Magnetic refrigeration is an emerging, environment-friendly technology based on a magnetic solid that acts as a refrigerant by magnetocaloric effect. The reference cycle for magnetic refrigeration is AMR (Active Magnetic Regenerative refrigeration). In this paper, attention is directed towards the near-room-temperature range. We compare the energetic performance of a commercial R134a refrigeration plant to that of a magnetic refrigerator working with an AMR cycle. The comparison is carried out by means of a mathematical model. In these simulations, we consider different solid magnetic refrigerants, namely, Gd, Gd0.95Dy0.05, Gd0.9Tb0.1,Gd5Si2Ge2, MnAs0.9Sb0.1, and MnAs0.95Sb0.05. We compared two different geometries of the regenerator: a porous medium and a flat plate. In the former, the Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the AMR cycle is better than that of the vapour compression plant only in the low mass flow-rate range. Whereas in a flat plate regenerator, the COP of the AMR cycle is better than that of the vapour compression plant only in the high mass flow-rate range.
Magnetic refrigeration: a promising new technology for energy saving / C., Aprea; Greco, Adriana; A., Maiorino. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY. - ISSN 0143-0750. - (2016). [10.1080/01430750.2014.962088]
Magnetic refrigeration: a promising new technology for energy saving
GRECO, ADRIANA;
2016
Abstract
Magnetic refrigeration is an emerging, environment-friendly technology based on a magnetic solid that acts as a refrigerant by magnetocaloric effect. The reference cycle for magnetic refrigeration is AMR (Active Magnetic Regenerative refrigeration). In this paper, attention is directed towards the near-room-temperature range. We compare the energetic performance of a commercial R134a refrigeration plant to that of a magnetic refrigerator working with an AMR cycle. The comparison is carried out by means of a mathematical model. In these simulations, we consider different solid magnetic refrigerants, namely, Gd, Gd0.95Dy0.05, Gd0.9Tb0.1,Gd5Si2Ge2, MnAs0.9Sb0.1, and MnAs0.95Sb0.05. We compared two different geometries of the regenerator: a porous medium and a flat plate. In the former, the Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the AMR cycle is better than that of the vapour compression plant only in the low mass flow-rate range. Whereas in a flat plate regenerator, the COP of the AMR cycle is better than that of the vapour compression plant only in the high mass flow-rate range.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
