4.7 Article

Thermal resistance capacity model for transient simulation of Earth-Air Heat Exchangers

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 167, 期 -, 页码 558-567

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.114

关键词

Earth to air heat exchanger; Hybrid model; Thermal resistance capacity circuit; Transient model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new hybrid model for transient heat transfer in Earth-Air Heat Exchangers (EAHE) based on thermal resistance capacity circuit is developed in this study, taking into account the thermal capacity of the soil around the pipe in the simulation. The results of the model show acceptable agreement with experimental and numerical ones, indicating the reliability of the model.
In the present paper, a new hybrid model for transient heat transfer in Earth-Air Heat Exchangers (EAHE) based on thermal resistance capacity circuit is developed. To evaluate the performance of the EAHE, part of the solution field (soil around the pipe) is analytically solved. To assess the heat transfer in pipe and within the fluid inside the pipe, the solution field is divided into different layers. Using a capacity resistance network, the governing equations in the form of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE) are derived and then coupled with analytical portion are solved by numerical discretization. In the current model, the effect of the thermal capacity of the soil around the pipe is taken into account in the simulation. Thus, using the proposed model, the thermal saturation of the soil is captured. Moreover, the effect of the variation of ambient temperature is considered on the heat exchanger performance. Ultimately, the results of the presented model are compared with experimental and numerical ones, and acceptable agreement is observed. Using the model, then, the effect of buried depth, fluid velocity, and the operation strategies of the system (continuous or intermittent) is investigated on the performance of the EAHEs. (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