Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

1 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America

Modeling Magnetic Refrigeration


Dr. Steven Jacobs (primary author) s.jacobs@astronautics.com
Dr. Carl Zimm (presenter) c.zimm@astronautics.com
Astronautics Corporation of America
Madison and Milwaukee, WI USA
Delft Days on Magnetocalorics, Oct 30-31, 2008
machines, materials, modeling
2 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
DRIVE MOTOR
MAGNET
VALVE
ASSEMBLY
Rotary Magnet Magnetic Refrigerator (BB2)
TORQUEMETER
BED ASSEMBLY
3 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Modeling the Magnetic Refrigeration System
1
x
Cold
Reservoir
Hot Reservoir
Porous bed of
MCM
Fluid flow
x = 0 x = L
( )
t
B
B
S
T T T ha
x
T
k
x t
T
C
b b b f
b
b
b
b b

) 1 ( ) 1 (
( ) F
x
T
C
A
T T ha
x
T
k
x t
T
C
f
f
f
f b
f
f
f
f f
+

Rate of change of
internal energy
Energy transport via
conduction
Energy exchange
between fluid and
solid
Magnetic work done on
MCM
Energy transport via flow
Energy generation from
viscous dissipation
1
Engelbrecht 2008 Ph.D. Thesis, UW ME Dept.
4 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Solving The MR Thermal Profile Equations
ACA developed new and extremely efficient method for solving
the thermal profile equations
Easily handles layered beds with discontinuous properties
Exploits smoothness of temperature profiles within layer by
using high-order, rapidly converging techniques
On the order of 100 times faster than other published methods
In some cases (low flow rate, small span) ~ 500 x faster
Evaluation of refrigerator performance fast enough that:
Equation solver can be coupled to numerical optimization software
to perform automated optimal design of refrigeration system
Large scale parameter studies can be performed
5 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Software Validation
System with 5 layers of LaFeSiH (36% porosity), 120 RPM, 4 lit/min, 1.4 T field
Convergence
153.661254 170.072670 402
153.661255 170.072670 322
153.661279 170.072665 202
153.660588 170.072145 102
153.646353 170.058153 62
153.624981 170.036471 42
Cooling Load
(W)
Heat Exhaust
(W)
Number of
Terms
1.0E-09
1.0E-08
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
0.01 0.10
Relative Mesh Size
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
r
r
o
r

i
n

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Energy Conservation
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
0.01 0.10 1.00
Relative Mesh Size
R
M
S

E
r
r
o
r

i
n

B
e
d

E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
C-to-H
Demag
H-to-C
Mag
Mesh Size^4
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
0.01 0.10 1.00
Relative Mesh Size
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
r
r
o
r
i
n

F
l
u
i
d

P
D
E
C-to-H
Demag
H-to-C
Mag
Mesh Size^4
Satisfaction of Equations
Theoretical rate of convergence
Theoretical rate of convergence
6 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Modeling Magnetocaloric Properties
Magnetocaloric properties
C
b
(B,T
b
), S(B,T
b
)
High-order methods employed in
solution of thermal profile equations
requires smooth dependence on B, T
b
Precludes interpolation
Should satisfy thermodynamic
constraints
S = T integral of C/T
S decreasing function of B
ACA developed new analytic
representation for C such that S can
be expressed in closed form and
satisfies thermodynamic constraints
Free parameters in representation
chosen to fit to data and enforce
thermodynamic constraints
Excellent fit to C
b
data for a variety of
MCM (first-order, second-order)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370
T (K)
C

(
J
/
K
g
/
K
)
Data
Fit
B = 0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370
T (K)
C

