A performance and technoeconomic study of different geometrical designs of compact single-pass cross-matrix solar air collector with square-tube absorbers

This manuscript presents a performance study on a forced convection single-pass solar air heater channel with compact cross-matrix absorber (CMA) incorporating metal hollow square-tube absorbers. Four different geometries of CMA (Type I, II, III and IV) were investigated experimentally to evaluate t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: A. A., Razak, Zafri Azran, Abdul Majid, F., Basrawi, A. F., Sharol, M. H., Ruslan, K., Sopian
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier Ltd 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:http://umpir.ump.edu.my/id/eprint/24537/1/A%20performance%20and%20technoeconomic%20study1.pdf
http://umpir.ump.edu.my/id/eprint/24537/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.010
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This manuscript presents a performance study on a forced convection single-pass solar air heater channel with compact cross-matrix absorber (CMA) incorporating metal hollow square-tube absorbers. Four different geometries of CMA (Type I, II, III and IV) were investigated experimentally to evaluate their efficiency, pressure drops and heat transfer parameters. The experiments were conducted with uniform heat flux (indoor) and outdoor solar radiation as heat source. The air mass flow rates used were between 0.0142 kg/s and 0.0360 kg/s. Techno-economic feasibility studies were conducted using cost-benefit ratio (AC/AEG) method. Thermal efficiency of the CMA obtained by Type I with 76%, being the highest. CMA Type I also exhibited the highest temperature elevation than other configurations with 15.3 °C and thermal capacity of 38.7 kJ. Maximum pressure drop obtained was 1.33 Pa in turbulent condition with Reynolds number of 50,794. Type I has the advantage of high performance CMA and has comparatively lower cost-benefit ratio (AC/AEG) of 0.15 RM/kWh than other type of thermal absorbers.