energies
Article
Evaluation of Thermoelectric Generators under
Mismatching Conditions
Daniel Sanin-Villa *, Oscar D. Monsalve-Cifuentes






Citation: Sanin-Villa, D.;
Monsalve-Cifuentes, O.D.;
Henao-Bravo, E.E. Evaluation of
Thermoelectric Generators under
Mismatching Conditions. Energies
2021, 14, 8016. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14238016
Academic Editors: Zhi-Gang Chen
and Bertrand Lenoir
Received: 31 August 2021
Accepted: 14 October 2021
Published: 1 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2021, 14, 8016. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238016
and Elkin E. Henao-Bravo
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechatronics and Electromechanics, Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano,
Medellín 050034, Colombia; oscarmonsalve204998@correo.itm.edu.co (O.D.M.-C.);
elkinhenao@itm.edu.co (E.E.H.-B.)
* Correspondence: danielsanin@itm.edu.co
Abstract: Due to the wide usability of thermoelectric generators (TEG) in the industry and research
fields, it is plausible that mismatching conditions are present on the thermal surfaces of a TEG device,
which induces negative-performance effects due to uneven surface temperature distributions. For
this reason, the objective of this study is to characterize numerically the open-circuit electric output
voltage of a TEG device when a mismatching condition is applied to both the cold and hot sides of
the selected N and P-type semiconductor material Bi0.4 Sb1.6 Te3 . A validated numerical simulation
paired with a parametric study is conducted using the Thermal-Electric module of ANSYS 2020 R1,
for which different thermal boundary and mismatching conditions are applied while considering the
temperature-dependent thermoelectrical properties of the N and P-type material. The results show
an inverse relationship between the open-circuit voltage and the mismatching temperature difference.
When a mismatching condition is applied on the hot side of the TEG device, the temperature-
dependent electrical resistance has lower values, deriving in higher voltage results (linear tendency)
compared to a mismatching condition applied to the cold side (non-linear tendency).
Keywords: thermoelectric generator; TEG; mismatch; mismatching condition; numerical simulation
1. Introduction
A single thermoelectric generator (TEG) is a device composed of semiconductor
materials (N and P-type) connected electrically in series and thermally in parallel (More
than two modules can be electrically connected either in series or parallel) that produces
electric power from a temperature difference (Seebeck effect), or cooling from an electric
potential source (Peltier effect) [1]. These devices are used in a wide range of applications
i.e., bio-integrated wearable devices [2], pipe heat energy waste [3], automobile exhaust
heat [4,5], heat exchangers [6], combustion engines [7,8], photovoltaic systems [9–11], and
space exploration [12–14].
Thermoelectric devices are subject to non-uniform temperature distributions,
i.e., mismatching conditions due to environmental-operating conditions. It has been re-
ported that the performance of working thermoelectric arrangements is lower than expected
under mismatched temperature conditions [15]. Tang et al. [16] found a power loss of
11% in the performance of a TEG module under mismatched temperature conditions for
automobile exhaust heat recovery, while asserting that proper isolation could reduce the
losses down to 2.3%. Hakim & Lim [17] compared the performance of two interconnected
thermoelectric modules, one of them under temperature mismatching conditions and the
other one without them. They found an electric power difference of 45.73% at a temper-
ature difference of ∆T = 340.15 K, with the non-mismatched module producing the
higher power.
Experimental studies on coupled TEG-Photovoltaic (TEG-PV) systems reported nega-
tive effects of mismatching temperature conditions, hindering efficient heat transfer, and
thus lowering the expected design performance [18,19].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 2 of 20

