Optimal orientation of phase change material energy storage systems for different performance indicators and charging levels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper establishes the contradictory relationship between the storage orientation and both the charging levels and the performance indicators of single-stage latent heat thermal energy storage systems (LHTESS). The performance indicators (cycle charging capacity, charging time, charging rate, and average effectiveness) at seven inclination angles (0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90°) and six charging levels (0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 0.98, 0.99, and 1.0) are obtained. A three-dimensional transient simulation model based on the enthalpy porosity technique is developed to evaluate the LHTESS performance. The results showed that the best inclination angle for the single-stage LHTESS is strongly related to the charging level and the considered performance indicator. The charging time and charging rate are more sensitive to the orientation and charging level than the effectiveness or cyclic charging capacity. Conversely, the maximum cycle charging capacity is independent of the charging level, as it always occurs with the horizontal LHTESS. At the complete charging level, the lowest charging time, the highest charging rate, and average effectiveness happen at an inclination angle of 60°. In contrast, the highest charging rate occurs at inclination angles of 15, 30, 45, and 60° at charging levels of 0.50, 0.70–0.90, 0.98–0.99, and 1.0, respectively. Also, the highest average effectiveness occurs for the horizontal LHTESS at liquid fractions of 0.50 and 0.70, 30° for a liquid fraction of 0.90, and 45° for liquid fractions of 0.98 and 0.99.
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.
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 it