(
J
/
K
g
/
K
)
Data
Fit
B = 2 Tesla
7 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Optimized System Design Engineering Prototype (BB3)
5 layers of LaFeSiH with
37% porosity, particle
diameter fixed at 205
microns
Bed dimensions fixed by size
of existing magnet
Peak magnet field = 1.4 T
Goal: maximize cooling
power with pressure drop
15 PSI
298.15 (upper bound) Hot reservoir temp (K)
2.00000 (upper bound) Frequency (Hz)
3.07974 Flow rate (L/min)
294.446 0-field Curie point 5
th
layer (K)
291.271 0-field Curie point 4
th
layer (K)
287.985 0-field Curie point 3
rd
layer (K)
284.670 0-field Curie point 2
nd
layer (K)
281.653 0-field Curie point 1
st
layer (K)
Value System Parameter
10
15
5
750
Target
14 Span (K)
15.053 Pressure drop (PSI)
8.671 COP (W/W)
1476.4 Total cooling load (W)
Value Performance Parameter
8 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Optimized System Design Supplemental Electronics Cooler (SEC)
Layered bed of LaFeSiH
Bed dimensions can be
chosen by optimization
Peak magnet field = 1.5 T
Hot reservoir temperature
fixed at 44 C
Goal: minimize cold outlet
temperature with pressure
drop 20 PSI, COP 10,
and cooling power 3 kW
293.258 K 0-field Curie point 6
th
layer
290.870 K 0-field Curie point 5
th
layer
288.292 K 0-field Curie point 4
th
layer
285.671 K 0-field Curie point 3
rd
layer
283.066 K 0-field Curie point 2
nd
layer
280.803 K 0-field Curie point 1
st
layer
6 Number of layers
6.5812 sq. cm Bed cross-sectional area
40.03 mm Bed length
304.911 K Cold reservoir temperature
4.791 lit/min Flow rate
upper bound 250 microns Particle diameter
upper bound 2.0 Hz Magnet rotation frequency
upper bound 0.37 Porosity
Notes Value System parameter
33 C 29.5 C Cold outlet temperature
20 PSI 20.15 PSI Pressure drop
10 W/W 10.37 W/W COP
3 kW 2.999 kW Total cooling power
Design Target Value Performance Parameter
9 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
The Advantages of a Layered Bed
T
Hot
= 25 C 120 RPM 3.1 lit/min Bed Volume = 15.6 cm
3
1.4 T Field
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Cooling Load (W)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

S
p
a
n

(
C
)
5-layer LaFeSiH bed
Gd bed
1-layer LaFeSiH bed
5-layer bed optimized for
performance at span = 14 C
*Note how rapidly the 5-layer bed performance deteriorates as the span
goes above its design span
10 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Sensitivity of Optimized Designs to Random Variation in
Curie Temperatures
Lack of control during fabrication will cause variation in Curie temperatures
Strong sensitivity to Curie temperatures low fabrication yield
Curie temperatures may change over time while in service
Strong sensitivity to Curie temperatures short service life
Use Monte-Carlo analysis to evaluate sensitivity in performance to random Curie point
variation of up to 0.5 K
Cooling load dropped < 8% over 400 Monte-Carlo trials
No trial exceeded the cooling load of the design establishes validity of optimization process
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
2
4
1
1
2
4
4
2
2
4
7
3
2
5
0
4
2
5
3
5
2
5
6
6
2
5
9
7
2
6
2
8
2
6
5
9
2
6
9
0
2
7
2
1
2
7
5
2
2
7
8
3
2
8
1
4
2
8
4
5
2
8
7
6
2
9
0
7
2
9
3
8
2
9
6
9
3
0
0
0
Cooling Load (W)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

M
C

T
r
i
a
l
s
At design
Curie points
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
1
3
0
2
1
3
1
4
1
3
2
6
1
3
3
8
1
3
5
0
1
3
6
2
1
3
7
4
1
3
8
6
1
3
9
8
1
4
1
0
1
4
2
2
1
4
3
4
1
4
4
6
1
4
5
8
1
4
7
0
1
4
8
2
1
4
9
4
1
5
0
6
1
5
1
8
1
5
3
0
Cooling Load (W)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

M
C

T
r
i
a
l
sAt design
Curie
points
Engineering
prototype
SEC
11 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Sensitivity of Optimized designs to Flow Imbalance
Pump
Bed 1
Bed 2

C H
C H
Cold-to-hot flow

Hot-to-cold flow
/2 + /2
/2 + /2
Flow Imbalance in a 2-Bed System
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Relative Flow Imbalance
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
o
l
i
n
g

