MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140398736 · doi:10.1115/1.4003040

Exergy Analysis and Sustainability Assessment of a Solar-Ground Based Heat Pump With Thermal Energy Storage

2011· article· en· W2140398736 on OpenAlexaff
Hakan Çalışkan, Arif Hepbaşlı, İbrahim Dinçer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solar Energy Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Change Materials Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExergyExergy efficiencyThermal energy storageEnvironmental scienceEnergy storageNuclear engineeringProcess engineeringThermodynamicsEngineeringPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, both energy and exergy analyses and sustainability assessment of a thermal energy storage system with a solar-ground coupled heat pump installed in a 120 m2 house are performed. The actual operating data taken from the literature are utilized for model validation. The system considered here mainly consists of a solar collection system, an underground thermal storage system, an indoor air conditioning system, and a data collection system. First, energy analysis is employed to the system and its components, and the rates of energy input (solar radiation), energy storage, collector heat loss, and other heat loss are found to be 4.083 kW, 1.753 kW, 1.29 kW, and 1.04 kW for a 5 h working time, respectively, while the energy efficiency of the system is calculated to be 42.94%. Exergy analysis of the entire system is then conducted for various reference temperatures varying from 0°C to 25°C with a temperature interval of 5°C. As a result of this analysis, the rates of the maximum exergy input, exergy storage, and exergy losses are determined for a reference temperature of 0°C to be 0.585 kW, 0.24 kW, and 0.345 kW, respectively. Finally, the maximum exergy efficiency of the system is obtained to be 40.99% and the maximum sustainable development using sustainability index, which is a function of exergy efficiency, is calculated to be 1.6946 for a reference temperature of 0°C. Furthermore, the energy and exergy results are illustrated through Sankey (energy flow) and Grassmann (exergy loss and flow) diagrams.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solar Energy EngineeringSame topicPhase Change Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207