Material-wise, Bismuth Telluride (Bi2 Te3 ) is used widely for industrial applications
due to cost-benefit reasons. However, the scarcity of these materials in the earth’s crust [20]
compelled research laboratories to find other types of usable materials for thermoelectric
applications [21]. Therefore, new materials for this application e.g., half-Heusler, skutteru-
dites, Calcium/Manganese oxides, Magnesium silicide, and tetrahedrites are currently
being used for temperature difference ranges of (300 ≤ ∆T ≤ 750) K and withstanding
maximum temperatures of (573 ≤ Tmax ≤ 1073) K [22,23].
Furthermore, numerical studies on TEG devices have been performed underlining
simulation methodologies [24,25], while others allow visualization that the methodology
to mathematically model the mismatching temperature conditions for both photovoltaic
cells and thermoelectric devices are similar [26,27].
Wang et al. [28] proposed a mathematic model which takes into account the temperature-
dependent thermoelectrical properties and effects of convection but did not consider the
temperature mismatching. Montecucco et al. [15] performed an experimental study of
interconnected thermoelectric devices in series and parallel considering the temperature
mismatching effect over the circuital model, not directly on the thermoelectric couples
but on the whole arrangement. Wee [29] developed a theoretical analysis to solve the
differential equations governing the thermoelectric devices based on the assumption of
the linear variation of the temperature over P-N couples, but he neglected real physical
phenomena such as temperature mismatching conditions. Ju et al. [30] performed a similar
investigation considering only a linear variation of the Seebeck coefficient and electrical
resistivity; no mismatching conditions were considered in the analysis. Therefore, current
models neglect the combined effect of physical phenomena like thermal dependence of
properties and the mismatching boundary conditions.
In literature, there are no reported models to evaluate the thermal mismatching on
individual thermoelectrical couples considering the thermal variation of physical properties
like Seebeck coefficient, thermal conductivity, electrical resistivity, and the dimensionless
figure of merit. Therefore, this paper addresses such a problem by introducing the following
contributions: first, a mathematical model to evaluate the mismatching conditions even
on the cold and hot side; second, a thermoelectric simulation including the effect of
temperature gradient on the thermoelectrical properties; and third, the evaluation of the
efficiency of thermocouples under mismatching conditions.
The objective of this study is to characterize by means of numerical simulation the
open-circuit electric output available power of a TEG device when a mismatching condition
is applied to both the cold and hot sides of the TEG device considering temperature-
dependent properties of the N and P-type semiconductor material Bi0.4 Sb1.6 Te3 .
Section 2 of the paper describes the governing equations, the thermoelectrical proper-
ties, and the methodology for the simulation. Section 3 presents the results of temperature
and voltage contours and trend curves. Finally, Section 4 concludes the present work
highlighting the main results.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Governing Equations
Figure 1 shows a thermoelectric generator (TEG) device, which is composed of ther-
mocouples of P-type (positive) and N-type (negative) materials, and copper electrodes. A
set of n-th materials can be connected electrically in series, and thermally in parallel to form
a thermoelectric array. If a temperature difference ∆TTEG = Thot − Tcold is applied to the
TEG device, then an open-circuit voltage Voc is generated due to the Seebeck effect. When
an electrical load R L is connected to both ends of the TEG device, an electric current I flows
from the N to the P material. Equation (1) defines the open-circuit voltage Voc produced by
the TEG device. The term α = α P − α N is the combined Seebeck coefficient, which relates
the Seebeck coefficient for both the N and P-type materials [31].

Voc = α∆TTEG (1)

 Figure 1 also shows the heat energy 𝑄 inputs and outputs present in a leg of the TEG
device, whose energy balance equation must follow that 𝑄 = 𝑄 + 𝑄 + 𝑄 , where
ℎ, 𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣, and 𝑠 represent the heat input, heat to electrical energy conversion, heat loss
due to convection, and heat energy on the heatsink, respectively. Then, the general steady-
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 state heat flow equation is defined by (2) [32]. 3 of 20

∇⋅ q = q (2)

Figure1.1.General
Figure Generalconfiguration
configurationand
andenergy
energyflow
flowofofa athermoelectric
thermoelectricgenerator
generatordevice.
device.

The left
Figure side shows
1 also of Equation (2) represents
the heat the divergence
energy Q inputs of the
and outputs heat flux
present in a vector 𝑞⃗, which
leg of the TEG
device, whose
is defined energy
in terms ofbalance equation
the Fourier’s law must that Qh = −𝑘∇𝑇
followconduction
of thermal Qe + Q conv + Qs ,the
involving where
ther-
h,mal
e, conv,
conductivity 𝑘, the heat
and s represent the heat input, heat
generation due toto electrical
the Peltierenergy 𝛼𝐽⃗𝑇, and the
effectconversion, heat loss due
electric cur-
torent
convection, and heat
density vector 𝐽⃗, given
energyby on(3).
theAccording
heatsink, respectively. Then, the
to [33], the electric general
current steady-state
density can be
heat flow equation
computed as (4), where 𝐸⃗ =by
is defined −∇𝜙(2) [32].
is the electric field intensity vector, and 𝜌 is the elec-
trical resistivity. In addition, the electric scalar
→ potential
. 𝜙 is defined by (5).
∇· q = q  (2)