L
o
a
d
SEC
BB3
Systems are sensitive to flow imbalance
5% imbalance reduces cooling load by 27% for SEC, 37% for BB3
Must design flow control system to minimize any possible flow imbalance
12 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
The Effect of Eddy Currents
Bed and metal shell used to seal bed and attach it to plenum are subjected to strong,
time-varying magnetic field which generates eddy currents
Eddy currents cause Joule heating as they flow in resistive shell and bed
Does this effect need to be included in thermal profile equations?
Can metal with higher conductivity be used for bed shell, other bed parts?
Bed of MCM
Metal shell fits
over bed
13 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Eddy Currents in the Bed Shell
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time (s)
O
h
m
i
c

P
o
w
e
r

(
W
)
BB3 Shell
Peak Field = 1.4 T
Power reaches peak as fringe field sweeps over shell
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Magnet Rotation Frequency (Hz)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
o
w
e
r

o
v
e
r

C
y
c
l
e

(
W
)
Stainless Steel
Titanium alloy
Instantaneous power
developed in stainless
steel bed shell at 2 Hz
Average power developed
in bed shell over one cycle
At desired operating
frequency (2 Hz) Joule
heating is negligible with
either metal
14 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Eddy Currents in the Bed
Difficult to model eddy current generation in bed exactly because electrical
conductivity of porous bed is complicated function of position
Get an upper bound on the eddy current generation by treating bed as solid block of
material with conductivity (1 ) where = bed porosity, = conductivity of
spherical particles composing the bed
Assume = 1.4 10
-6
mhos/m (same as stainless steel)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Magnet Rotation Frequency (Hz)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
o
w
e
r

o
v
e
r

C
y
c
l
e

(
W
)
SEC
BB3
At desired operating frequency,
Joule heating in bed is negligible
15 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Simulating the Effect of Dead Volume
Dead volume is the volume at each
end of the bed where substantial
mixing can occur between inlet and
outlet fluids, which are generally at
different temperatures
Model dead volume by adding a
layer at each end of the bed
composed of packed, inert particles
Particles are thermally conductive
but have no magnetocaloric effect
Dead volume layers have same
porosity as active portion of bed
Particles serve to mix the inlet and
outlet fluids, simulating the
enhanced thermal interaction
between them due to their complex
flow pattern
The Dead Volume Ratio is the
ratio of the volume of one dead
volume layer to the fluid volume of
the active bed layers = l / L
Cold
Reservoir
Hot Reservoir
P
o
r
o
u
s

b
e
d

o
f

M
C
M
F
l
u
i
d

f
l
o
w
x = 0
x = L
x = L+l
x = -l
Dead
volume
Dead
volume
16 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
The Effect of Dead Volume on Optimized System Performance
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Dead Volume Ratio
C
o
o
l
i
n
g

L
o
a
d

(
W
)
SEC
BB3
The presence of dead volume can significantly degrade machine performance
Dead volume has a substantial detrimental effect at small temperature spans
where the cooling load is largest and therefore the temperature difference
between inlet and outlet fluids is largest
As the span increases and cooling load decreases, the inlet and outlet
temperature difference decreases so the effect of dead volume decreases
17 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Theoretical and Experimental Performance of BB2 with Gd Beds
60 RPM 0.75 lit/min 1.4 T Peak Field
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Cooling Load (W)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

S
p
a
n

(
C
)
Theory T(Hot) = 30 C
Msmt T(Hot) = 30 C
Theory T(Hot) = 24 C
Msmt T(Hot) = 24 C
Theory T(Hot) = 20 C
Msmt T(Hot) = 20 C
Excellent agreement at zero
span precludes existence of
dead volume
Over-performance of machine at
zero span probably due to
convective cooling to ambient at
this relatively high temperature
Under-performance
of machine at large
span is consistent
with 4% flow
imbalance (see next
slide)
18 Astronautics Corp of America Astronautics Corp of America
Theoretical and Experimental Performance of BB2 with Gd Beds
4% Flow Imbalance
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Cooling Load (W)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

S
p
a
n

(
C
)
Theory T(Hot) = 30 C
Msmt T(Hot) = 30 C
Theory T(Hot) = 24 C
Msmt T(Hot) = 24 C
Theory T(Hot) = 20 C
Msmt T(Hot) = 20 C