Numerical Study on the Performance Evaluation and

Thermal Management of Automotive Exhaust

Thermoelectric Generator using Pin ns
Chander Veer

Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur

Keyur Kansara
Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur
Shobhana Singh
Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur

Research Article

Keywords: Thermoelectric Generator, Waste Heat Recovery, Pin Fin Heat Exchanger, Conjugate Heat
Transfer, Thermal Management, Power Output

Posted Date: April 2nd, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3583330/v3

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Additional Declarations: The authors declare no competing interests.

 Numerical Study on the Performance Evaluation and
Thermal Management of Automotive Exhaust
Thermoelectric Generator using Pin fins
Chander Veer 1a
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur
Jodhpur, Rajasthan

a
[email protected]
Abstract
The utilization of thermoelectric power generators presents a viable prospect for the recuperation of waste heat
that results from exhaust gases within the automotive sector. The optimal performance of thermoelectric modules
in waste heat recovery applications is heavily dependent on the design of the heat exchanger. The current study
employs numerical methods to examine the efficacy of pin-fin configurations on the hot-side heat exchanger
surface in enhancing heat transfer and thereby improving the conversion efficiency of TEG. Specifically, the study
explores the impact of inline, staggered, and progressive arrangements of pin-fins in the direction of the exhaust
stream. The heat exchanger is subjected to variations in fin thickness ranging from 10 mm to 18 mm to improve
heat transfer in each configuration. The study conducts simulations on every fin configuration, utilizing three
distinct inlet velocities (4 m/s, 6 m/s, and 8 m/s) and five different inlet temperatures (423 K, 473 K, 523 K, 573
K, and 623 K). The assessment of the heat exchanger’s performance is conducted by means of the thermal-
hydraulic performance coefficient (THPC) and the temperature uniformity index. Meanwhile, the evaluation of
the TEG device’s performance is carried out by estimating its rated power output and the conversion efficiency
of TEG. According to the findings, the staggered fin arrangement exhibits the highest Thermal Hydraulic
Performance Coefficient (THPC) and power generation capability, while the progressive and inline fin
configurations follow in descending order. The utilization of fins with a thickness of 18 mm in a staggered
arrangement yields a peak rated power output of 53.42 W. The implementation of pin fins in a staggered
configuration within the heat exchanger amplifies the heat transfer from the exhaust gas to the thermoelectric
module. Consequently, there is an increase in the output power with respect to the given temperature difference.
Keywords: Thermoelectric Generator; Waste Heat Recovery; Pin Fin Heat Exchanger; Conjugate Heat
Transfer; Thermal Management; Power Output
1. Introduction

