4.7 Article

Exergoeconomic assessment of the ejector-based battery thermal management system for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles

期刊

ENERGY
卷 245, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123252

关键词

Thermal management; Electric vehicles; Economics; Battery; Exergy

资金

  1. King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM) [DUP20101]
  2. King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper compares the performance of an ejector-based battery thermal management system (BTMS) to a basic system from thermal and exergoeconomic perspectives. The results show that the ejector-based system has a lower total cost rate and energy consumption, demonstrating its technical and economic feasibility for thermal management in electric and hybrid electric vehicles.
The battery is a critical component for operating electric and hybrid electric vehicles where temperature control is vital for safe and efficient operation. In this paper, the ejector-based battery thermal management system (BTMS) performance is compared to the basic BTMS from thermal and exergoeconomic perspectives. The ejector is added to mix the refrigerant streams from the cabin evaporator and battery chiller, thus delivering the mixture to the compressor with higher pressure to reduce compression power and improve system performance. The exergoeconomic study is carried out for different evaporator, chiller, and condenser temperatures and different battery thermal loads to illustrate the ejector-based system's technical and economic feasibility. Results show an optimal (minimal) total system cost rate of 0.9092 US$/h for the ejector-based system, compared to 1.0222 US$/h for the basic system (11.1% reduction). Based on the applied conditions, the total exergy destruction is found to be 1.596 kW for the ejector-based BTMS and 2.243 kW for the basic BTMS, representing a 28.8% reduction compared to the basic system.(c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据