om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?

casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18

Chika Maduabuchi1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The Combined Impacts of Leg
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, 410001 Enugu, Nigeria;
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Geometry Configuration and
Federal University of Agriculture,
P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi, Nigeria Multi-Staging on the Exergetic
e-mail: Chika.maduabuchi.191341@unn.edu.ng

Sarveshwar Singh
Department of Electronics & Communication
Engineering,
Shobhit University,
250110 Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
e-mail: sarweshwarsingh@gmail.com
Chigbogu Ozoegwu
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, 410001 Enugu, Nigeria
e-mail: chigbogu.ozoegwu@unn.edu.ng
Howard Njoku
Applied Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Research Group,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, 410001 Enugu, Nigeria;
Department of Mechanical Engineering Science,
University of Johannesburg,
Auckland Park, 2006 Johannesburg, South Africa
e-mail: howard.njoku@unn.edu.ng
Mkpamdi Eke1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, 410001 Enugu, Nigeria
e-mail: mkpamdi.eke@unn.edu.ng
Performance of Thermoelectric
Modules in a Solar
Thermoelectric Generator
The performance of thermoelectric generators (TEGs) can be improved either by the adop-
tion of multi-stage or tapered leg configuration. So far, a hybrid device that simultaneously
uses both multi-staging and tapered leg geometry to improve its performance has not been
conceived. Thus, we present a thermodynamic modeling and optimization of a two-stage
thermoelectric generator (TTEG) with tapered leg geometries using ANSYS 2020 R2 software.
The optimized parameters include the leg height, area, concentrated solar radiation, and
external load resistance. First, the X-leg TEG only improves the performance of the trape-
zoidal leg TEG below a leg height of 3 mm. Beyond 3 mm, the performance of both TEGs
become very similar. Long thermoelectric legs provide higher efficiencies, while short legs
generate maximum power densities. To obtain maximum efficiencies, the initial leg height of
the thermoelectric legs, 1.62 mm, is increased by 517.28%, while the initial leg area,
1.96 mm2, is decreased by 64.29%. Also, the proposed TTEG with tapered legs (trapezoidal
and X-legs) improves the exergetic efficiency of the base case, single-stage rectangular leg
TEG, by 16.7%. Furthermore, the use of tapered leg TEGs, in single and multi-stage
arrangements, reduces the exergy conversion index of conventional rectangular leg
TEGs by 1.89% and 0.98%, respectively. Finally, the use of tapered legs and multi-stage
configurations increases the thermodynamic irreversibilities of conventional rectangular
leg TEGs, thus reducing their thermodynamic stability. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4051648]
Keywords: solar energy conversion, thermoelectric generator, multi-stage design, tapered
leg geometry, geometry optimization, thermodynamic analysis, alternative energy sources,
energy conversion/systems, energy systems analysis, power (co-)generation, renewable
energy

1 Introduction systems [7]. However, these devices are still characterized by low
efficiencies of 5% [8].
The dominant contemporary energy source over the past decades
An effective method of improving TEG performance is by
has remained as fossil fuel sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas
varying the geometry of the thermoelements. Also, the advent of
[1]. However, this has come at the price of environmental degrada-
additive manufacturing (three-dimensional printing) techniques
tion [2] and health hazards [3]. Also, the heavy reliance on fossil
has made the fabrication of leg geometries with complex shapes
fuel sources coupled with the exponential increase in world popula-
easy and possible [9], thus opening up a new field in thermoelectri-
tion suggests that fossil fuel sources will soon be exhausted [4,5].
city. Ali et al. [10] studied the effect of bi-tapered pin geometry,
Thus, exploring renewable energy sources such as solar energy
defined by a dimensionless shape parameter, on the first and
becomes inevitable.
second law efficiencies as well as the power output of a TEG.
Aside photovoltaic technology, a very lucrative method of con-
Fixed temperature ratios, θ = Tc/Th, of 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 were used
verting solar energy directly into electricity is using thermoelectric
for the simulation. They discovered that the dimensionless shape
generators (TEGs). This is due to the remunerative advantages pro-
parameter significantly affected the second law efficiency while
vided by these devices such as noiseless operation, relatively low
slightly affecting the first law efficiency. Liu et al. [11] concluded
cost, zero environmental emissions, solid-state operation, suitability
that under isoflux conditions, thermoelectric (TE) legs with
for integrated systems, long lifespan, no moving parts, and low
varying leg areas (trapezoidal, parabolic, and exponential) always
maintenance requirements [6]. They have found various applica-
outperformed those with constant cross sections (rectangular/
tions such as power generation in severe operating conditions,
cuboid legs). Shittu et al. [12] argued that geometric optimization
waste heat recovery systems, integrated power systems, small-scale
could reduce the adverse impacts of varying meteorological condi-
power generation in electronic equipment, and solar powered
tions on TEG performance. Thermodynamic analysis of a TEG was
also carried out by Lamba and Kaushik [13] in which they investi-
gated the impacts of leg geometry configuration and Thomson
1
Corresponding authors. effect on the power output and efficiency of the device. Their
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in results showed that, at θ = 0.5, a trapezoidal shaped TEG gave a
the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 27,
2021; final manuscript received June 23, 2021; published online July 16, 2021. 2.32% and 2.31% increase in energy and exergy efficiency of con-
Assoc. Editor: Guangdong Zhu. ventional TEGs, respectively. Ferreira-Teixeira and Pereira [14]

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright © 2021 by ASME APRIL 2022, Vol. 144 / 041303-1
 om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
Fig. 1 Proposed TEG systems comprising two and four thermoelements for the single-stage
and two-stage TEGs, respectively. (a) System 1, (b) system 2, (c) system 3, (d) system 4,
(e) system 5, and (f ) system 6. Systems 1, 2, and 3 are the single-stage TEGs with rectangular,
trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively. Systems 4, 5, and 6 are the two-stage TEGs with rectan-
gular, trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively. The leg height and area of the rectangular, trape-
zoidal, and X-legs are the same.

showed that both cubic and cylindrical leg configurations offered
identical TEG performance and that utilizing more thermocouples
improved device overall performance. Ibeagwu [15] numerically
modeled the performance of five leg geometries on COMSOL MULTI-
PHYSICS. The geometries modeled were the rectangular, trapezoidal,
I, Y, and X cross-sectional areas. It was discovered that varying
cross-sectional areas significantly influence the performance of con-
ventional rect-leg with X-leg being the most efficient and showing a
19.13% increase in power density of the rect-leg. Again, fixed
values of Th and Tc of 420 K and 300 K, respectively, were utilized
during the study. Wang et al. [16] showed that for a fixed hot junc-
tion temperature of 500 K and a draft angle of 10 deg, the X-leg
TEG improved the power output of the conventional rectangular
leg TEG by 4.57% with the thermal stresses decreasing with
increasing draft angles. Niu et al. [17] showed that variable leg
area TEGs performed better than conventional rectangular leg
area TEGs. The shapes considered were the conventional cuboid
and hexahedron shapes. Despite the innovative findings made by
these authors, an underlying assumption employed in the numerical
model of these papers is that the same hot and cold junction