q = − k ∇ T + α TJ (3)
→
The left side of Equation (2) represents the divergence of the heat flux vector q ,
 1 
which is defined in terms of the Fourier’s
ρ
(
J =law E of−thermal )
α ∇ T conduction −k∇ T involving the
→ (4)
thermal conductivity k, the heat generation due to the Peltier effect α J T, and the electric
→ 
current density vector J , given by (3).−∇φ = ρ J +to
According α∇[33],
T the electric current density can
(5)
→
be computed as (4), where E = −∇φ is the electric field intensity vector, and ρ is the
The right side of Equation (2) is the heat generation rate per unit volume 𝑞, which is
electrical resistivity. In addition, the electric scalar potential φ is defined by (5).
defined as (6).
→ 2 T+  αT →J
ρ J−k∇
qq= = + α J ⋅∇T − qconv (3)
(6)
→ 1 →
 
where 𝜌 𝐽⃗ is the Joule heating, J𝛼𝐽⃗= E −work
∇𝑇 ρis the α∇ T done against the Seebeck field, and
(4)
𝑞 = [ℎ𝑃(𝑇 − 𝑇 )]/𝐴 is the heat loss on the → side of the TEG’s legs due to convection,
where the term ℎ [W/m K] is the−heat ∇φ transfer α∇ T
= ρ J +coefficient, 𝑇 the ambient temperature,
(5)
𝑃 and 𝐴 are the perimeter and area of the TEG’s leg cross-section, respectively [28]. The
.
The right side of Equation (2) is the heat generation rate per unit volume q, which is
divergence of Equation (3) using the product rule yields (7).
defined as (6).
   
∇ ⋅ q = −∇
. → 2
q ⋅=( kρ∇TJ ) ++
→
(
α αT J ∇· ∇ ) +α
⋅ JT − J ⋅ ∇T + TJ ⋅ ∇α
qconv (7)
(6)

For→a steady-state
2 →divergence of the electric current density vector is ∇ ∙
analysis, the
𝐽⃗ = 0, ρwhich
where J isensures
the Joule
theheating,
continuity ∇the
α Jof T iscurrent
the work done[34].
density against the Seebeck
Furthermore, field,
if the and
Seebeck
qconv = [hP( T − T0 )]/A is the heat loss on the side of the TEG’s legs due to convection,
where the term h W/m2 K is the heat transfer coefficient, T0 the ambient temperature,
P and A are the perimeter and area of the TEG’s leg cross-section, respectively [28]. The
divergence of Equation (3) using the product rule yields (7).
→ → →
 
→
∇ · q = −∇ · (k∇ T ) + αT ∇ · J + α J · ∇ T + T J · ∇α (7)

For a steady-state analysis, the divergence of the electric current density vector is
→
∇· J = 0, which ensures the continuity of the current density [34]. Furthermore, if the
Seebeck coefficient is a function of temperature α( T ), then the Thomson coefficient is
defined as β = T (∂α/∂T ) [35]. Hence, substituting Equations (6) and (7) into (2), and
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 4 of 20

accounting for the temperature dependency of the properties of the materials, Equation (2)
can be rewritten for a three-dimensional case as a second-order partial differential equation
with variable coefficients as (8).

→ → 2 P
k( T )∇2 T − β( T ) J · ∇ T + ρ( T ) J − h( T − To ) = 0 (8)
A

The voltage distribution throughout a control volume of a TEG device considering the
→
electric current density vector ∇· J = 0 for a steady-state condition, can be derived using
Equation (5) resulting in (9), [34].

