4.7 Article

Numerical modelling of water sorption isotherms of zeolite 13XBF based on sparse experimental data sets for heat storage applications

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 392-402

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.033

关键词

Water/zeolite adsorption; Equilibrium characterization; Thermal energy storage; Sparse experimental data

资金

  1. project SHINE - European Union [317085]
  2. project EnErChem (Entwicklung mid Er- probung eines chemisch-sorptiven Langzeitwarmespeichers fur die Gebaudebeheizung [FKZ03ESP402]
  3. German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzes the possibility of determining the parameters of an adsorption equilibrium model based on a reduced number of isotherms for the working pair water/zeolite 13X. The employed models rely on the Dubinin-Polanyi theory of micropore adsorption. The reliability of the adsorption equilibrium model based on sparse data is evaluated in terms of the error in the adsorption equilibrium and in terms of the error in loading lift and heat storage density for an adsorption cycle typical for heat storage applications. It is found that as little as three measured adsorption isotherms are sufficient to yield a description of the adsorption equilibrium of zeolite 13X in a wide pressure and temperature range, if the following criteria are obeyed: (i) the measured isotherms should cover the entire range of the characteristic curve and (ii) it is recommended to include isotherms at temperatures close to the working cycle limits. Based on these considerations, temperature ranges for the experimental determination of a reduced set of adsorption isotherms are recommended that yield a reliable description of the adsorption equilibrium in a wide pressure and temperature range. Thereby it is demonstrated that the experimental effort can be reduced significantly while maintaining the predictive capability of the theoretical model.

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