4.7 Article

Accounting for pipeline thermal capacity in district heating simulations

期刊

ENERGY
卷 219, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119663

关键词

Network modelling; Thermal behavior; Heat capacity; Equivalent model; Thermal delay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper studies the impact of heat capacities on the thermal response of systems, presenting and comparing four different models. It concludes that the equivalent one-equation model is capable of producing accurate solutions in significantly reduced computational time. When applied to the Turin district heating network, this simplified model shows great potential for efficient and accurate results.
The transition towards 4th generation systems is making district heating increasingly efficient and complex: a broad variety of novelties are being introduced, like the ever-growing integration of renewable sources, the use of lower operating temperatures, the interaction with other energy grids. These new elements are challenging the features of existing numerical models, which may be better analyzed and revisited taking into account the even more important role assumed by thermal transients. In this framework, the aim of this paper is to study the effect of the heat capacities of the steel pipe and of the insulation layer on the thermal response of the systems. Four different approaches are presented and compared: a one-equation model, a two-equations model, a three-equation model, and an equivalent one-equation model. These approaches are tested over a pure advection problem in a long pipe. The performances of each model are evaluated both in terms of accuracy and computational effort. Then, an application to the Turin district heating network, is discussed. Results show that the equivalent one-equation model is capable to produce accurate solutions with impressive computational time reductions (more than 96%) with respect to the more detailed methods. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据