041303-2 / Vol. 144, APRIL 2022 Transactions of the ASME


temperatures were applied to the rectangular leg and tapered leg
TEGs, respectively. This violates the experimental findings of
Fabián-mijangos et al. [18], who reported that under the same
heat flux, the trapezoidal leg TEG generated a higher temperature
difference relative to the rectangular leg TEG. Thus, the current
information provided by these papers needs urgent improvements.
This will be done using isoflux boundary conditions rather than iso-
thermal ones as used by these cited papers.
Despite the improvements obtained from varying the geometry of
TE pins, several researchers went further to investigate the effect of
utilizing multi-stage TEGs. This is achieved by placing a TEG in
series or parallel with another TEG in order to improve the overall
system performance [19]. Cheng et al. [20] showed that the utiliza-
tion of cascaded TEGs greatly improved the performance of TE
devices at large temperature gradients. Zhang et al. [21] found that
a two-stage TEG was feasible in recovering waste heat from a
solid oxide fuel cell system. Cheng et al. [22] reported that when
incorporated in a hypersonic vehicle, a single-stage TEG provided
a higher power output density of 16.53 kW/m2, while a two-stage
TEG yielded a higher conversion efficiency of 10.78% for the
same inflow temperature. Lee et al. [23] studied the combined
effects of leg geometry, material segmentation, and two-stage
arrangement on the electrical and mechanical performance of a
TEG using ANSYS 19.1 software and found that the best performance
was obtained from a single-stage arrangement with segmented cylin-
drical legs. Liu et al. [24] used a multi-objective optimization method
to optimize the power output and conversion efficiency of a two-
stage TEG and found that a weight factor of 0.5 was sufficient to
simultaneously improve device power output and conversion effi-
ciency. Cheng et al. [25] concluded that multi-stage TEGs are
more favorable for high-temperature applications compared to
single-stage setups. Zhang et al. [26] used a Latin hypercube sam-
pling method to evaluate the performance of a two-stage TEG and
concluded that the TEG cold side convective heat transfer coefficient
and hot junction area contributed the least in determining device
performance. Kanimba et al. [27] showed that under a fixed hot
and cold junction temperature of 973 K and 73 K, respectively, a
power output of 505 W was obtained from a three-stage TEG. Sun
et al. [28] utilized Shannon’s entropy method in selecting a suitable
Pareto front solution in the optimization of a two-stage TEG and con-
cluded that the Nadir model generated the least specific power
output. Guo et al. [29] obtained 11.8%, 17.5%, and 17.7% increase
in the electric efficiency, exergy efficiency, and power output,
respectively, of a high-temperature proton exchange membrane
fuel cell when a two-stage TEG was incorporated. These papers
establish that two-stage TEGs perform better than single-stage
TEGs. However, scarcely has anything been done on a two-stage
TEG that employs tapered leg geometry configuration. The only
paper which attempted this was Ref. [23]. However, their discourse
was limited to a first law/energy analysis of the various TEG models.
The exergetic implication of utilizing variable area leg geometries
and multi-stage configuration was not discussed in their report.
Also, nothing was said pertaining the geometry optimization of the
thermoelements. Moreover, the temperature dependence of the ther-
moelectric materials was not considered. Furthermore, the recently
introduced X-leg geometry [15,16] was not considered in their anal-
ysis. Finally, the unrealistic isothermal boundary condition was
applied in their analysis of the single/multi-stage and rectangular/
tapered leg TEGs.
To this end, this research paper seeks to fill up these research gaps
by conducting a second law thermodynamic optimization of a
multi-stage TEG with tapered leg geometry configuration under
actual isoflux boundary conditions. Furthermore, a geometry opti-
mization is used to determine the optimum leg height and area for
maximum power or efficiency in the tapered leg TEGs. The
temperature-dependent material properties of the thermoelectric
materials are also considered. The optimum solar flux and external
load resistance for optimum performance are also discussed. The
effects of tapered leg geometry and multi-stage arrangements on
the exergetic efficiency and thermodynamic irreversibilities of the
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
TEGs are also studied. The results provided by this optimization
study should be able to provide TEG manufactures and designers
with a more realistic and comprehensive perspective pertaining
tapered leg/multi-stage TEG performance.
2 System Description and Materials
Figure 1 shows the proposed systems considered in this study.
Figures 1(a)–1(c) show systems 1–3 which comprise the single-
stage setups while Figs. 1(d)–1(f ) illustrate systems 4–6 which
are the equivalent double-stage setups. The leg geometries consid-
ered are the traditional rectangular leg, trapezoidal leg, and the
recently introduced X-leg as seen in Figs. 1(a)–1(c), respectively.
The standard leg height and area of the rectangular leg are obtained
from that of a contemporary module, as reported in Ref. [30]. The
trapezoidal leg geometry is modeled by maintaining the rectangular
leg area at one end, while using half of it at the other end. The X-leg
on the other hand is modeled with the rectangular leg area at both
ends, while using half of it at the mid-section. The initial leg
height and area are 1.6 mm and 1.4 × 1.4 mm2, respectively. The
leg dimensions of the single-stage setups are applicable to that of
the two-stage setups. The solar flux from the sun is magnified
using a compound parabolic concentrator. A surface selective
absorber (SSA) is placed at the TEG hot junction to convert the inci-
dent concentrated light energy from the sun into sensible thermal
energy. To necessitate a temperature gradient for power generation,
the TEG cold junction is cooled by water. A convective film coef-
ficient is used to specify the TEG water cooling.
For the material assignments in a conventional TEG, the hot and
cold junction ceramic plates are specified as alumina. This material
maintains the temperature gradient across both junctions, owing to
its relatively low thermal conductivity. The conductor pads are spe-
cified as copper, due to its high electrical conductivity, thus allow-
ing the continuous flow of current throughout the TEG. A solder
material, Sn–Pb (60–40%), is used to join the thermoelectric legs
to the copper pads. It is also used to reduce the thermal stress
levels in the legs [31]. The thermal and electrical contact between
the solder material and the TE legs is assumed negligible [32].
Finally, the thermoelectric legs are made of pure bismuth-telluride
material. This choice was made due to its commercial availability
and contemporary usage. The temperature-dependent material prop-
erties of bismuth-telluride are shown in Fig. 2. The other TEG mate-
rial properties are shown in Table 1.
3 Methodology
3.1 Analysis. The steady-state thermal-electric equations gov-
erning thermoelectricity are [12,13]





∇ · (k ∇ T) + J 2 ρ − τ J · ∇ T = 0 (1a)




1

1

∇· ∇ϕ + ∇ · α∇T = 0 (1b)
ρ ρ
where α, ρ, k, and τ are the temperature-dependent Seebeck coeffi-
cient, electrical resistivity, thermal conductivity, and Thomson


coefficient, respectively. J is the current density vector and ϕ is
the scalar potential of the electric field.
The heat input and output at the hot and cold junctions of the
TEG are given as [8,37]
Qh = αTh I + KΔT − 0.5I 2 R (2a)
Qc = αTc I + KΔT + 0.5I 2 R (2b)
where Th and Tc are the hot and cold junction temperatures, respec-
tively. I is the current generated, K is the thermoelectric leg thermal
conductance, R is the electrical resistance to current flow offered by
APRIL 2022, Vol. 144 / 041303-3
 om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
Fig. 2 Temperature-dependent material properties: (a) Seebeck coefficient, (b) Thomson coefficient, (c) thermal conductivity,
and (d) electric resistivity [33]

the legs, and ΔT is the temperature gradient across the TEG hot and The heat inflow at the solar thermoelectric generator (STEG) hot
cold junctions. junction is given as [41]
Analyzing the TEG as a thermodynamic heat engine, the power
output and thermal efficiency are defined as [38] Qf = ηopt ηa τg ψAs (5)
where ηopt is the optical efficiency of the solar concentrator, ηa is the
Pte = Qh − Qc (3) efficiency of the SSA placed at the TEG hot junction, τg is the trans-
missivity of the concentrator glass cover, ψ is the concentrated solar
radiation, in suns, emanating from the solar concentrator, and As is
Qc the surface area of the SSA.
ηte = 1 − (4) Similarly, the exergy inflow at the STEG hot junction is obtained
Qh using Petela’s theory of exergy radiation which is defined as [42]


 
The TEG generates maximum power when the intrinsic resis- 4 Ta 1 Ta 4
tance offered by the TE legs matches up with that of the external Exf = Qf 1 − + (6)
3 Ts 3 Ts
load the TEG is supplying current to [39,40].