∇ · [σ( T )∇V ] + ∇ · [σ( T )α( T )∇ T ] = 0 (9)

where σ ( T ) = 1/ρ is the electrical conductivity as a function of temperature T. The first and
second terms of Equation (9) represent the electric conduction, and the distortion on the electric
field caused by the thermoelectric effect, respectively [34]. Therefore, Equations (8) and (9)
describe the existing thermoelectric phenomena in a TEG device.
The TEG electrical output available power Pe can be approximated using the open-
circuit voltage and the temperature-dependent total internal electrical resistance Rtotal ( T ),
as Equation (10) shows, [36].
Voc 2
Pe = (10)
4Rtotal ( T )
The maximum efficiency of a thermoelectric material, either when the TEG device
is generating electrical power or cooling, can be determined using the factor of merit Z,
defined by (11), with α P , α N ; k P , k N ; and ρ P , ρ N being the Seebeck coefficients, the thermal
conductivities, and the electrical resistivities of the P and N materials, respectively [37].
If Z is multiplied by the average temperature T = ( Th − Tc )/2, then the dimensionless
figure of merit ZT is obtained, given by (12), [38].

( α P − α N )2
Z = h i2 (11)
(k P ρ P )1/2 + (k N ρ N )1/2

α2 T
ZT = (12)
ρk
The efficiency of the thermoelectric generator device can be determined by relating the
.
heat transfer rate on the hot side Qh and the electric output power generated Pe by the TEG
device (13). The efficiency expression can be written in terms of the temperature difference
∆T = Th − Tc , the dimensionless figure of merit ZT, and the cold and hot temperatures
Tc , Th , respectively [37].
√
Pe ∆T 1 + ZT − 1
ηTEG = . = √ (13)
Qh Th 1 + ZT + Tc
Th

2.2. Thermoelectric Properties of Materials

For this article, a total of five

materials constituted the studied thermoelectric module:
copper, solder Sn96.5 Ag Cu0.5 , filler (silicone elastomer), thermal interface layer (TIL),
and the N and P-type material (Bi0.4 Sb1.6 Te3 ). On the one hand, Table 1 shows the isotropic
properties of thermal conductivity k, the Seebeck coefficient α, and the electrical resistivity
ρ of the temperature-independent materials, except for ρ of the copper.
 Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

isotropic properties of thermal conductivity 𝑘, the Seebeck coefficient 𝛼, and the electrical
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 5 of 20
resistivity 𝜌 of the temperature-independent materials, except for 𝜌 of the copper.

Table 1. Thermoelectric properties of the material used for the numerical simulation.
Table 1. Thermoelectric properties of the𝒌material used for the numerical
𝜶 simulation. 𝝆
Material
(𝐖/𝐦𝐊)k
(𝛍𝐕/𝐊)
α
(𝛀𝐦)
ρ
Material
Copper 400 [34] 1.80 [39] Variable, see Figure 2
(W/mK) (µV/K) (Ωm)
Solder (Sn . Ag Cu . ) 64 [40] − 1.25 × 10−7 [41]
Copper 400 [34] 1.80 [39] Variable, see Figure 2
Filler (silicone
Solder Sn96.5elastomer)
Ag Cu0.5


0.27
64[42]
[40] −
− 1.25 × 10−−7 [41]
Thermal interface
Filler (silicone layer
elastomer) 0.27 [42] − −
Thermal interface
4 [43] −
−
−
−
(TIL) layer (TIL) 4 [43]
k 𝑘:
: thermal conductivity;
thermal conductivity; 𝛼: Seebeck
α : Seebeck coefficient; 𝜌: electrical
ρ : electrical
coefficient; resistivity.resistivity.

Figure 2 shows the copper electrical resistivity ρ as a function of the temperature T,

Figure 2 shows the copper electrical resistivity 𝜌 as a function of the temperature 𝑇,
which is defined in the range of (273.15 ≤ T ≤ 373.15) K. However, for the present
which is defined in the range of (273.15 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 373.15) K. However, for the present nu-
numerical simulation purposes, the copper ρ can be extrapolated for higher values of T.
merical simulation purposes, the copper 𝜌 can be extrapolated for higher values of 𝑇.

Figure2.2. Copper
Figure Copper electrical resistivity 𝜌
electrical resistivity as aa function
ρ as function of temperature 𝑇T for
of temperature for aa range
rangeof (273.15≤≤𝑇T≤
of(273.15
373.15) K [44].
≤ 373.15) K [44].