The development of thermal energy conversion technologies is necessary to facilitate the recovery of waste heat
and its subsequent conversion into electric power that can be utilized in various domains such as power generation,
process industries, automobiles, and space applications. The transportation industry exhibits a notable requirement
for power consumption and power density. In the internal combustion engine (ICE) of a standard automobile, a
mere 25% of the total energy is utilized for propelling the vehicle, whereas a significant portion of approximately
40% of the input fuel energy is dissipated as heat through the exhaust [1]. The year 2021 has witnessed a
significant surge in worldwide vehicle registration [2]. This development highlights the pressing requirement to
devise sophisticated techniques and comprehensive system blueprints for the purpose of effectively managing,
recuperating, and preserving waste energy to generate usable power.
Thermoelectric generators (TEG) have been employed extensively in industrial waste heat recovery [3] [4] [5],
marine [6] [7], thermo-photovoltaic cells [8], space exploration [9] [10] and medical applications [11] [12]. Due
to its compact design, higher reliability, reduced maintenance requirements, and extended lifespan TEG has
garnered significant attention from engineers leading to its integration with automotive internal combustion
engines for the purpose of recuperating waste heat from automobile exhaust [13][14][15].
Direct conversion of heat energy into electrical power has enabled TEGs to simultaneously provide thermal
management and waste energy recycling for the entire vehicle. However, highly fluctuated temperature and flow
of exhaust, inefficient heat exchangers, high thermal-electrical contact resistance, in addition to the low
conversion efficiency of thermoelectric materials present challenges in fully recovering and utilizing the waste
heat for power generation. The primary limitation is inherited in the thermoelectric material properties such as
high cost, poor efficiency, and high-temperature stability are commonly recognized performance limiting factors.
Therefore, considerable research have been focused on the development of novel semiconductor materials with
high ZT value, for example, clathrates, chalcogenides, zintls, Heusler, silicides, skutterudites, organics, oxides
and composites have been developed by means of phonon-glass electron crystal strategy, nanotechnology,
electronic band engineering, and magnetic effects strategy [16]. New materials can perhaps increase the
efficiency, but the challenges associated with other TEG components for a specific application also needs to be
addressed. Much of the lost potential of exhaust heat can be recovered at high temperatures using effective heat
management techniques and optimized heat exchanger design solutions. Proper thermal management is equally
necessary to ensure that the TEG operates at its optimal temperature range. By managing the heat flow and
temperature differential, electrical power conversion from the TEG can be maximized. Good thermal management
can also prolong the lifetime of the TEG and prevent thermal damage to the surrounding components. Moreover,
limited space and weight requirements in automotive industry demands heat management to maximize the heat
exchange and reuse as much heat as possible from the exhaust. In the process of designing a heat exchanger for
the purpose of waste heat recovery, it is imperative to integrate the following features into the design. The optimal
design of heat exchangers intended for automotive integration ought to maximize the heat exchange area to
accommodate the thermoelectric (TE) modules. The hot side of TE modules should be maintained at the highest
temperature possible, thereby enabling the modules to generate maximum power at a given temperature difference
and allowable pressure loss. Numerous conventional heat exchanger configurations prioritize the optimization of
heat transfer; however, the resultant pressure drop associated with said designs renders them unsuitable for
implementation in the context of waste recuperation from automotive exhaust. Therefore, heat exchangers utilized
in waste heat recovery applications are engineered to optimize heat transfer efficiency while simultaneously
managing pressure drop [17]. Previous research on thermoelectric generators has focused solely on heat
management, disregarding the impact of pressure drop [18][19][20]. The studies under consideration either
reported an unspecified pressure drop or a pressure drop of approximately 10kPa, which was deemed excessive.
Recent research has shifted its focus towards managing the thermal and flow profiles of exhaust gas in order to
achieve a high rate of heat transfer while minimizing pressure drop. The focus of attention has been directed
towards two specific facets, namely the configuration of the heat exchanger and its internal geometry.
The geometric configuration of the heat exchanger is a critical factor in the distribution of exhaust gases within
the heat exchanger, which in turn affects the efficiency of heat transfer. Kumar et al. [21] conducted a comparative
analysis of the thermal performance of three different channel shapes for heat exchangers, namely rectangular,
triangular, and hexagonal. The hexagonal heat exchanger exhibited a higher maximum surface temperature
