## 1 Introduction
New fluids with almost zero ozone depletion potential and global warming have begun to be used in these systems as compared with the conventional refrigerants and working fluids that have been used today. Thus, the HFO (hydrofluoroolefin) group refrigerants are currently used as part of fluorinated refrigerants and are substitutes for CFCs. PFCs (perfluorocarbons) are also used to avoid destroying the ozone layer. In this paper, refrigerants from the alkane group were chosen because of their critical favorable conditions at high temperatures [26], in addition to being environmentally friendly, as are siloxanes. HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) were not considered because of their environmental effects under the Montreal Protocol [27]. HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) were also excluded under the Kyoto Protocol [28]. The problems produced by the consumption of fossil fuels have led to the search for alternatives, one example being ORC, which is a recommended option for obtaining electricity using low-quality waste heat [29; 30]. A rise in the fuel market and the policy of reducing carbon dioxide emissions have created a massive interest in increasing the thermal efficiency of engines, surpassing techniques already in use. The conversion of waste heat from engines has been considered to be an alternative method for generating energy according to the need that is required [31]. The economic profitability of ORC systems as waste heat recovery systems at a medium quality temperature depends very much on the operating parameters, the configuration of the cycle, and the organic fluid that it is going to be used. Therefore, there have been analyses conducted on new methods to improve the selection of these variables. For example, [PERSON] et al. [32] proposed a thermodynamic optimization of the system configuration with the primary variable being the design parameters, and analyzed all the possible adjustments and design recommendations according to the objective function and values it offered economic modeling as compared with real costs, and considerations of the behavior of this configuration without the design parameters. [PERSON] et al. [33] suggested a simplified methodology for selection according to thermal-economic assessment and a comparative diagram based on working fluids for the power generation cycle. Additionally, [PERSON] et al. [21] presented a summary of the problems associated with the modeling of ORC, and provided some strategies to advance an efficient and great simulation tool. [PERSON] et al. [34] showed a thermoeconomic optimization of simple ORC and recuperative ORC for WHR applications, resulting in a 1.01% average increase in thermal efficiency from a simple ORC to a one-stage recuperative ORC, representing an extra expense of $187/kW, whereas, from a simple ORC to a dual-stage recuperative ORC, there was a 1.45% extra increase in thermal efficiency, and an extra expense of 297 $/kW in cost. Alternatively, [PERSON] et al. [35] conducted a study, using a combination of conventional and advancedergetic analysis, on a supercritical CO\({}_{2}\) recompression cycle to establish the potential for improving the performance of the thermal cycle, in which the maximum optimal potential of the system was 106.85 MW, the overall energetic efficiency reached 17.13%, and about 35% of exergy destruction could be avoided by focusing on components such as the turbine, the heat exchanger, and the main compressor. In search of improvement potentials in the applications of turbocharged combustion engines, a conventionalergetic study gave the expander and evaporator priority improvement potential, while an advanced exergetic analysis indicated that the pump and expander were a priority, and the destruction of the exergetic cycle could be reduced by 36.5% [36].