Abstract In this study, three different equations of state (EoS) for the ammonia/water mixture are compared with experimental data in order to find the EoS which best reproduces the measured data in the temperature range − 30 ° C ≤ ϑ ≤ 200 ° C and pressure range 1 bar ≤ p ≤ 30 bar for absorption systems; the deviations among each other are to be pointed out. It is shown that the EoS of Tillner-Roth and Friend [1] shows the best match with the measured data in the considered temperature and pressure range. The EoS of Ibrahim and Klein [2], however, has the highest overall deviation to the investigated data. Subsequently, the absorber and desorber are assessed for an operating point obtained from Mirl and Spindler [3] by using the different EoS to identify their influence on the component assessment. It is shown that the degassing range resulting from the measured density varies in this example by up to 4.5% only due to the EoS used. Thereafter, a single-stage model for absorption chillers is created using the two most frequently used EoS. It can be stated that the calculated efficiency (COP) of the absorption chiller deviates up to ΔCOP = 0.011 only because of the chosen EoS. Furthermore, due to the lower calculated excess enthalpy by the EoS of [2], the calculated COP will always be higher than that for a process simulation using the more accurate EoS of [1].

中文翻译：

---

吸收系统工况下氨水状态方程比较

摘要 在本研究中，将氨/水混合物的三种不同状态方程 (EoS) 与实验数据进行比较，以找到在 - 30 ° C ≤ ϑ ≤ 200 ° C 温度范围内最能再现测量数据的 EoS吸收系统的压力范围为 1 bar ≤ p ≤ 30 bar；应指出彼此之间的偏差。结果表明，在所考虑的温度和压力范围内，Tillner-Roth 和 Friend [1] 的 EoS 显示出与测量数据的最佳匹配。然而，易卜拉欣和克莱因 [2] 的 EoS 与调查数据的总体偏差最高。随后，通过使用不同的 EoS 来确定吸收器和解吸器对从 Mirl 和 Spindler [3] 获得的工作点的评估，以确定它们对组件评估的影响。结果表明，仅由于使用了 EoS，本示例中测量密度导致的脱气范围变化高达 4.5%。此后，使用两种最常用的 EoS 创建吸收式制冷机的单级模型。可以说，吸收式制冷机的计算效率 (COP) 偏差高达 ΔCOP = 0.011，仅因为选择了 EoS。此外，由于 [2] 的 EoS 计算出的过量焓较低，计算的 COP 将始终高于使用 [1] 中更准确的 EoS 的过程模拟的 COP。可以说，吸收式制冷机的计算效率 (COP) 偏差高达 ΔCOP = 0.011，仅因为选择了 EoS。此外，由于 [2] 的 EoS 计算出的过量焓较低，计算的 COP 将始终高于使用 [1] 中更准确的 EoS 的过程模拟的 COP。可以说，吸收式制冷机的计算效率 (COP) 偏差高达 ΔCOP = 0.011，仅因为选择了 EoS。此外，由于 [2] 的 EoS 计算出的过量焓较低，计算的 COP 将始终高于使用 [1] 中更准确的 EoS 的过程模拟的 COP。