Transient Performance of Fixed-Bed Regenerators for Energy Recovery in Building Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A small-scale test facility is developed to determine the sensible effectiveness of a Fixed-Bed Regenerator (FBR) and the results are used to validate a numerical model. The numerical and experimental results for quasi-steady-state conditions are in a good agreement within the experimental uncertainty bounds. At quasi-steady-state condition, the outlet temperature of FBR varies with time but cyclically repeats itself; this is an important difference between FBR (regenerator) and recuperator heat exchangers. The outlet temperature of recuperator heat exchangers reaches a constant value during the steady-state operation. The quasi-steady-state temperature profile is used to determine the sensible effectiveness of FBRs. However, FBRs undergo several cycles to reach the quasi-steady-state condition. The prediction of the duration of the transient duration of FBR is important for performance testing that could save money and time. CSA (Canadian Standards Association) recommends operating FBR for at least one hour to achieve a quasi-steady-state condition. This paper addresses the heat transfer behavior of FBRs during their transient operation. The initial transient cycles depend on the cycle period of FBR, air flow rate and the thermal condition of the exchanger at the beginning of the test. The small-scale FBR test facility is used to study the transient behavior of FBRs and this is the main focus of this paper. The temperature profile during the transient condition of FBR is obtained and the results are compared with the numerical model. The effects of the mass flow rate of air and the cycle duration on the transient period of FBR are studied. The results show that FBR reaches a quasi-steady state operation in less than 30 minutes. The results will be useful for understanding the time required for performance testing, which will reduce the cost and time of each test.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".