## 3 Result and Discussion
### Parametric Study
#### 3.2.1 Effects of the Component Performance  
In this section the dependency of the examined parameters is investigated on each turbomachinery efficiency as the remaining parameters are retained the identical values as in Table 2 and for the real condition in Table 3. Since the effects of turbomachinery efficiency shares similar behavior, only the results from the examination of C1 and T1 efficiencies are illustrated in Figure 3 for simplicity and clarity. As seen in Figure 3a,c, an increase of C1 efficiency and T1 efficiency both lead to the decreasing \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,C1}}\) and \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,tot}}\), and the increasing \(\varepsilon_{tot}\). The increase in \(\varepsilon_{tot}\) can be ascribed to a smaller power depletion coming from larger compressor efficiency and a higher power production because of larger turbine efficiency, respectively. A change of 0.01 in \(\eta_{CI}\) alters \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,C1}}\) and \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,tot}}\) by 37.58 kW and 38.30 kW, respectively, while the change of \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,T1}}\) and \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,tot}}\) are separately 25.98 kW and 43.00 kW with the same change in \(\eta_{TI}\). It is found that although the variation of the turbine exergy destruction is smaller than that in compressor, the turbine efficiency makes a higher influence on system exergy destruction. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Priority** & **Conventional**\(\left(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}\right)\) & **Advanced**\(\left(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{AV}}\right)\) \\ \hline
1 & CS & CS \\
2 & C1 & C1 \\
3 & HE3 & C2 \\
4 & C2 & T2 \\
5 & T2 & T1 \\
6 & T1 & HE2 \\
7 & HE2 & TV1 \\
8 & TV2 & HE3 \\
9 & HE1 & HE1 \\
10 & TV1 & HE4 \\
11 & HE4 & TV2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Improvement priority of components. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}\) & & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}\) & & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}\) & & \\ \cline{2-9}  & & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{EN}}\) & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{EX}}\) & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{AV}}\) & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{UN}}\) & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{AV}}\) & & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{UN}}\) & \\ \cline{2-9}  & & & & & & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{AV,EN}}\) & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{AV,EX}}\) & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{UN,EN}}\) & \(\dot{E}_{\text{D,}k}^{\text{UN,EX}}\) \\ \hline C1 & 238.43 & 234.8 & 3.63 & 164.69 & 73.73 & 177.01 & \(-12.32\) & 57.79 & 15.95 \\ C2 & 207.81 & 207.81 & 0 & 142.70 & 65.11 & 160.38 & \(-17.68\) & 47.43 & 17.68 \\ T1 & 181.39 & 185.21 & \(-3.82\) & 124.95 & 56.44 & 132.00 & \(-7.05\) & 53.21 & 3.23 \\ T2 & 190.66 & 196.32 & \(-5.66\) & 134.97 & 55.69 & 139.85 & \(-4.89\) & 56.47 & \(-0.78\) \\ HE1 & 49.51 & 46.33 & 3.18 & 6.71 & 42.80 & 6.61 & 0.10 & 39.71 & 3.08 \\ HE2 & 168.55 & 168.55 & 0 & 49.95 & 118.60 & 68.61 & \(-18.66\) & 99.94 & 18.66 \\ HE3 & 235.76 & 242.72 & \(-6.96\) & 8.85 & 226.91 & 43.59 & \(-34.74\) & 199.13 & 27.78 \\ HE4 & 19.01 & 12.91 & 6.1 & 4.85 & 14.17 & \(-17.81\) & 22.66 & 30.72 & \(-16.55\) \\ CS & 427.76 & 362.32 & 65.44 & 300.21 & 127.55 & 231.26 & 68.95 & 131.06 & \(-3.51\) \\ TV1 & 24.66 & 24.66 & 0 & 11.69 & 12.97 & 11.69 & 0.00 & 12.97 & 0.00 \\ TV2 & 100.18 & 100.18 & 0 & 0.00 & 100.18 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 100.18 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Advanced exergy analysis results (kW). This can be explained that the CCHP system based on TC-CCES is a closed loop thermodynamic cycle, and thus the outlet thermodynamic state from turbine will influence the power consumed in compressor. More detailed and fascinating features are identified in Figure 3b,d, which indicates that the increase in turbomachinery efficiency causes a relatively large decline in the endogenous part, avoidable part, and avoidable endogenous part of exergy destruction. Moreover, the avoidable exogenous part keeps almost the same constant versus efficiency.