On the
On the other
other hand,
hand, Figure
Figure 3a3ashows
showsthethethermoelectrical
thermoelectricalisotropic temperature-de-
isotropic temperature-
pendent properties
dependent propertiesofofthe
theNNandandP-type
P-typematerial
materialasas the
the thermal
thermal conductivity
conductivity k,𝑘,the
theSee-
See-
beck coefficient 𝛼, and the electrical resistivity 𝜌. A range of temperature of (300
beck coefficient α, and the electrical resistivity ρ. A range of temperature of (300 ≤ T ≤ 500) ≤ 𝑇≤ K
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW500) K was selected based on the experimental study of Chen et al.
was selected based on the experimental study of Chen et al. [45] on the Bi0.4 Sb1.6 Te3 mate-
6 of 21
[45] on
the Bi
rial. . Sb 3b
Figure . Te material.
shows Figure 3b shows
the dimensionless figurethe dimensionless
of merit figure
ZT calculated of merit
using 𝑍𝑇 calcu-
Equation (12),
lated using
which reached Equation (12), which
a maximum reached
value of ZT =a1.52maximum
at T =value
350 K.of 𝑍𝑇 = 1.52 at 𝑇 = 350 K.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Thermoelectric isotropicproperties
propertiesofofthe
theNNand
andP-type
P-typematerial
material Bi Sb
. Sb Te Te : (a) Thermal conductivity 𝑘, See-
Figure 3. Thermoelectric isotropic Bi0.4 1.6 . 3 : (a) Thermal conductivity k, Seebeck
beck coefficient 𝛼, and electrical resistivity 𝜌 as a function of temperature 𝑇; (b) Dimensionless figure of merit 𝑍𝑇 [45].
coefficient α, and electrical resistivity ρ as a function of temperature T; (b) Dimensionless figure of merit ZT [45].

Table 2 shows the polynomial regressions of the isotropic thermoelectric tempera-

ture-dependent properties of the N and P-type material Bi . Sb . Te and the perfor-
mance 𝑍𝑇, where the coefficient of determination 𝑅 (COD), and the temperature range
of the properties is specified.
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 6 of 20

Table 2 shows the polynomial regressions of the isotropic thermoelectric temperature-

dependent properties of the N and P-type material Bi0.4 Sb1.6 Te3 and the performance
ZT, where the coefficient of determination R2 (COD), and the temperature range of the
properties is specified.

Table 2. Polynomial regressions of the temperature-dependent thermoelectrical properties of the N and P-type Bi0.4 Sb1.6 Te3
material for a temperature range of (300 ≤ T ≤ 500) K.

Thermoelectric Properties of Bi0.4 Sb1.6 Te3 Polynomial Regressions

k( T ) : Thermal conductivity 1.4919 + 0.0022T − 2.1333 × 10−5 T 2 + 3.1168 × 10−8 T 3 , R2 = 0.9952
α( T ) : Seebeck coefficient −546.7325 + 4.9569T − 0.0102T 2 + 6.4221 × 10−6 T 3 , R2 = 0.9821
ρ( T ) : Electrical resistivity 138.8930 − 1.0964T + 0.0029T 2 − 2.4851 × 10−6 T 3 , R2 = 0.9956
ZT ( T ) : Dimensionless figure of merit −22.5035 + 0.1753T − 4.1546 × 10−4 T 2 + 3.1614 × 10−7 T 3 , R2 = 0.9996

According to Mackey et al. [46,47] the largest contributing sources of uncertainty

on thermoelectric properties are electrical resistivity that includes the thermocouple tip
radius, sample uniformity, and probe separation length. They estimated that typical
samples measured with the ZEM-3 equipment, similar to ZEM-2 used by Chen et al. [45] to
report the thermoelectrical properties presented in Figure 3, was about ±7.0% across any
measurement of temperature.