Table 1 Other TEG material properties

Specific heat capacity Density Length Thermal conductivity Electric Seebeck

Material (J kg−1 K−1) (kg m−3) (mm) (W m−1 K−1) resistivity (Ω m) coefficient (V K−1) References

Alumina 900 3900 0.8 25 – – [15]

Solder paste 210 7240 0.1 37.8 5 × 10−8 – [34]
Copper 800 3970 0.2 401 1.72 × 10−8 – [35,36]
Bismuth-telluride 154.4 7740 1.62 f(T ) f (T) f (T) [30,33]

041303-4 / Vol. 144, APRIL 2022 Transactions of the ASME


Table 2 Simulation parameters
Parameter Symbol
Glass transmissivity
Absorber efficiency
Selective surface effective emittance
Stefan–Boltzmann constant σSB
Wind speed
Ambient temperature
Optical efficiency ηopt
Sun effective temperature
where Ts is the sun effective blackbody temperature and Ta is the
temperature of the ambient environment.
Thus, the system energy and exergy efficiencies are given as,
respectively [43,44],
Pte
ηen =
Qf
Pte
ηex =
Exf
Maduabuchi et al. [45,46] recently introduced a way of estimat-
ing the irreversibilities in a STEG using thermodynamic analysis,
which is given as
Exd = Exf − Pte
where Exd is the amount of exergy destroyed.
Similarly, the entropy generation is defined as
Sgen =
Ed
Ta
Furthermore, a new exergy performance parameter called the
exergy conversion index has been proposed which, unlike previous
ones [47,48], provides an easy overview of the system exergy per-
formance. This is because the range of values necessary for profit-
able exergy evaluation is when it is greater than unity.
Exf
μex =
Ed
The radiative and convective losses at the STEG hot junction are
specified as follows [39]:
Tsky = 0.0552Ta1.5
h = 5.82 + 4.07v
where v is the wind speed.
Table 2 illustrates the parameters used during the simulation.
3.2 Computational Route and Boundary Conditions. For
reasons earlier explained in Sec. 1, the commercially obtainable
finite element solver, ANSYS 2020 R2 software, is used in this
study. First, the three-dimensional computer aided design models
are developed in AUTODESK INVENTOR 2021 software and are
imported directly to ANSYS Workbench platform. Then, the
thermal and electric solvers are coupled in the software interface
and are utilized in solving the steady-state thermoelectric field equa-
tions. The following boundary conditions are applied to the TEG
model in order to represent a real-life scenario:
(1) Unless otherwise stated, a fixed concentrated solar radiation
of 10 suns is maintained at the TEG hot junction.
(2) A convective heat transfer coefficient of magnitude,
500 W/m2 K, is applied at the TEG cold junction.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
Unit Value References
τg – 0.95 [49]
ηa – 0.95 [41]
ɛs – 0.05 [41]
W m−2 K−4 5.67 × 10−8 [41]
v m s−1 1 [39]
Ta K 295.15 [39]
– 0.95 [39]
Ts K 5777 [50]
(3) An external load resistance is connected across the pin
terminals.
(4) Radiative and convective losses are specified at the TEG hot
junction.
(5) All external TEG surfaces are assumed perfectly insulated.
(7)
3.3 Validation. It is a customary practice to validate the
numerical model by using it to reproduce the works of previous
authors on the same subject [51,52]. This is done so as to vet the
(8)
accuracy and reliability of the present model. If the present model
gives results that are similar to those obtained by previous
authors, then it can be trusted in performing the present optimiza-
tion study. To this effect, we utilize the present model in reprodu-
cing the works of Refs. [18,53]. The single-stage TEGs are
validated with the experimental (expt.) results of Ref. [18], while
(9)
the double-stage TEGs are validated with reports of Ref. [53].
The results of the validation study are depicted in Fig. 3. First,
Fig. 3(a) shows that the temperature gradient across the rectangular
leg and trapezoidal leg TEGs increases with the applied heat flux. It
(10) is also demonstrated that for the same heat flux variation, the trape-
zoidal leg TEG generates a higher temperature gradient than the rec-
tangular leg TEG. These experimental results disprove the results of
previous optimization studies that assumed the same temperature
gradient across the trapezoidal and rectangular leg TEG during
their analysis. Also, Fig. 3(b) shows that the conversion efficiency
of a two-stage TEG increases as the temperature gradient is
increased. Overall, both plots reveal that a fair agreement exists
between the present and previous results, thus declaring the
(11) present model accurate and reliable.
4 Results and Discussions
(12) 4.1 Effect of Leg Geometry Parameters
4.1.1 Effect of Leg Height. The dimensions of the thermoelec-
(13) tric legs, comprising the leg height and area, are crucial parameters
that affect the device overall performance. This is because they
determine the rate of heat absorption and rejection at the TEG hot
and cold junctions, respectively. Thus, this sub-section is dedicated
to studying the effects of these parameters on the device overall per-
formance. The leg height is varied from 1 mm to 10 mm, while the
leg area ranges from 0.7 mm2 to 2.59 mm2. These ranges are
selected in order to go below and above the reference leg heights
and areas of 1.62 mm and 1.96 mm2, respectively, as specified by
the TEG manufacturer [30], thus encompassing both short/long
and thin/thick leg applications. This will give the TEG designer
and manufacturer a broader view of the impact of leg height and
area, consequently facilitating their decision-making process.
Figures 4 and 5 show the results of the leg height and area optimi-
zation, respectively.
The variation of the temperature gradient and power output gen-
erated per unit leg volume is shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), respec-
tively. The temperature gradient increases as the leg height is
increased, while the power output density decreases. This contrast-
ing relationship is due to the fact that increasing the leg height
increases the heat absorption and rejection rate at the TEG hot
APRIL 2022, Vol. 144 / 041303-5