compared to the rectangular and triangular heat exchangers. However, this temperature exceeded the permissible
limit for the module. The triangular shape yielded a comparatively elevated surface temperature, although with a
reduced surface area available for the positioning of TE modules. The rectangular-shaped heat exchanger was
determined to be the most suitable for application in Automotive Exhaust Thermoelectric Generators (AETEG)
based on the author’s conclusion. The thermal performance of hexagonal and rectangular shaped heat exchangers
was evaluated by Deng et al. [22]. The study revealed that, under identical input parameters, the rectangular heat
exchanger yielded a higher average temperature on its hot surface compared to the hexagonal heat exchanger.
Shen et al. [23] conducted a numerical investigation on an annular heat exchanger to examine the impact of
cylinder diameter and length on power output and power density. The maximum power output of 122 W was
reported by the author, in relation to a cylinder diameter of 0.1 m and length of 0.9 m. Luo et al. [24] proposed a
rectangular heat exchanger of the converging type. The observed trend indicates that there is a positive correlation
between the tilt angle and both pressure drop and heat transfer. A tilt angle of 2 o was chosen to achieve a net
power improvement of 5.96%, thereby optimizing both parameters.
Various techniques for enhancing passive heat transfer have been utilized to investigate the heat transfer rate
and power output of the AETEG. The rectangular heat exchanger with three distinct internal baffle structures was
investigated by Su et al. [25]. The findings indicate that the implementation of a brass heat exchanger with an
accordion shape can effectively enhance the thermal efficiency of AETEG. Niu et al. [26] conducted a
comprehensive computational investigation to examine the impact of baffles, exhaust channel dimensions, and
engine operating parameters on the performance of an advanced exhaust thermal energy generator (AETEG). The
study’s findings suggest that a reduction in the size of the inlet can lead to improved heat transfer, although at the
expense of increased flow resistance. Additionally, the placement of baffles in close proximity to the TE modules
may result in enhanced performance. According to Stobart et al. [27] findings, a power output of 139 W was
achieved through the implementation of plain fins in the hot heat exchanger of AETEG. The utilization of plain
fins resulted in an 850% enhancement in power output as compared to the employment of a smooth channel.
Marvao et al. [28] conducted a comparative analysis of three distinct fin designs, namely plain fins, offset strip
fins, and triangular fins, in the context of their application for AETEG in heavy-duty vehicles. The study reached
a conclusion that the triangular finned heat exchanger yielded the greatest net power output. He et al. [29]
conducted a study on the enhancement of the performance of a plate type AETEG through the manipulation of its
dimensional parameters. The proposed heat exchanger dimensions for optimal performance were 1.55 m in length,
0.78 m in width, and 7 mm in height, as suggested by the author. Li et al. [30] proposed an analytical model for
thermoelectric generators (TEG) that employs a staggered fin configuration and 24 thermoelectric (TE) modules.
This model accounts for the interdependence of heat transfer, power output, and pressure drop in TEG. The model
offers crucial insights into the pressure drop and electric power generation. A pressure drop of 375 Pa yields a
maximum power output of 96.6 W. The rectangular heat exchanger with dimpled surface and short fins was tested
by Wang et al. [31]. The findings indicate that the dimpled surface heat exchanger exhibited superior thermal-
hydraulic performance. The dimpled heat exchanger exhibited a 15% reduction in pressure drop compared to the
finned heat exchanger. It is inferred from the available literature that extended surfaces such as fins must be
employed to increase the effective heat transfer area to compensate the low heat transfer coefficient at the solid-
gas interface.
Very few studies focused on the thermal management of TEG using pin fins. Specifically, the pin fin
configurations with varying fin thickness has not been studied. The present study analyzes the thermal hydraulic
performances of three different pin fin configurations. These are namely inline, staggered, and progressive. Owing
to the low weight to volume ratio, Aluminum has been considered as heat exchanger material. The pin fin
thicknesses varying from 10 mm to 18 mm (10 mm, 12 mm, 14 mm, 16 mm, 18 mm) is considered for the study.
The heat exchanger performance is evaluated at five different temperatures (423 K, 473 K, 523 K, 573 K, and 623
K) and three different exhaust velocities (4, 6, and 8 m/s). The focus of the study is to find suitable fin
configuration that would lead to better heat management by an increased convection heat transfer coefficient
between the fin and hot exhaust while keeping the increase in pressure drop as small as possible. The study provide
key inputs to the design of heat exchanger with pin fin configurations.
The paper is organized in the following sections: Section 1 includes the introduction and literature review,
section 2 describes the physical model of AETEG, material properties, numerical model of AETEG and
performance parameters for AETEG. Results and discussion part is explained in section 3.

