Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Application and comparison of KC for WHR in different scenarios.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

The general flowchart of research methodology.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

System schematic diagrams for WHR in cement industry: (a) S-KC, (b) P-KC and (c) DL-KC.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Energy availability data for WHR in cement production.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Working conditions for the designed KCs.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Correlation coefficient of the component cost evaluation [49].

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 3.

Life-cycle boundary of the thermodynamic cycle.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 5.

Environment impact type, equivalency coefficient, standardization benchmark and weighting coefficient [3].

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Pollutant exhaust of the per kg of steel manufacture, per kWh of power production and per tn·km of lorry transportation [52].

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 4.

Performance variations of S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC with P1: (a) Wnet, (b) EPC and (c) EIL.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Performance variations of S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC with Tcon: (a) Wnet, (b) EPC and (c) EIL.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Performance variations of S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC with ΔTeva: (a) Wnet, (b) EPC and (c) EIL.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Performance variations of S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC with ΔTsup: (a) Wnet, (b) EPC and (c) EIL.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Performance variations of S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC with ΔTreg: (a) Wnet, (b) EPC and (c) EIL.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Performance variations of S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC with x: (a) Wnet, (b) EPC and (c) EIL.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

The thermodynamic cycle’s Pareto frontier under TEOD scenario: (a) S-KC, (b) P-KC and (c) DL-KC.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

The thermodynamic cycle’s 3-D series of Pareto frontier under TEEOD scenario: (a) S-KC, (b) P-KC and (c) DL-KC.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 7.

Optimization results for S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC under TOD scenario.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Optimization results for S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC under TEOD scenario.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Optimization results for S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC under TEEOD scenario.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Fig 12.

The Wnet,EPC and EIL comparisons of S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC under three scenarios: (a) TOD, (b) TEOD.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Analysis of ExD,EPC and EIL of each component for S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC under TOD scenario.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Analysis of ExD,EPC and EIL of each component for S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC under TEOD scenario.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Analysis of ExD,EPC and EIL of each component for S-KC, P-KC and DL-KC under TEEOD scenario.

More »

Fig 15 Expand