Fig. 3 Validation results: (a) single-stage rectangular and trapezoidal leg TEGs [18] and (b) two-stage rectangular leg
TEG [53]
and cold junctions, respectively, while increasing the leg electrical
resistance and volume. The former increases the temperature gradi-
ent, while the latter reduces the electrical power output per unit leg
volume. Also, the increase provided in the temperature gradient
reduces with increasing leg heights. For instance, in system 6, as
the leg height is increased from 1 mm to 2 mm, the temperature gra-
dient increases by 57.43%, while for a leg height increase from
9 mm to 10 mm, the temperature gradient rises by just 2.94%.
This shows that the TEG manufacturer must strike an economic
balance in utilizing very long legs in TEGs. Overall, for the same
amount of concentrated solar radiation, as the leg height is
increased, varying temperature gradients are obtained from the
diverse systems studied. First, systems 5 and 6 generate similar tem-
peratures at longer leg heights, with the latter outperforming the
former at shorter leg heights. Second, systems 2, 3, and 4 yield
similar temperatures at longer leg heights, while recording
varying values at shorter leg heights, with the highest values
yielded by systems 3, 2, and 4, respectively, in that order. Lastly,
the conventional system 1 gives the lowest temperature gradients.
These findings violate the reports of previous optimization
studies, which assumed the same hot and cold junction temperatures
in the comparative study of TEGs with diverse leg geometries. In
addition, they also improve the work of Ibeagwu [15], who con-
cluded that the X-leg outperformed the trapezoidal leg under all
conditions. However, their study was not broad enough to accom-
modate a detailed geometry optimization.
Furthermore, Fig. 4(b) shows that the order of increase in the
power output densities depends on the leg height used. For instance,
for leg heights below 3 mm, system 2 generates higher power
output densities than system 3 while system 5 outpaces system
6. Beyond 3 mm, the systems 2/3 and 5/6 generate similar power
output densities. Besides, at a critical leg height, the single-stage
TEG generates equal power output density with its double-stage
counterpart. This is because of the increased electrical resistance
offered by the two-stage TEG coupled with its larger material
volume owing to a larger number of legs. The optimum leg
height for systems 2/3 and 5/6 is 5 mm, while that of system 1/4
is 10 mm. This indicates that the two-stage variable leg area
TEGs reduce the critical leg height of the traditional rectangular
leg TEG by 100%, thus saving more material and ultimately cost.
Meanwhile, Figs. 4(c) and 4(d ) show the trend obtained in the
energy/exergy efficiencies as the leg height is increased. First, the
exergy efficiency is slightly higher than the energy efficiency. This
is in perfect accordance with the laws of thermodynamics [38].
This is because, unlike an energy analysis, an exergy analysis mea-
sures the highest possible theoretical performance that can be
041303-6 / Vol. 144, APRIL 2022
om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
obtained from a system while providing means to measure the
system irreversibilites which reduce the thermodynamic perfor-
mance. These will be shown in subsequent plots. Second, the order
of increase in the efficiencies of the systems are 1, 4/2/3, and 5/6,
respectively. It must be emphasized that the highest efficiencies
obtained from systems 4/2/3 and 5/6 are heavily influenced by the
leg height. Thus, for short leg height applications, requiring
maximum efficiencies, system 3 will be preferred to systems 2 and
4. However, if long legs are used, the same efficiencies will be pro-
duced by the three systems. Similarly, for short legs, system 6 is
recommended above system 5. But, when long legs are utilized, the
same efficiencies are obtained from both systems. Lastly, a very
important observation is made, in that as the leg height is increased,
the power output density decreases, as shown in Fig. 4(b), while
the current plots show that the energy/exergy efficiencies increase
accordingly. This is due to the independence of the efficiencies on
the leg volume and its high dependence on the temperature gradient.
Thus, the TEG manufacturer must make an important decision on
whether to design the TEG for maximum power (short legs) or
maximum efficiency (long legs). However, since this study utilizes
exergy analysis, we design the device for maximum efficiency.
Thus, an optimum leg height of 10 mm is chosen.
Then, Figs. 4(e) and 4(f ) show the effects of leg height on the
system irreversibilites and entropy generation per unit volume.
The system irreversibilites and entropy generation are thermody-
namic parameters that are associated with the second law of state-
ment. They give perspective on the magnitude of all the
combined factors contributing to exergy destruction within the
system. In a solar TEG, such factors comprise the thermal and elec-
trical resistance offered by the thermoelectric legs, thermal losses at
the STEG hot junction, imperfect electrical and thermal contact
renitences, thermal limitations of solid-state materials, and inelastic
distortions at elevated temperatures. It is seen that as the leg height
is increased, the system irreversibilites and entropy generation den-
sities begin to decrease exponentially. This is the reason for the rise
in energy/exergy efficiencies reported in Figs. 4(c) and 4(d), respec-
tively. Thus, shorter legs increase exergy destruction in a STEG
system, while longer legs are crucial to obtaining increased thermo-
dynamic stability.
Finally, we consider the impact of leg height on the STEG exergy
conversion index. This is a new exergy performance coefficient that
was introduced by the authors for the sake of simplifying exergy
analysis. We define it as the ratio between the exergy inflow, at
the STEG hot junction, and the exergy destroyed due to the gener-
ation of system irreversibilites. Thus, the ratio for reasonable exergy
performance is that the exergy conversion index must be greater
Transactions of the ASME
 om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18

Fig. 4 Effect of leg height on (a) temperature gradient, (b) power output density, (c) energy efficiency,
(d) exergy efficiency, (e) irreversibilities density, ( f ) entropy generation density, and (g) exergy conversion
index. Systems 1, 2, and 3 are the single-stage TEGs with rectangular, trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively.
Systems 4, 5, and 6 represent the two-stage TEGs with rectangular, trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively. The
thermoelectric leg length is varied from 1 mm to 10 mm while maintaining a leg area of 1.96 mm2. OTEGs
stand for the one-stage TEGs, while TTEGs are the two-stage TEGs.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology APRIL 2022, Vol. 144 / 041303-7

 om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18

Fig. 5 Effect of leg area on (a) temperature gradient, (b) power output density, (c) energy efficiency, (d) exergy
efficiency, (e) irreversibilities density, ( f ) entropy generation density, and (g) exergy conversion index. Systems
1, 2, and 3 are the single-stage TEGs with rectangular, trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively. Systems 4, 5, and 6
represent the two-stage TEGs with rectangular, trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively. The leg area is varied from
0.7 mm2 to 2.59 mm2 while maintaining an optimum leg height of 10 mm. OTEGs stand for the one-stage TEGs,
while TTEGs are the two-stage TEGs.