2. Model development

2.1 Governing equations and boundary conditions

Using the 𝑘 − 𝜔 Shear-Stress Transport (SST) model, the governing equations for a steady-state, incompressible,
three-dimensional flow are solved in the fluid domain without the inclusion of dissipative or source terms. The
three-dimensional heat equation without source terms can be stated as follows in the solid region:
Continuity equation:
𝜕(𝜌𝑢𝑖 ) (1)
=0
𝜕𝑥𝑖
Momentum equation:
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑢𝑗 𝜕𝑝 (2)
(𝜌𝑢𝑖 𝑢𝑗 ) = (𝜇 )−
𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗
Energy equation for fluid region:
𝜕 𝑝 𝜕 𝜕𝑇 (3)
(𝜌𝐶𝑓 𝑢𝑖 𝑇) = (𝜆𝑓 )
𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖
Energy equation for solid region:
𝜕 𝜕𝑇 (4)
(𝜆 )=0
𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝑠 𝜕𝑥𝑖
 Equation for the turbulence kinetic energy, 𝑘 can be written as:
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑘 (5)
(𝜌𝑘𝑢𝑖 ) = (Γ𝑘 ) + 𝐺𝑘
𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑥𝑗
Equation for the specific turbulence dissipation rate, 𝜔
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝜔 (6)
(𝜌𝜔𝑢𝑖 ) = (Γ𝜔 ) + 𝐺𝜔
𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

2.2 Material Properties

Air with temperature dependent properties is used as the exhaust gas. The relation between temperature and
thermophysical properties like density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and dynamic viscosity is
mentioned in Table 1. Aluminum is used as the material for inlet and outlet diffuser, hot heat exchanger and the
heat sink. For, TE modules, Bismuth Telluride is chosen as the thermoelectric material, and asbestos is selected
for the insulation between TE modules. For Bismuth Telluride, the temperature dependent thermal conductivity
is used. The thermophysical properties for the materials used in AETEG are listed in Table 2.

Table 1: Thermophysical properties of air

Property Expression
Density (kg/m )3
3.7771 - 1.5884 x 10 T + 3.3564 x 10-5 T2 – 3.7685 x 10-8 T3 + 2.1407 x 10-11
-2

T4 – 4.8308 x 10-15 T5

Specific Heat Capacity 1013.1890 + 0.2336 T – 2.3511 x 10-3 T2 + 7.3109 x 10-6 T3 – 9.2297 x 10-9 T4
(J/kg K) + 5.3424 x 10-12 T5 – 1.1797 10-15 T6
Thermal Conductivity 1.0132 + 9.0445 x 10-5 T – 2.9040 x 10-8 T2 + 4.6490 x 10-12 T3
(W/m K)
Dynamic Viscosity (Pa s) 2.7545 x 10-6 + 6.1156 x 10-8 T – 3.0361 x 10-11 T2 + 8 x 10-15 T3

Table 2: Thermophysical properties of material incorporated in CFD study of AETEG

Material Density Specific Heat Thermal Seebeck Resistivity
(kg/m3) Capacity (J/kg Conductivity (W/m Coefficient (Ohm.m)
K) K) (V/K)
Aluminum 2719 871 202 - -
Asbestos 2400 566 0.15 - -
-9 4 -4
Bismuth 7500 544 -3.0594 x 10 T 2.2680 x 10 1.4470 x 10-5
Telluride + 4.5678 x 10-6 T3 –
2.5162 x 10-3 T2 +
0.6107 T – 53.9863
Ceramic 3890 880 35 - -

2.3 Data reduction and performance parameters

2.3.1. Reynolds number

Reynolds number for the present study is defined based on the inlet pipe diameter as follows:
𝑢𝑖𝑛 𝐷ℎ (7)
𝑅𝑒𝐷ℎ =
𝜈

2.3.2. Nusselt number

The Nusselt number is defined as:

 ℎ𝐷ℎ (8)
𝑁𝑢 =
𝑘
The heat transfer coefficient ℎ is calculated as:
𝑞" (9)
ℎ=
𝑇𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 − 𝑇𝑠
𝑇𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 is the logarithmic mean temperature difference, 𝑇𝑠 is the area weighted average temperature of heat
exchanger surface, and 𝑞 " is the area weighted average heat flux on the surface of heat exchanger.
(𝑇𝑖𝑛 − 𝑇𝑠 ) − (𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑠 ) (10)
𝑇𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 =
𝑇 − 𝑇𝑠
𝑙𝑛 ( 𝑖𝑛 )
𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑠
𝑇𝑖𝑛 and 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 are the mass weighted average temperatures of air at heat exchanger inlet and outlet respectively.

