Thermally activated wall system with latent heat thermal energy storage – comparison of 1D and 3D model

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216305%3A26210%2F17%3APU126233" target="_blank" >RIV/00216305:26210/17:PU126233 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2017.026" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2017.026</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2017.026" target="_blank" >10.26868/25222708.2017.026</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Thermally activated wall system with latent heat thermal energy storage – comparison of 1D and 3D model

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The paper deals with a comparison of the 1D and 3D model of a thermally activated wall panel with a phase change material. The 3D model was created in the off-the-shelf simulation tool COMSOL and the 1D model was an in-house developed TRNSYS type. The main advantage of the 1D model is the short computation time. It, however, comes at the expense of lower accuracy and less detailed results. In most building performance simulations, the detailed knowledge of the temperature distribution over the surface of a wall is not important. For this reason, the results of both models were compared in terms of the average surface temperature of the wall panels, the outlet water temperature and the overall heating and cooling capacity of the panels. The two models provided very similar results for the mass flow rates of water from about 0.001 kg/s but the discrepancies increased with the decreasing mass flow rate.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Thermally activated wall system with latent heat thermal energy storage – comparison of 1D and 3D model

Popis výsledku anglicky

The paper deals with a comparison of the 1D and 3D model of a thermally activated wall panel with a phase change material. The 3D model was created in the off-the-shelf simulation tool COMSOL and the 1D model was an in-house developed TRNSYS type. The main advantage of the 1D model is the short computation time. It, however, comes at the expense of lower accuracy and less detailed results. In most building performance simulations, the detailed knowledge of the temperature distribution over the surface of a wall is not important. For this reason, the results of both models were compared in terms of the average surface temperature of the wall panels, the outlet water temperature and the overall heating and cooling capacity of the panels. The two models provided very similar results for the mass flow rates of water from about 0.001 kg/s but the discrepancies increased with the decreasing mass flow rate.

Druh

D - Stať ve sborníku

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

20101 - Civil engineering

Projekt

Výsledek vznikl pri realizaci vícero projektů. Více informací v záložce Projekty.

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název statě ve sborníku

Building Simulation 2017

ISBN

9781775052005

ISSN

—

e-ISSN

—

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

46-51

Název nakladatele

Neuveden

Místo vydání

San Francisco, USA

Místo konání akce

San Francisco

Datum konání akce

7. 8. 2017

Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti

WRD - Celosvětová akce

Kód UT WoS článku

—