041303-8 / Vol. 144, APRIL 2022 Transactions of the ASME


than one. This is because, if it is less than or equal to one, it means
that the system has a higher rate of exergy destruction compared to
the exergy coming in from the heat source. Thus, much exergy is
being wasted. To this end, Fig. 4(g) shows the variation of the
exergy conversion index in the one-stage thermoelectric generators
(OTEGs) and two-stage thermoelectric generators (TTEGs). These
parameters were plotted on two different y-axes due to the large dif-
ference between them, which ultimately affected the result presen-
tation. First, the exergy conversion index of a TEG increases with
the stage height. In addition, while the exergy efficiency increases
with leg height, the exergy conversion index on the other hand is
maximized at an optimum leg height. This tells that the current irre-
versibility analysis is not sufficient to maximize exergy conversion
in thermodynamic devices. The leg height range specified was not
enough to maximize the exergy conversion index of system 1, as
it kept increasing even beyond 10 mm. However, a careful observa-
tion of the trend shows that the increase in its exergy conversion
index begins to decrease with increasing leg heights. This tells
that its optimum leg height exceeds 10 mm. Besides, the optimum
leg lengths for maximum exergy conversion in systems 2/3/4, 5,
and 6 are 7 mm, 4 mm, and 3 mm, respectively. This tells that
the optimum leg height for maximum exergy conversion in a single-
stage trapezoidal/X-leg TEG and double-stage rectangular leg TEG
is the same. Typical numerical values show that system 6 reduces
the optimum leg height in systems 2/3/4 and 5 by 57.14% and
25%, respectively. Also, system 6 reduces the optimum leg height
of systems 2/3/4 by 42.86%. Therefore, the optimum leg height
decreases as the number of stages in the TEGs is increased. This
also infers that the use of variable leg geometries in multi-stage
TEGs reduces the amount of material required to maximize
device exergy conversion.
4.1.2 Effect of Leg Area. For an optimum leg height of 10 mm,
the effects of thermoelectric leg area on the TEG temperature gradi-
ent, power output density, energy efficiency, and exergy efficiency
are captured in Figs. 5(a)–5(d), respectively. It is noticed that all
these parameters decrease as the leg area is increased. This is due
to the fact that as the leg area is increased, the rate of heat transfer,
by conduction, from the leg hot junction to cold junction increases.
Thus, meaning that less heat will be retained at both junctions nec-
essary to maintain a high temperature gradient. Hence, the decrease
in temperature gradient as the leg area is increased. This information
tells the TEG designer and manufacturer that maximum system per-
formance can be obtained while economizing the material volume.
Also, the temperature gradient obtained across systems 2/3/4 and
5/6 is very similar, with system 1 generating the least temperature
gradients.
Unexpectedly, Fig. 5(b) shows that the highest power output den-
sities are obtained from systems 2/4, although systems 5/6 generate
the highest temperature gradients as seen in Fig. 5(a). This can be
explained by considering that increasing the leg area results in an
increase in material volume. Furthermore, the legs in systems 2/3
are twice that of systems 5/6. This results in a substantial increase
in the power output density of the former relative to the latter, irre-
spective of the higher temperature gradients generated by the latter.
For similar reasons, below a critical area of 1.75 mm2 and
1.12 mm2, system 1 generates higher power output densities than
systems 4 and 5/6, respectively. Beyond these critical values, the
latter systems generate higher power output densities compared to
the former.
Due to the independence of the energy/exergy efficiencies on the
leg volume, Figs. 5(c) and 5(d) show that systems 5 and 6 generate
the highest values. This is also a function of the relatively higher
temperatures obtained from these systems. This is followed by
system 4, which outperforms systems 2/3 only above a critical
value of 1.25 mm2. Beyond this critical area, the efficiencies
obtained from systems 2/3/4 are very similar. Finally, the least effi-
ciencies are obtained from the traditional system 1. However, since
our study embraces a thermodynamic/exergy analysis, the leg area
of 0.7 mm2 is selected as the optimum leg area. Thus, the order of
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
increase in the efficiencies of the diverse systems become 1, 2/3, 4,
and 5/6, respectively.
Then, Figs. 5(e) and 5(f ) show the effect of leg area on the irre-
versibilities and entropy generation densities of the diverse systems.
As expected, the system irreversibilities reduce as the leg area is
increased. This is due to the higher rate of exergy destruction asso-
ciated with using thick areas. This also corroborates the results of
the energy/exergy efficiencies earlier discussed, since an increase
in the thermodynamic efficiencies is a consequence of reduced
system irreversibilites. It is also seen that the highest irreversibilities
and entropy generation densities are obtained from system 4/5, fol-
lowed by system 4, next to systems 2/3, and finally, system 1. This
tells that the adoption of variable leg geometries/multi-staging
comes at the expense of the traditional systems’ thermodynamic
stability.
Finally, Fig. 5(g) goes beyond just estimating the system irrevers-
ibilities but measures these irreversibilites with respect to the solar
exergy input. We see that the exergy conversion index is optimized
at an optimum leg area different from that for maximum exergy effi-
ciency. The optimum leg area for maximum exergy conversion in
system 1 is 1.33 mm2. Since our focus was to optimize the
exergy efficiency, the area range specified was even inadequate to
optimize the exergy conversion indices of systems 2–6, respec-
tively. This tells that while maximum exergy efficiency is obtained
at 0.7 mm2, the exergy conversion can only be maximized, that is
the full conversion of input solar exergy to useful exergy output,
when thicker legs, exceeding 2.6 mm2, are used.
4.2 Effect of Concentrated Solar Radiation. The concen-
trated solar radiation from the solar concentrator is a major
thermal parameter that influences the overall performance of a
solar TEG. This is because it determines the magnitude of the hot
and cold junction temperatures in the device, thus determining the
temperature gradient and the overall device performance. In addi-
tion, the thermal limitations of bismuth-telluride necessitate a
study on this crucial thermal parameter. Thus, in this section, it is
varied from 5 to 50 suns (1000 W m−2 = 1 sun). This is done in
order to encompass both low and high solar flux intensities. Our
major aim is to maximize the system exergy efficiency.
Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the variation of the temperature gra-
dients and power output densities obtained from the diverse systems
studied. We see that both parameters increase as the concentrated
solar radiation intensity is increased. This is due to the increased
heat absorption at the TEG hot junction. Furthermore, the increase
in both parameters begins to decline even as the concentrated solar
radiation intensity is further increased. The solar flux range speci-
fied was not even enough to maximize the power output density.
This is because our focus was not to maximize the power output
density but the exergy efficiencies. Also, the order of increase in
the temperature gradients of the various systems is different from
that of the power output densities. For instance, in Fig. 6(a), the
order of increase is systems 5/6, 2/3/4, and 1, respectively, while
in Fig. 6(b), the order of increase becomes systems 2/3, 1, and 4/
5/6, respectively. The higher power output densities obtained
from systems 2/3 are because of the lesser material volume it occu-
pies compared to all other systems. Also, system 1 offers a lesser
material volume compared to systems 4/5/6. These facts render
the higher temperature gradients developed by the systems 4/5/6
compared to 1/2/3 inconsequential. However, a further observation
of Fig. 6(b) reveals that at a critical solar flux of 50 suns, the power
output densities obtained from systems 2/3/1 becomes the same. For
solar fluxes below this critical value, systems 2/3 offer higher values
compared to system 1. Finally, below and above a critical value of
25 suns, the power output densities from systems 4 become lower
and higher than that of systems 5/6 combined, respectively.
On the other hand, Figs. 6(c) and 6(d) show the behavior of the
energy/exergy efficiencies with the concentrated solar flux, respec-
tively. It is seen that there exists an optimum solar flux at which
maximum energy/exergy efficiencies are obtained from the various
APRIL 2022, Vol. 144 / 041303-9
 om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18

Fig. 6 Effect of concentrated solar radiation intensity on (a) temperature gradient, (b) power output density,
(c) energy efficiency, (d) exergy efficiency, (e) irreversibilities density, ( f ) entropy generation density,
and (g) exergy conversion index. Systems 1, 2, and 3 are the single-stage TEGs with rectangular, trapezoidal,
and X-legs, respectively. Systems 4, 5, and 6 represent the two-stage TEGs with rectangular, trapezoidal, and
X-legs, respectively. The concentrated solar radiation intensity is varied from 5 to 50 suns for a fixed
optimum leg height and area of 10 mm and 0.7 mm2, respectively. OTEGs stand for the one-stage TEGs, while
TTEGs are the two-stage TEGs.

041303-10 / Vol. 144, APRIL 2022 Transactions of the ASME

 om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18

Fig. 7 Effect of external load resistance on (a) power output density, (b) energy efficiency, (c) exergy effi-
ciency, (d ) irreversibilities density, (e) entropy generation density, ( f ) irreversibilities and entropy generation
densities for system 1, and (g) exergy conversion index. Systems 1, 2, and 3 are the single-stage TEGs with
rectangular, trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively. Systems 4, 5, and 6 represent the two-stage TEGs with rec-
tangular, trapezoidal, and X-legs, respectively. The concentrated solar radiation intensity is varied from 5 to
50 suns for a fixed optimum leg height and area of 10 mm and 0.7 mm2, respectively. OTEGs stand for the
one-stage TEGs, while TTEGs are the two-stage TEGs.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology APRIL 2022, Vol. 144 / 041303-11