2.3.3. Friction factor

To account for pressure loss, a non-dimensional friction factor is used which is defined as follows:
∆p 𝐷ℎ (11)
𝑓= 2
×
2𝜌𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐿

2.3.4. Thermal Hydraulic Performance Coefficient

In the heat exchanger design for AETEG, the most important criteria is to have a high heat transfer with minimum
pressure drop. To trade-off between these two quantities, a thermal hydraulic performance coefficient (THPC) is
defined as [23]:
Nu/𝑁𝑢0 (12)
𝑇𝐻𝑃𝐶 =
(𝑓/𝑓0 )1/3
𝑁𝑢0 and 𝑓0 indicates the Nusselt number and friction factor for the smooth channel to compare the results with
the pin fin configurations.

2.3.5. Temperature uniformity index

In the context of employing Thermoelectric Generators (TEG) for recuperating waste heat from automobile
exhaust, it is essential to achieve a uniform temperature distribution across the heat exchanger’s surface.
Nevertheless, the exhaust stream undergoes a decrease in energy as it travels down the heat exchanger, resulting
in reduced heat transfer and lower surface temperature at the heat exchanger’s rear section. As a consequence, the
TEG modules placed at the back generate less power. In order to evaluate the temperature uniformity of the heat
exchanger surface, a temperature uniformity index [32] has been defined as:
𝑛 2 (13)
1 (𝑇𝑖 − 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔 )
𝛾 = 1 − ∑√
𝑛 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝑖=1

Here, 𝑇𝑖 is the average surface temperature on the hot side of 𝑖 𝑡ℎ module, 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔 is the area weighted average
temperature of heat exchanger surface, and 𝑛 is the total number of modules.

2.3.6. Power output

The maximum rated power output from all the modules can be calculated as [33]:
𝑛𝛼 2 ∆𝑇 2 (14)
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
4𝑅
The resistance of TE module is calculated as:

𝜌𝐿𝑒𝑔 𝐿𝐿𝑒𝑔 (15)

𝑅=
𝐴𝐿𝑒𝑔
Here, 𝜌𝐿𝑒𝑔 is the resistivity of TE material.

2.3.7. Conversion efficiency

The conversion efficiency of the TEG system is defined as the ratio of maximum rated power output from all the
modules and the heat input to the TE modules.
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 (16)
𝜂𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣 =
𝑞 " 𝐴 𝑇𝐸𝑀
Here, 𝐴 𝑇𝐸𝑀 is the total surface area of the modules which is in contact with the hot heat exchanger.

2.4 Model validation

To check the accuracy of model, the present numerical model is validated with the study reported by Luo et al.
[24]. The average temperature on the hot side surface of each module is compared for the five cases. For ach case,
the mass flow rate and the inlet temperature of exhaust air and coolant water is varied. All the cases are listed in
Table 3. The validation results are shown in Fig. 4.

Table 3: Parameters for validation of numerical model

Parameters Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Exhaust gas 808.15 792.15 771.15 747.15 693.15
temperature (K)
Exhaust gas mass 49.68 45.41 43.1 37.25 28.28
flow rate (g/s)
Cooling water 366.15 365.65 365.25 364.65 363.75
temperature (K)
Cooling water mass 0.2625 0.2625 0.2625 0.2625 0.2625
flow rate (kg/s)
 Figure 4: Validation of present numerical model with the study reported by Luo et al.

