Performance of Variable Flow Rates for Photovoltaic-Thermal Collectors and the Determination of Optimal Flow Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quasi-steady state model has been developed to asses of the potential of variable flow strategies to improve the overall thermal efficiency of Photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) collectors. An adaption of the Duffie-Beckman method is used to simulate the PVT, in which the overall loss coefficient and heat removal factor are updated at each timestep in response to changes in flow rate and ambient conditions. A novel calculation engine was also developed to simulate a building heating loop connected to the solar loop via a counterflow heat exchanger that calculates the steady-state conditions for the system at each timestep. The results from PVT simulation are in good agreement with test data obtained from the solar simulator –environmental chamber facility at Concordia University. Further validation for the overall system was carried out via a parallel simulation run in TRNSYS and the model-predicted annual solar heat gains were within 3.6%. The results of the investigation show that a variable flow rate strategy has significant potential to improve thermal efficiency. This benefit was found to be dependent on ambient and process loop conditions, and most effective for systems with greater difference between heating process supply and return temperatures. Keywords: Photovoltaic-thermal; Solar Thermal; Flow Rate Optimization; variable flow
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".