2.3. Validation Study of the Numerical Model

2.3.1. TEG Device Three-Dimensional Model and Mesh
Figure 4 shows an isometric view of the studied TEG device and the general dimen-
sions.
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW The model is composed of one pair of P-type material (red), and one pair of N-type 7 of 21
material (dark blue), 5 copper electrodes (orange), which is composed of 3 large and 2
small-size copper electrodes. A filler (light blue), and the thermal interface layer TIL (pur-
ple). The5b
Figure 3Dpresents
model was meshed using theview
a three-dimensional module Mesh
of the of ANSYS
hexahedral 2020 R1.
selected meshAdditionally,
used for the
Figure 5a presents the
numerical simulation. mesh independence study of the model, in which 7 iterations were
executed, and the open-circuit voltage was considered as the parameter of interest. A mesh
Table 3 shows the quality parameters of the mesh that are relevant for the aggressive
with 32,832 elements −4 m
1 × 10quality
mechanical criterionwith 141,375
of the APDLnodes and a maximum
Mechanical mesh element
solver of ANSYS such assize
the ofelement
was selected due to the percentage error of 0.06% compared to the next iteration. Figure 5b
and the Jacobian ratio (corner nodes), which limit values of 0 and 1 are bad and good
presents a three-dimensional view of the hexahedral selected mesh used for the numerical
quality, respectively [48,49]. The minimum and maximum values of the quality parame-
simulation.
ters are given, as well as the standard deviation and the error limit for the 3-D problem.

Figure 4. Isometric view of the TEG device and general dimensions of the three-dimensional model.
Figure 4. Isometric view of the TEG device and general dimensions of the three-dimensional model.
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 7 of 20

Figure 4. Isometric view of the TEG device and general dimensions of the three-dimensional model.

(a) (b)
Figure 5. (a) Mesh independence study relating the open-circuit voltage, the mesh number of elements, and the relative
Figure 5. (a) Mesh independence study relating the open-circuit voltage, the mesh number of elements, and the relative
error between iteration points; (b) Three-dimensional view of the hexahedral-based mesh.
error between iteration points; (b) Three-dimensional view of the hexahedral-based mesh.

Table 3 shows the quality parameters of the mesh that are relevant for the aggressive
mechanical criterion of the APDL Mechanical solver of ANSYS such as the element quality
and the Jacobian ratio (corner nodes), which limit values of 0 and 1 are bad and good
quality, respectively [48,49]. The minimum and maximum values of the quality parameters
are given, as well as the standard deviation and the error limit for the 3-D problem.

Table 3. Hexahedral mesh quality parameters for the aggressive mechanical criterion of Mechanical APDL of ANSYS.

Standard Error Limit

Minimum Value Maximum Value Average Value
Mesh Quality Parameters Deviation Threshold
[−] [−] [−]
[−] [−]
Element quality 0.9512 1 0.9981 3.9829×10−3 <5×10−4
Jacobian ratio (corner nodes) 0.8568 1 0.9965 8.6903×10−3 <0.025

2.3.2. Comparison between Experimental Data and Numerical Model Results

Validation of the simulation was performed comparing the numerical open-circuit
voltage VOC of the TEG device model used in the simulation with the experimental open-
circuit voltage of the commercial thermoelectric generator module GM250-449-10-12 of
the manufacturer (European Thermodynamics Ltd., Kibworth, UK) [50]. The boundary
temperatures of the hot Th and cold Tc side of the TEG device were applied uniformly on
the surface (no mismatched temperatures). The thermoelectric properties of the N- and
P-type materials of the thermoelectric generator module GM250-449-10-12 used for the
numerical model are reported in Figure 6.
Montecucco et al. [15] studied the same commercial thermoelectric generator (GM250-
449-10-12) and reported that the module was composed of 449 thermoelectric couples/pairs
of N- and P-type materials. This allowed to scale up the voltage of the numerical simulation
according to the couples contained in the commercial TEG module. The comparison of
the numerical and experimental open-circuit voltage VOC is reported in Figure 7. A good
agreement between the experimental and numerical values can be seen, confirms the
validity of the numerical model used in the manuscript.
 voltage 𝑉 of the TEG device model used in the simulation with the experimental open-
circuit voltage of the commercial thermoelectric generator module GM250-449-10-12 of
the manufacturer (European Thermodynamics Ltd., Kibworth, UK) [50]. The boundary
temperatures of the hot 𝑇 and cold 𝑇 side of the TEG device were applied uniformly
on the surface (no mismatched temperatures). The thermoelectric properties of the N- and
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 8 of 20
P-type materials of the thermoelectric generator module GM250-449-10-12 used for the
numerical model are reported in Figure 6.