2.5 Grid independence study

To check the model’s accuracy, a mesh sensitivity analysis is performed on a smooth channel heat exchanger
design by varying the grid size of fluid element. Considering the complex geometry of the design, the heat
exchanger and air is meshed with multizone method while the inlet and outlet diffuser are meshed using
tetrahedron elements. For TE modules, insulation sheet and the heat sink, sweep method is used. The number of
elements varies from 198239 to 2119024 (198239, 1064628, 1971559, and 2119024) by selecting the grid sizes
of 2 mm, 2.5 mm, and 5 mm for air. For rest of the parts, the grid size is kept constant which is 2.5 mm for the
heat exchanger, 5 mm for inlet and outlet diffuser and heat sink, and 2.5 mm for TE modules and insulation.
Inflation layers for air are used at each contact surface, considering 5 inflation layer, with a smooth transition at a
growth rate of 1.2. At the grid size of 2 mm for air, the number of inflation layer is also varied from 5 to 3. The
results shows that the error associated with decrease in number of inflation layer from 5 to 3 is within 0.2%. The
air outlet temperature and average temperature on the hot heat exchanger surface are evaluated and it is observed
that with increasing number of elements, both parameters converged. The results for mesh sensitivity analysis are
presented in Fig. 5.
 Figure 5: Grid independence analysis with respect to average temperature on heat exchanger surface and air outlet
temperature

Nomenclature

Symbols
∆𝑝 Pressure loss, 𝑃𝑎
𝐴 Cross-sectional area, 𝑚2
𝐴𝑐 Minimum area of cross-section, 𝑚2
𝑝
𝐶𝑓 Specific heat of the air, 𝐽𝑘𝑔− 1𝐾 −1

𝑓 Friction factor
𝐺𝑘 Production term for 𝑘, 𝑘𝑔𝑚−1 𝑠 −3
𝐺𝜔 Production term for 𝜔, 𝑘𝑔𝑚 −3 𝑠 −2
ℎ Heat transfer coefficient, 𝑊𝑚2 𝐾 −1
𝑘 Turbulence kinetic energy, 𝑚2 𝑠 −2
𝐿 Length of p- or n- leg, 𝑚
𝑛 Number of modules
𝑁𝑢 Nusselt number
𝑃 Power output, 𝑊
𝑞 " Heat flux, 𝑊𝑚−2
𝑅 Internal resistance, Ω
𝑅𝑒 Reynolds number
𝑇 Temperature, 𝐾
𝑢𝑖𝑛 Velocity, 𝑚𝑠 −1
𝑢 Velocity in the direction of x-axis, 𝑚𝑠 −1
𝑣 Velocity in the direction of y-axis, 𝑚𝑠 −1
𝑤 Velocity in the direction of z-axis, 𝑚𝑠 −1
Greek symbols
𝜆 Thermal conductivity, 𝑊𝑚−1 𝐾 −1
Γ Turbulence viscosity, 𝑘𝑔𝑚−1 𝑠 −1
𝜇 Dynamic viscosity, 𝑘𝑔𝑚−1 𝑠 −1
𝜌 Density, 𝑘𝑔𝑚−3
𝜈 Kinematic viscosity, 𝑚2 𝑠 −1
𝜔 Turbulence specific dissipation, 𝑠 −1
Subscripts
0 Reference case
𝑎𝑣𝑔 Average
𝑓 Fluid
ℎ Hydraulic
𝑖 ith Module
𝑖, 𝑗, 𝑘 Cartesian coordinate directions
𝑖𝑛 Inlet
𝑙𝑒𝑔 p- or n- leg
𝑠 Solid
𝑇𝐸𝑀 Thermoelectric module
Superscripts
𝑝 Constant pressure
References

