Solidification Enhancement in a Multi-Tube Latent Heat Storage System for Efficient and Economical Production: Effect of Number, Position and Temperature of the Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal energy storage is an important component in energy units to decrease the gap between energy supply and demand. Free convection and the locations of the tubes carrying the heat-transfer fluid (HTF) have a significant influence on both the energy discharging potential and the buoyancy effect during the solidification mode. In the present study, the impact of the tube position was examined during the discharging process. Liquid-fraction evolution and energy removal rate with thermo-fluid contour profiles were used to examine the performance of the unit. Heat exchanger tubes are proposed with different numbers and positions in the unit for various cases including uniform and non-uniform tubes distribution. The results show that moving the HTF tubes to medium positions along the vertical direction is relatively better for enhancing the solidification of PCM with multiple HTF tubes. Repositioning of the HTF tubes on the left side of the unit can slightly improve the heat removal rate by about 0.2 in the case of p5-u-1 and decreases by 1.6% in the case of p5-u-2. It was found also that increasing the distance between the tubes in the vertical direction has a detrimental effect on the PCM solidification mode. Replacing the HTF tubes on the left side of the unit negatively reduces the heat removal rate by about 1.2 and 4.4%, respectively. Further, decreasing the HTF temperature from 15 °C to 10 and 5 °C can increase the heat removal rate by around 7 and 16%, respectively. This paper indicates that the specific concern to the HTF tube arrangement should be made to improve the discharging process attending free convection impact in phase change heat storage.
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".