-170 16 2.5 230 20

Thermal conductivity (W K−1 m−1)

2.4 kP
Thermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1)

Seebeck coefficient (μV K−1)

2.6 kN 220

Electrical resistivity (μΩ m)

Seebeck coefficient (μV K−1)
15 αP 18

Electrical resistivity (μΩ m)

αN -180 2.3
210
2.4 ρN 2.2 ρP
14 200 16
-190 2.1
2.2 13 2.0 190
-200 14
1.9 180
2.0 12
1.8
170 12
-210
11 1.7
1.8 160
1.6 10
-220 10 150
1.5
1.6
1.4 140 8
-230 9 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
300 350 400 450 500 550
Temperature (K) Temperature (K)

(a) (b)
Figure
Energies 2021,6.6.
Figure Thermoelectrical
14, properties
x FOR PEER REVIEW
Thermoelectrical of the
properties commercial
of the thermoelectric
commercial generator
thermoelectric GM250-449-10-12
generator of theof
GM250-449-10-12 European Ther-9 of 21
the European
modynamics Ltd. manufacturer. (a) For the N-type material. (b) For the P-type material [50].
Thermodynamics Ltd. manufacturer. (a) For the N-type material. (b) For the P-type material [50].

Montecucco et al. [15] studied the same commercial thermoelectric generator

(GM250-449-10-12)
30 and
Exp. T =303.15 K reported that the module was composed of 449 thermoelectric
C
Sim. T =303.15 K
couples/pairs of N- and P-type materials. This allowed to scale up the voltage of the nu-
C
Open-circuit voltage (V)

Exp. T =323.15 K
25 simulation
merical according
Sim. T =323.15 K
C
to the couples contained in the commercial TEG module.
C

The comparison of the numerical and experimental open-circuit voltage 𝑉 is reported

Exp. T =353.15 K C
20 Sim. T =353.15 K C
in Figure 7. Exp.
A good
T =373.15agreement
K between the experimental and numerical values can be
C
Sim. T =373.15 K
seen,
15confirms the validity of the numerical model used in the manuscript.
C

10

0
320 360 400 440 480 520
Temperature on hot side (K)

Figure7.7.Validation
Figure Validationof
ofthe
thenumerical
numericalmodel
modelcomparing
comparingwith
withthe
theexperimental
experimentalopen-circuit
open-circuitvoltage
voltage
of the commercial thermoelectric generator device GM250-449-10-12. The dotted lines represent the
of the commercial thermoelectric generator device GM250-449-10-12. The dotted lines represent the
experimental (Exp.) data of the commercial TEG device obtained from [50]. The continuous lines
experimental (Exp.) data of the commercial TEG device obtained from [50]. The continuous lines
represent the simulation (Sim.) results.
represent the simulation (Sim.) results.
2.3.3.Verification
2.3.3. VerificationofofNumerical
NumericalThermal
ThermalEfficiency
Efficiency
AAcomparison
comparisonbetween
betweenthe thenumerical
numericaland andtheoretical
theoreticalthermal
thermalefficiencies
efficiencieswaswascarried
carried
out only for non-mismatching conditions cases, as shown in Figure 8. The
out only for non-mismatching conditions cases, as shown in Figure 8. The theoretical values theoretical val-
ues of thermal efficiency for non-mismatching conditions are calculated
of thermal efficiency for non-mismatching conditions are calculated using Equation (13). using Equation
(13).equation
That That equation
does notdoes not consider
consider any uneven
any uneven temperature
temperature distributions
distributions on both theon both the
hot and
hot and
cold sidescold sides
of the TEG of device
the TEG devicethe
neither neither the thermoelectric
thermoelectric variable properties.
variable properties.
Numericalthermal
Numerical thermalefficiency
efficiency results
results areare higher
higher thanthan those
those computed
computed with with Equation
Equation (13).
A(13). A temperature-independent
temperature-independent mean mean
value value
of the of the dimensionless
dimensionless figure figure
of meritof was
meritused
was
(𝑍𝑇 = (𝑇 + 𝑇 ) ⁄2), 𝑇 𝑇