[1] T. Y. K. and S. H. LEE, “Combustion and Emission Characteristics of Wood Pyrolysis Oil-Butanol
Blended Fuels in a Di Diesel Engine,” Int. J. , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 293–300, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s12239.
[2] F. O. R. I. Release, “FADA Releases FY20-21 & April 21 Vehicle Registration Data,” vol. 001, pp. 1–
12, 2020.
[3] H. Kaibe, K. Makino, T. Kajihara, S. Fujimoto, and H. Hachiuma, “Thermoelectric generating system
attached to a carburizing furnace at Komatsu Ltd., Awazu Plant,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1449, no. 2012,
pp. 524–527, 2012, doi: 10.1063/1.4731609.
[4] P. Aranguren, D. Astrain, and M. G. Pérez, “Computational and experimental study of a complete heat
dissipation system using water as heat carrier placed on a thermoelectric generator,” Energy, vol. 74, no.
C, pp. 346–358, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.094.
[5] T. Kuroki et al., “Research and Development for Thermoelectric Generation Technology Using Waste
Heat from Steelmaking Process,” J. Electron. Mater., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2151–2156, 2015, doi:
10.1007/s11664-015-3722-8.
[6] A. N. Eddine, D. Chalet, X. Faure, and L. Aixala, “Optimization and characterization of a thermoelectric
generator prototype for marine engine application,” vol. 143, pp. 682–695, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.018.
[7] N. R. Kristiansen, G. J. Snyder, H. K. Nielsen, and L. Rosendahl, “Waste heat recovery from a marine
waste incinerator using a thermoelectric generator,” J. Electron. Mater., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1024–1029,
2012, doi: 10.1007/s11664-012-2009-6.
[8] Z. Yang, Y. Zhang, Q. Dong, J. Lin, G. Lin, and J. Chen, “Maximum power output and parametric choice
criteria of a thermophotovoltaic cell driven by automobile exhaust,” Renew. Energy, vol. 121, pp. 28–35,
2018, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.009.
[9] G. J. Snyder, “Application of the compatibility factor to the design of segmented and cascaded
thermoelectric generators,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 84, no. 13, pp. 2436–2438, 2004, doi:
10.1063/1.1689396.
[10] D. M. Rowe, “Applications of nuclear-powered thermoelectric generators in space,” Appl. Energy, vol.
40, no. 4, pp. 241–271, 1991, doi: 10.1016/0306-2619(91)90020-X.
[11] Z. Wang, V. Leonov, P. Fiorini, and C. Van Hoof, “Realization of a wearable miniaturized thermoelectric
generator for human body applications,” Sensors Actuators, A Phys., vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 95–102, 2009,
doi: 10.1016/j.sna.2009.02.028.
[12] M. Hyland, H. Hunter, J. Liu, E. Veety, and D. Vashaee, “Wearable thermoelectric generators for human
body heat harvesting,” Appl. Energy, vol. 182, pp. 518–524, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.150.
[13] B. Huang and Z. G. Shen, “Performance assessment of annular thermoelectric generators for automobile
exhaust waste heat recovery,” Energy, vol. 246, p. 123375, May 2022, doi:
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2022.123375.
[14] A. O. Ochieng, T. F. Megahed, S. Ookawara, and H. Hassan, “Comprehensive review in waste heat
recovery in different thermal energy-consuming processes using thermoelectric generators for electrical
power generation,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 162, pp. 134–154, Jun. 2022, doi:
10.1016/J.PSEP.2022.03.070.
[15] H. Gürbüz, H. Akçay, and Ü. Topalcı, “Experimental investigation of a novel thermoelectric generator
design for exhaust waste heat recovery in a gas-fueled SI engine,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 216, p. 119122,
Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2022.119122.
[16] F. Tohidi, S. Ghazanfari Holagh, and A. Chitsaz, “Thermoelectric Generators: A comprehensive review
of characteristics and applications,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 201, Jan. 2022, doi:
10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2021.117793.
[17] P. Fernández-Yáñez, V. Romero, O. Armas, and G. Cerretti, “Thermal management of thermoelectric
generators for waste energy recovery,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 196, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117291.
[18] A. F. Agudelo, R. García-Contreras, J. R. Agudelo, and O. Armas, “Potential for exhaust gas energy