systems studied. The optimum solar flux required to maximize the
efficiencies varies across the single and double-stage systems. For
instance, the optimum concentrated solar radiation intensities
required to maximize the energy/exergy efficiencies in systems
1/2/3 are 15 suns, while that required in systems 4/5/6 are 20 suns.
This means that it will be more expensive to maximize the energy/
exergy efficiencies in a two-stage system compared to a single-stage
system, since a higher solar flux comes at a higher concentration ratio
and ultimately cost. Finally, the maximum energy/exergy efficien-
cies obtained from systems 1, 2/3, 4, and 5/6 are 6.13%/6.58%,
6.24%/6.69%, 6.86%/7.36%, and 6.98%/7.5%, respectively.
Also, Figs. 6(d) and 6(e) show that the system irreversibilities
and entropy generation densities in the various systems considered
increase with the concentrated solar radiation intensity emanating
from the solar concentrator. Due to the higher temperatures gener-
ated in systems 5/6, it generates the highest values compared to all
other systems. Also, system 1 records the least values, while system
4 gives higher values compared to systems 2/3 combined. This tells
that the use of performance enhancement strategies such as variable
leg geometries and multi-staging reduces the thermodynamic stabi-
lity of the conventional single-stage rectangular leg TEG.
Finally, Fig. 6(g) shows that the exergy conversion index is max-
imized at an optimum concentrated solar radiation intensity. This
new optimum value is different from that required for maximum
exergy efficiency as earlier discussed in the previous paragraph,
except for system 1. This tells that there is an optimum solar radiation
at which maximum conversion of input exergy to useful power
output can be obtained from a solar TEG. Furthermore, due to the dif-
ferent optimum operation parameters of the various systems, this
optimum solar flux varies across the various systems studied. Typi-
cally, the optimum solar flux for maximum exergy conversion in
systems 1 and 2–6 are 15 and 10, respectively. The corresponding
maximum conversion indices obtained from systems 1, 2/3, 4, and
5/6 are 1.06, 1.04, 2.04, and 2.02, respectively. First, this reveals
that the adaption of multi-staging and tapered legs reduces the
amount of solar flux and solar concentrator cost required to maximize
exergy conversion in system 1 by 33.33% (one-third). However,
compared to system 1, systems 2/3 reduce the exergy conversion
index by 1.89%, while systems 5/6 reduce maximum exergy conver-
sion of system 4 by 0.98%. These reductions are due to the higher
exergy destruction recorded in the latter systems compared to the
former. However, the percentage reduction is quite low. Since our
focus is to maximize the exergy efficiencies, we select a concentrated
solar radiation of 20 suns as the optimum flux.
4.3 Effect of External Load Resistance. We cannot conclude
this section without investigating the impact of the external load resis-
tance to which the TEG is delivering its generated current. This is
because the power output, and consequently the overall systems per-
formance, is a function of the magnitude of the load resistance. In
addition, the current generated by the TEG is also a function of the
load resistance. Thus, a parabolic relationship will ensue between
the power output and load resistance. This suggests an optimum
value. Hence, this information will be of importance to the TEG
designer and manufacturer. Using an optical concentration ratio of
20 suns, we vary the external load resistance from 0 to 2.3 Ω. This
range is selected in order to cover no load conditions, while surpassing
the internal electrical resistance offered by the thermoelectric legs.
In line with our predictions, Figs. 7(a)–7(c) show that there exists
an optimum load resistance at which peak power output density and
energy/exergy efficiencies, respectively, are obtained from a loaded
TEG. The first observation made is that the optimum load varies
across the diverse systems. Typical values show that for systems 1,
2/3, 4, and 5/6, the optimum loads for maximum power output den-
sities are 0.7 Ω, 1.3 Ω, 0.6 Ω, and 1.1 Ω, respectively. The corre-
sponding maximum power output densities are 7.77 × 105 W m−3,
8.67 × 105 W m−3, 4.66 × 105 W m−3, and 4.74 × 105 W m−3,
respectively. Hence, utilizing variable leg geometries increases the
optimum load requirement for maximum power in a conventional
041303-12 / Vol. 144, APRIL 2022
om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
rectangular leg TEG. In addition, multi-staging reduces the
optimum load for maximum power in a single-stage, rectangular/
variable leg area, TEG. Also, beyond a critical load resistance of
0.7 Ω, the power output densities generated by systems 2/3 exceed
that of system 1. However, above a critical load of 0.8 Ω, systems
5/6 outperform system 4. This means that there exists a critical
load resistance beyond which the power output density from a two-
stage TEG becomes higher than that of a two-stage TEG.
For the energy/exergy efficiencies, Figs. 7(b) and 7(c), respec-
tively, show that the optimum load resistances at which
maximum energy/exergy efficiencies are obtained from systems
1, 2/3, 4, and 5/6 are 0.8 Ω, 1.5 Ω, 0.7 Ω, and 1.3 Ω, respectively.
These optimums correspond to maximum energy/exergy efficien-
cies of 6.03%/6.47%, 5.93%/6.36%, 6.9%/7.41%, and 7.03%/
7.55%, respectively. Just like the power output density, it is also
seen that while varying the leg geometry increases the optimum
load requirement for maximum efficiencies in a rectangular leg
TEG, multi-staging reduces this requirement. Furthermore, the crit-
ical load requirement for the efficiencies in systems 2/3 to exceed
that of system 1 is 1.2 Ω, while that for systems 5/6 to exceed
system 4 is 0.9 Ω, thus implying that the efficiencies obtained
from a variable leg geometry TEG will only surpass that of its rec-
tangular leg counterpart beyond a specific critical load resistance.
Once again, multi-staging reduces this critical load requirement
by 25%. Finally, comparing the optimum values recorded in this
paragraph with that of the previous one shows that the optimum
load requirements for maximum efficiencies are higher than that
for maximum power output densities. Numerically speaking, for
systems 1, 2/3, 4, and 5/6, the optimum load required for
maximum power must be increased by 14.3%, 15.38%, 16.67%,
and 18.18%, respectively, before maximum efficiency can be
obtained. This further suggests that while the conventional system
1 requires the least load resistance percentage increase for
maximum efficiency, systems 5/6 requires the highest.
The irreversibilities and entropy generation densities associated
with varying the load resistance are seen in Figs. 7(d) and 7(e),
respectively. Due to the large marginal differences in the values
generated by the various systems, we depict the variation of
system 1—as an example—to show the true behavior of these
parameters. Figure 7(f ) shows this variation. The need for load
resistance optimization is seen in these plots, in that the least
system irreversibilities and entropies are generated at the
optimum load resistance for maximum efficiencies as reported in
the previous paragraph. Taking system 1 as an example, it can be
seen that the least irreversibilities are obtained when the load resis-
tance is set to 0.8 Ω. This coincides with the optimum load resis-
tance for maximum efficiency in system 1 as discussed earlier.
These findings are in perfect agreement with the second law of ther-
modynamics. That is, maximum exergy efficiency is obtained when
the system irreversibilities and entropies are minimized. The same
also applies to all other systems studied.
