
small-scale steam jet refrigerator. Int J Refrig 1995;18(6):378–86.
[42] Turchi C, Mehos M, Ho CK, Kolb GJ. Current and future costs for parabolic
trough and power tower systems in the US market. In: SolarPaces 2010; 2010.
[43] Padilla RV, Too YCS, Benito R, Stein W. Exergetic analysis of supercritical CO2
Brayton cycles integrated with solar central receivers. Appl Energy
2015;148:348–65.
[44] Kao SP, Gibbs J, Hejzlar P. Dynamic simulation & control of a supercritical CO2
power conversion system for small light water reactor applications. In:
Proceedings of supercritical CO2 power cycle symposium; 2009.
[45] Besarati SM, Goswami DY. Analysis of advanced supercritical carbon dioxide
power cycles with a bottoming cycle for concentrating solar power
applications. J Sol Energy Eng 2014;136(1):010904.
[46] Moran MJ, Shapiro HN. Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. 5th
ed. Wiley; 2004.
[47] Lutz M. Programming python. O’Reilly, Inc; 2006.
[48] Lemmon EW, Huber ML, McLinden MO. NIST standard reference database 23:
reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties-REFPROP, version 91.
Tech rep. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Standard Reference Data Program; 2013.
[49] Span R, Wagner W. A new equation of state for carbon dioxide covering the
fluid region from the triple-point temperature to 1100 K at pressures up to 800
MPa. J Phys Chem Ref Data 1996;25(6):1509–96.
[50] El-Dessouky H, Ettouney H, Alatiqi I, Al-Nuwaibit G. Evaluation of steam jet
ejectors. Chem Eng Process: Process Intensification 2002;41(6):551–61.
[51] Liu F, Groll EA. Analysis of a two phase flow ejector for transcritical CO2 cycle.
In: International refrigeration and air conditioning conference paper 924;
2008.
[52] Nakagawa M, Marasigan A, Matsukawa T, Kurashina A. Experimental
investigation on the effect of mixing length on the performance of two-
phase ejector for CO2 refrigeration cycle with and without heat exchanger. Int J
Refrig 2011;34(7):1604–13.
[53] Guangming C, Xiaoxiao X, Shuang L, Lixia L, Liming T. An experimental and
theoretical study of a CO2 ejector. Int J Refrig 2010;33(5):915–21.
[54] Huang B, Chang J, Wang C, Petrenko V. A 1-D analysis of ejector performance.
Int J Refrig 1999;22(5):354–64.
[55] Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6(2):182–97.
[56] Coello Coello C, Dhaenens C, Jourdan L, et al. Advances in multi-objective
nature inspired computing, vol. 272. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2010.
[57] Garrett A. Inspyred (Version 10) [software] inspired intelligence initiative;
2012. <http://inspyredgithubcom>.
[58] Kraft D. A software package for sequential quadratic programming. Tech rep.
Koln, Germany: DLR German Aerospace Center Institute for Flight Mechanics;
1988.