recovery in a diesel passenger car under European driving cycle,” Appl. Energy, vol. 174, pp. 201–212,
Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.04.092.
[19] J. C. Bass, N. B. Elsner, and F. A. Leavitt, “Performance of the 1 kW thermoelectric generator for diesel
engines,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 316, no. 1, p. 295, May 2008, doi: 10.1063/1.46818.
[20] Q. E. Hussain, D. R. Brigham, and C. W. Maranville, “Thermoelectric exhaust heat recovery for hybrid
vehicles,” SAE Tech. Pap., pp. 1132–1142, 2009, doi: 10.4271/2009-01-1327.
[21] C. R. Kumar, A. Sonthalia, and R. Goel, “Experimental study on waste heat recovery from an internal
combustion engine using thermoelectric technology,” Therm. Sci., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1011–1022, 2011,
doi: 10.2298/TSCI100518053K.
[22] Y. D. Deng, X. Liu, S. Chen, and N. Q. Tong, “Thermal optimization of the heat exchanger in an
automotive exhaust-based thermoelectric generator,” J. Electron. Mater., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1634–1640,
2013, doi: 10.1007/s11664-012-2359-0.
[23] Z. G. Shen, B. Huang, and X. Liu, “Effect of structure parameters on the performance of an annular
thermoelectric generator for automobile exhaust heat recovery,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 256, Mar.
2022, doi: 10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2022.115381.
[24] D. Luo, R. Wang, W. Yu, Z. Sun, and X. Meng, “Modelling and simulation study of a converging
thermoelectric generator for engine waste heat recovery,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 153, no. March, pp.
837–847, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.03.060.
[25] C. Q. Su, W. S. Wang, X. Liu, and Y. D. Deng, “Simulation and experimental study on thermal
optimization of the heat exchanger for automotive exhaust-based thermoelectric generators,” Case Stud.
Therm. Eng., vol. 4, pp. 85–91, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.csite.2014.06.002.
[26] Z. Niu, H. Diao, S. Yu, K. Jiao, Q. Du, and G. Shu, “Investigation and design optimization of exhaust-
based thermoelectric generator system for internal combustion engine,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 85,
pp. 85–101, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.061.
[27] R. Stobart, M. A. Wijewardane, and Z. Yang, “Comprehensive analysis of thermoelectric generation
systems for automotive applications,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 112, pp. 1433–1444, Feb. 2017, doi:
10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2016.09.121.
[28] A. Marvão, P. J. Coelho, and H. C. Rodrigues, “Optimization of a thermoelectric generator for heavy-
duty vehicles,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 179, pp. 178–191, Jan. 2019, doi:
10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.10.045.
[29] W. He, R. Guo, H. Takasu, Y. Kato, and S. Wang, “Performance optimization of common plate-type
thermoelectric generator in vehicle exhaust power generation systems,” Energy, vol. 175, pp. 1153–1163,
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.174.
[30] G. Li, J. Ying, Y. Zheng, W. Guo, Y. Tang, and C. Ye, “Analytical design model for waste heat
thermoelectric generator and experimental verification,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 252, no.
September 2021, p. 115034, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115034.
[31] Y. Wang, S. Li, X. Yang, Y. Deng, and C. Su, “Numerical and Experimental Investigation for Heat
Transfer Enhancement by Dimpled Surface Heat Exchanger in Thermoelectric Generator,” J. Electron.
Mater., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1792–1802, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11664-015-4228-0.
[32] C. Q. Su, C. Huang, Y. D. Deng, Y. P. Wang, P. Q. Chu, and S. J. Zheng, “Simulation and Optimization
of the Heat Exchanger for Automotive Exhaust-Based Thermoelectric Generators,” J. Electron. Mater.,
vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1464–1472, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11664-015-4077-x.
[33] W. H. Chen, Y. X. Lin, Y. Bin Chiou, Y. L. Lin, and X. D. Wang, “A computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) approach of thermoelectric generator (TEG) for power generation,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 173,
no. February, p. 115203, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115203.