Finally, we wrap up the results obtained from this study by
recording the exergy conversion indices of the various systems as
the load resistance is varied. Figure 7(g) shows this trend. It is
seen that the optimum loads required to maximize the exergy con-
version indices coincide with those for maximum conversion effi-
ciencies. This further shows the need for an optimization study,
since it does not just maximize the exergy efficiency but also max-
imizes the conversion of the input solar exergy to useful power
output. The corresponding maximum exergy conversion indices
across systems 1, 2/3, 4, and 5/6 are 1.06, 1.04, 2.04, and 2.02,
respectively, thus implying that varying the leg geometry of a
single/double-stage rectangular leg TEG reduces its exergy conver-
sion index, while increasing the number of stages increase it.
5 Conclusions
The comprehensive numerical optimization of a novel TTEG
with variable area leg geometries was implemented using the
Transactions of the ASME
 om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
commercial software, ANSYS 2020 R2. The leg geometries consid- S = entropy generation, W K−1
ered were the traditional rectangular leg, optimum trapezoidal leg, T = temperature, K
and the recently introduced X-legs. The optimized parameters Ex = exergy
were the leg height and area, concentrated solar flux, and external
load resistance, thus encompassing the geometric, thermal, and
electrical performance of the device. These major conclusions are Greek Symbols
drawn from the study:
α = Seebeck coefficient, V K−1
• For the same amount of incident solar flux, the temperatures ɛ = emissivity
recorded across the hot and cold junctions of the tapered leg/ η = efficiency, %
rectangular leg and single/double-stage TEGs were all differ- μ = exergy conversion index
ent. This implies that future studies should avoid assuming ρ = electrical resistivity (Ω m)
the same temperatures across these various models. σ = Stefan–Boltzmann constant, W m−2 K−4
• The proposed two-stage TEG with tapered legs (trapezoidal τ = Thomson effect, transmissivity, V K−1
and X-legs) improved the exergetic efficiency of the base ϕ = electric field scalar potential, V
case, single-stage rectangular leg TEG, by 16.7%. Also, the ψ = concentrated solar radiation intensity, Suns
use of tapered leg TEGs, in single and multi-stage arrange-
ments, reduced the exergy conversion index of conventional
rectangular leg TEGs by 1.89% and 0.98%, respectively. Subscripts
• The results of the geometric optimization divulged that to
obtain maximum efficiencies, the initial leg height of the ther- a = ambient
moelectric legs, 1.62 mm, was increased by 517.28%, while c = cold
the initial leg area, 1.96 mm2, was decreased by 64.29%. d = destroyed
• The optimum leg height, area, and concentrated solar flux were en = energy
10 mm, 0.7 mm2, and 20 suns, respectively. However, the ex = exergy
optimum load resistances for systems 1, 2/3, 4, and 5/6 are f = inflow
0.8 Ω, 1.5 Ω, 0.7 Ω, and 1.3 Ω, respectively. These values cor- g = glass
respond to thermal/energy/exergy efficiencies of 7.05%/ gen = generation
6.03%/6.47%, 6.93%5.93%/6.36%, 8.08%/6.9%/7.41%, and h = hot
8.23%/7.03%/7.55%, respectively. rect-leg = rectangular leg geometry
• An increase in the leg height of the TEG increased its energy/ s = selective absorber surface, sun
exergy efficiencies while decreasing its power output per unit SB = Stefan–Boltzmann
volume. Thus, economic considerations must be made by the sky = sky
TEG manufacturer in the selection of the appropriate leg te = thermoelectric
height in order to achieve a high-power output at a reasonable X-leg = X-leg geometry
efficiency.
• X-leg TEGs are suitable for maximum power application (leg
height below 3 mm). For maximum efficiency application (leg References
height above 3 mm), either trapezoidal or X-leg TEGs can be [1] Zou, C., Zhao, Q., Zhang, G., and Xiong, B., 2016, “Energy Revolution: From a
used. Fossil Energy Era to a New Energy Era,” Nat. Gas Ind. B, 3(1), pp. 1–11.
• The attainment of maximum exergy efficiency in a solar TEG [2] Khan, M. Q., Malarmannan, S., and Manikandaraja, G., 2018, “Power Generation
From Waste Heat of Vehicle Exhaust Using Thermo Electric Generator: A
does not imply that all the input solar exergy is converted to Review,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
useful power output. Thus, the novel exergy conversion Kattankulathur, India, March, pp. 1–9.
index introduced fully captured the requirements for [3] Kotcher, J., Maibach, E., and Choi, W. T., 2019, “Fossil Fuels Are Harming Our
maximum exergy conversion in the device. Brains: Identifying Key Messages About the Health Effects of Air Pollution From
Fossil Fuels,” BMC Public Health, 19(1), pp. 1–12.
• Thinner legs were crucial to obtaining maximum overall per- [4] Moriarty, P., and Honnery, D., 2016, “Can Renewable Energy Power the
formance in a TEG, although this was associated with a Future?,” Energy Policy, 93, pp. 3–7.
decrease in the systems’ thermodynamic stability. [5] Shafiee, S., and Topal, E., 2009, “When Will Fossil Fuel Reserves Be
• Although the adoption of multi-stage configuration improved Diminished?,” Energy Policy, 37(1), pp. 181–189.
[6] Jaziri, N., Boughamoura, A., Müller, J., Mezghani, B., Tounsi, F., and Ismail, M.,
the single-stage system overall performance, it increased its 2019, “A Comprehensive Review of Thermoelectric Generators: Technologies
optimum concentrated solar flux requirement and ultimately and Common Applications,” Energy Rep., 24.
cost, while reducing the system thermodynamic stability. [7] Champier, D., 2017, “Thermoelectric Generators: A Review of Applications,”
• The power output densities and efficiencies obtained from a Energy Convers. Manage., 140, pp. 167–181.
[8] Lee, H., 2017, Thermoelectrics, 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex.
variable leg geometry TEG will only surpass that of its rectan- [9] Thimont, Y., and LeBlanc, S., 2019, “The Impact of Thermoelectric Leg
gular leg counterpart beyond a specific critical load resistance. Geometries on Thermal Resistance and Power Output,” J. Appl. Phys., 126(9),
p. 095101.
[10] Ali, H., Yilbas, B. S., and Sahin, A. Z., 2015, “Exergy Analysis of a
Thermoelectric Power Generator: Influence of Bi-Tapered Pin Geometry on
Nomenclature Device Characteristics,” Int. J. Exergy, 16(1), pp. 53–71.
h = heat transfer coefficient, W m−2 K−1 [11] Liu, H., Wang, S.-L., Yang, Y., Chen, W., and Wang, X., 2020, “Theoretical
k = thermal conductivity, W m−1 K−1 Analysis of Performance of Variable Cross-Section Thermoelectric Generators:
Effects of Shape Factor and Thermal Boundary Conditions,” Energy, 201,
v = wind speed, m s−1 p. 117660.
A = area, m2 [12] Shittu, S., Li, G., Tang, X., Zhao, X., Ma, X., and Badiei, A., 2020, “Analysis of
C = concentration ratio Thermoelectric Geometry in a Concentrated Photovoltaic-Thermoelectric Under
G = global solar radiation, W m−2 Varying Weather Conditions,” Energy, 202, pp. 1–13.
[13] Lamba, R., and Kaushik, S. C., 2017, “Thermodynamic Analysis of
I = current, A Thermoelectric Generator Including Influence of Thomson Effect and Leg
J = current density, A m−2 Geometry Configuration,” Energy Convers. Manage., 144, pp. 388–398.
K = thermal conductance, W K−1 [14] Ferreira-Teixeira, S., and Pereira, A. M., 2018, “Geometrical Optimization of a
Thermoelectric Device: Numerical Simulations,” Energy Convers. Manage.,
P = power output, W 169, pp. 217–227.
Q = heat flow, W [15] Ibeagwu, O. I., 2019, “Modelling and Comprehensive Analysis of TEGs With
R = internal electrical resistance, Ω Diverse Variable Leg Geometry,” Energy, 180, pp. 90–106.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology APRIL 2022, Vol. 144 / 041303-13


