4.7 Article

How to choose a model to address practical issues encountered during food transport in an insulated box equipped with phase change material

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.122085

关键词

Insulated box; Phase change material; Modelling; Heat transfer; Airflow; Temperature prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the capabilities and limitations of three validated models (lumped, zonal, and CFD) in solving technical issues related to food transport in an insulated box with a PCM. The lumped model is suitable for investigating the effect of box design and operating conditions where temperature heterogeneity is not the main concern. The zonal model depicts spatial temperature variations but requires certain assumptions specific to the product arrangement and PCM location. The CFD model provides the most detailed information on physical phenomena and temperature variations but has a high computational cost.
This article discusses the capabilities and the limitations of three validated models: lumped, zonal and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to solve several technical issues related to food transport in an insulated box with a Phase Change Material (PCM). The lumped model predicts the average temperature evolution and is suitable for investigating the effect of box design and operating conditions where the temperature heterogeneity is not the main concern. The zonal model depicts spatial temperature variations but requires some assumptions regarding airflow and heat transfer which are specific for a given product arrangement and PCM location. The CFD model gives the most extensive information on physical phenomena and temperature variations but involves a high computational cost that is inevitable. This study shows the possibility of combining these models with a quality model. Finally, the abilities/limitations of each model to solve certain practical issues are discussed.

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