[16] Wang, R., Meng, Z., Luo, D., Yu, W., and Zhou, W., 2020, “A Comprehensive
Study on X-Type Thermoelectric Generator Modules,” J. Electron. Mater., 49(7),
pp. 4343–4354.
[17] Niu, Z., Yu, S., Diao, H., Li, Q., Jiao, K., Du, Q., Tian, H., and Shu, G., 2015,
“Elucidating Modeling Aspects of Thermoelectric Generator,” Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, 85, pp. 12–32.
[18] Fabián-mijangos, A., Min, G., and Alvarez-quintana, J., 2017, “Enhanced
Performance Thermoelectric Module Having Asymmetrical Legs,” Energy
Convers. Manage., 148, pp. 1372–1381.
[19] Maduabuchi, C., Lamba, R., Njoku, H., Eke, M., and Mgbemene, C., 2021,
“Effects of Leg Geometry and Multistaging of Thermoelectric Modules on the
Performance of a Photovoltaic-Thermoelectric System Using Different
Photovoltaic Cells,” Int. J. Energy Res., p. er.6925.
[20] Cheng, K., Qin, J., Jiang, Y., Lv, C., Zhang, S., and Bao, W., 2018, “Performance
Assessment of Multi-Stage Thermoelectric Generators on Hypersonic Vehicles at
a Large Temperature Difference,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 130, pp. 1598–1609.
[21] Zhang, H., Xu, H., Chen, B., Dong, F., and Ni, M., 2017, “Two-Stage
Thermoelectric Generators for Waste Heat Recovery From Solid Oxide Fuel
Cells,” Energy, 132, pp. 280–288.
[22] Cheng, K., Zhang, D., Qin, J., Zhang, S., and Bao, W., 2018, “Performance
Evaluation and Comparison of Electricity Generation Systems Based on Single-
and Two-Stage Thermoelectric Generator for Hypersonic Vehicles,” Acta
Astronaut., 151, pp. 15–21.
[23] Lee, M.-Y., Seo, J., Lee, H., and Garud, K. S., 2020, “Power Generation,
Efficiency and Thermal Stress of Thermoelectric Module With Leg Geometry,
Material, Segmentation and Two-Stage Arrangement,” Symmetry (Basel),
12(5), p. 786.
[24] Liu, Z., Zhu, S., Ge, Y., Shan, F., Zeng, L., and Liu, W., 2017, “Geometry
Optimization of Two-Stage Thermoelectric Generators Using Simplified
Conjugate-Gradient Method,” Appl. Energy, 190, pp. 540–552.
[25] Cheng, K., Qin, J., Jiang, Y., Zhang, S., and Bao, W., 2018, “Performance
Comparison of Single- and Multi-Stage Onboard Thermoelectric Generators
and Stage Number Optimization at a Large Temperature Difference,” Appl.
Therm. Eng., 141, pp. 456–466.
[26] Zhang, F., Cheng, L., Wu, M., Xu, X., Wang, P., and Liu, Z., 2020, “Performance
Analysis of Two-Stage Thermoelectric Generator Model Based on Latin
Hypercube Sampling,” Energy Convers. Manage., 221, p. 113159.
[27] Kanimba, E., Pearson, M., Sharp, J., Stokes, D., Priya, S., and Tian, Z., 2017, “A
Modeling Comparison Between a Two-Stage and Three-Stage Cascaded
Thermoelectric Generator,” J. Power Sources, 365, pp. 266–272.
[28] Sun, H., Ge, Y., Liu, W., and Liu, Z., 2019, “Geometric Optimization of
Two-Stage Thermoelectric Generator Using Genetic Algorithms and
Thermodynamic Analysis,” Energy, 171, pp. 37–48.
[29] Guo, X., Zhang, H., Wang, J., Zhao, J., Wang, F., Miao, H., Yuan, J., and Hou, S.,
2020, “A New Hybrid System Composed of High-Temperature Proton Exchange
Fuel Cell and Two-Stage Thermoelectric Generator With Thomson Effect:
Energy and Exergy Analyses,” Energy, 195, p. 117000.
[30] Mgbemene, C. A., Njoku, H. O., and Agbo, C. O. A., 2018, “Investigation of
Parametric Performance of the Hybrid 3D CPC/TEM System Due to
Thermoelectric Irreversibilities,” Front. Energy Res., 6, pp. 1–11.
[31] Erturun, U., Erermis, K., and Mossi, K., 2014, “Effect of Various Leg Geometries
on Thermo-Mechanical and Power Generation Performance of Thermoelectric
Devices,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 73(1), pp. 126–139.
[32] Maduabuchi, C., and Eke, M., 2021, “Solar Electricity Generation Using a
Photovoltaic-Thermoelectric System Operating in Nigeria Climate,” IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria, November 2020, Vol. 730, p. 012029.
[33] Xuan, X., Ng, K., Yap, C., and Chua, H., 2002, “The Maximum Temperature
Difference and Polar Characteristic of Two-Stage Thermoelectric Coolers,”
Cryogenics (Guildf), 42(5), pp. 273–278.
[34] Shittu, S., Li, G., Xuan, Q., Zhao, X., Ma, X., and Cui, Y., 2020, “Electrical and
Mechanical Analysis of a Segmented Solar Thermoelectric Generator Under
Non-Uniform Heat Flux,” Energy, 199, p. 117433.
041303-14 / Vol. 144, APRIL 2022
om http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/144/4/041303/6729963/jert_144_4_041303.pdf?casa_token=JIgzEuB09zUAAAAA:9b7O5cxnPSzr333oqdqW3VK4fQTWuxZidck5LYzmiiHff8g8awiyqB7nQjz3_KzACpi1MC_l by National Institute of Technology- Surathkal user on 18
[35] Shittu, S., Li, G., Zhao, X., Ma, X., Akhlaghi, Y. G., and Fan, Y., 2020,
“Comprehensive Study and Optimization of Concentrated Photovoltaic-
Thermoelectric Considering All Contact Resistances,” Energy Convers.
Manage., 205, p. 112422.
[36] Maduabuchi, C. C., Mgbemene, C. A., and Ibeagwu, O. I., 2020, “Thermally
Induced Delamination of PV-TEG: Implication of Leg’s Joule and Thomson
Heating,” J. Electron. Mater., 49(11), pp. 6417–6427.
[37] Maduabuchi, C., Ejenakevwe, K., Ndukwe, A., and Mgbemene, C., 2021, “High
Performance Solar Thermoelectric Generator Using Asymmetrical Variable Leg
Geometries,” E3S Web Conference, Rome, Italy, Vol. 239, p. 00005.
[38] Moran, M. J., Shapiro, H. N., Boettner, D. D., and Bailey, M. B.,
2018, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 9th ed., Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
[39] Maduabuchi, C. C., and Mgbemene, C. A., 2020, “Numerical Study of a Phase
Change Material Integrated Solar Thermoelectric Generator,” J. Electron.
Mater., 49(10), pp. 5917–5936.
[40] Maduabuchi, C. C., and Mgbemene, C. A., 2020, “Numerical Analysis and
Simulation of a Hybrid Concentrated Thermoelectric Module With Phase
Change Material,” 2020 Sustainable Engineering and Industrial Technology
Conference, Nsukka, Enugu, July, pp. 1–3.
[41] Lamba, R., Manikandan, S., and Kaushik, S. C., 2018, “Performance Analysis
and Optimization of Concentrating Solar Thermoelectric Generator,”
J. Electron. Mater., 47(9), pp. 5310–5320.
[42] Petela, R., 2003, “Exergy of Undiluted Thermal Radiation,” Sol. Energy, 74(6),
pp. 469–488.
[43] Maduabuchi, C., Ejenakevwe, K., Jacobs, I., and Ndukwe, A., 2020, “Analysis of
a Two-Stage Variable Leg Geometry Solar Thermoelectric Generator,” 2nd
African International Conference and Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, Harare, Zimbabwe, November, pp. 1–7.
[44] Maduabuchi, C. C., Eke, M. N., and Mgbemene, C. A., 2021, “Solar Power
Generation Using a Two-Stage X-Leg Thermoelectric Generator With
High-Temperature Materials,” Int. J. Energy Res., 45(9), pp. 13163–13181.
[45] Maduabuchi, C. C., Ejenakevwe, K. A., and Mgbemene, C. A., 2021,
“Performance Optimization and Thermodynamic Analysis of Irreversibility in a
Contemporary Solar Thermoelectric Generator,” Renew. Energy, 168,
pp. 1189–1206.
[46] Maduabuchi, C., Njoku, H., Eke, M., Mgbemene, C., Lamba, R., and Ibrahim,
J. S., 2021, “Overall Performance Optimisation of Tapered Leg Geometry
Based Solar Thermoelectric Generators Under Isoflux Conditions,” J. Power
Sources, 500, p. 229989.
[47] Ust, Y., Sahin, B., and Sogut, O. S., 2005, “Performance Analysis and
Optimization of an Irreversible Dual-Cycle Based on an Ecological Coefficient
of Performance Criterion,” Appl. Energy, 82(1), pp. 23–39.
[48] Akkaya, A., Sahin, B., and Huseyinerdem, H., 2007, “Exergetic Performance
Coefficient Analysis of a Simple Fuel Cell System,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,
32(17), pp. 4600–4609.
[49] Ibeagwu, O. I., Eke, M. N., Maduabuchi, C. C., Mgbemene, C. A., and Aka, T. V.,
2020, “Particle Overlay Obstruction Modelling, Parametric and Output
Characteristics Evaluation of a Photovoltaic System,” Niger. Res. J. Eng.
Environ. Sci., 5, pp. 679–693.
[50] Lee, H., 2010, Thermal Design Heat Sinks, Thermoelectrics, Heat Pipes,
Compact Heat Exchangers, and Solar Cells, 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
Hoboken, NJ.
[51] Shittu, S., Li, G., Zhao, X., Ma, X., Akhlaghi, Y. G., and Ayodele, E., 2019,
“High Performance and Thermal Stress Analysis of a Segmented Annular
Thermoelectric Generator,” Energy Convers. Manage., 184, pp. 180–193.
[52] Shittu, S., Li, G., Xuan, Q., Xiao, X., Zhao, X., Ma, X., and Akhlaghi,
Y. G., 2020, “Transient and Non-Uniform Heat Flux Effect on Solar
Thermoelectric Generator With Phase Change Material,” Appl. Therm. Eng.,
173, pp. 1–15.
[53] Xiao, J., Yang, T., Li, P., Zhai, P., and Zhang, Q., 2012, “Thermal Design and
Management for Performance Optimization of Solar Thermoelectric
Generator,” Appl. Energy, 93, pp. 33–38.
Transactions of the ASME