used where and represent the temperature
ZT = ( Th + Tc )/2 , where Th and Tc represent the temperature on the hot and cold sides on the hot and
cold
of thesides
TEG of the TEG
device. device.
Lastly, Lastly, we
we consider theconsider the relative
relative error errordue
acceptable acceptable due to the
to the assumption
assumption
of ZT to computeof ZTthe
to compute
theoreticalthe theoretical
thermal thermal efficiency.
efficiency.
 (13). That equation does not consider any uneven temperature distributions on both the
hot and cold sides of the TEG device neither the thermoelectric variable properties.
Numerical thermal efficiency results are higher than those computed with Equation
(13). A temperature-independent mean value of the dimensionless figure of merit was
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 used (𝑍𝑇 = (𝑇 + 𝑇 )⁄2), where 𝑇 and 𝑇 represent the temperature on the hot 9 ofand
20

cold sides of the TEG device. Lastly, we consider the relative error acceptable due to the
assumption of ZT to compute the theoretical thermal efficiency.

Figure8.8.Theoretical
Figure Theoretical and
and numerical
numerical comparison
comparisonofofthe
thethermal efficiency
thermal of of
efficiency thethe
TEG device
TEG for non-
device for
mismatching conditions. For the theoretical thermal efficiency, a constant mean value for the di-
non-mismatching conditions. For the theoretical thermal efficiency, a constant mean value for the
mensionless figure of merit was used, defined as 𝑍𝑇 = (𝑇 + 𝑇 )⁄2.
dimensionless figure of merit was used, defined as ZT = ( Th + Tc )/2.

2.4.Boundary
2.4. BoundaryConditions
ConditionsandandParametric
ParametricStudies
Studies
Thethermoelectric
The thermoelectricdevice
deviceshown
shownininFigure
Figure4 4was
wassimulated
simulatedwith
withthe
thecommercial
commercial
solver code of Mechanical APDL using the Thermo-Electric module
solver code of Mechanical APDL using the Thermo-Electric module of ANSYS 2020 of ANSYS 2020R1.
R1.
Two simulations, which considered two cases of mismatching conditions,
Two simulations, which considered two cases of mismatching conditions, were executed were executed
bybya a12-core Intel® ®Xeon
12-coreIntel XeonCPU
CPUE5-2667
E5-2667atat2.90
2.90GHz,
GHz,andand3232GB
GBofofRAM
RAMworkstation.
workstation.Both
Both
simulations assumed no heat transfer by convection Qconv = 0 nor the effects of radiation
Qrad = 0 due to the considered low temperature gradients [51].

2.4.1. Numerical Simulation of the Mismatching Condition on the Heat Side (Bottom
Surfaces) of the TEG Device
Figure 9 shows the Dirichlet thermoelectric boundary conditions for this simula-
tion, which are assigned as follows: firstly, a thermal boundary condition Tcold is placed
on the three upper surfaces of the model, which represent the ambient temperature or
heatsink. Also, an electromagnetic boundary condition Vre f , which represents the refer-
ence voltage, is placed on the electrode of the P-type material, see Figure 9a. Secondly,
the bottomsurface has two thermal boundary conditions
 that represent the mismatching
condition ∆Tmismatching = Thot,max − Thot,variable , where one of them is the surface tem-
perature Thot max , which remain constant and is the highest temperature value; next to the
previous-mentioned surface, lies the variable temperature Thot variable , which generates the
mismatching temperature gradient on the bottom surface of the TEG device, see Figure 9b.
An example of the definition of the thermoelectric boundary conditions, e.g., the tempera-
ture on the cold side Tcold , the voltage reference Vre f , and the temperatures of the hot side
Thot,max and Thot,variable , is given in Figure 9 representing the first row of the parametric
conditions described in Table 4.

Table 4. Parametric study values of the thermoelectric boundary conditions of the mismatching
condition on the heat side (bottom surfaces) of the TEG module.

Thot max Thot variable Tcold Vref

[K] [K] [K] [V]
(300 ≤ Thot variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 300
(350 ≤ Thot variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 350
500 0
(400 ≤ Thot variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 400
(450 ≤ Thot variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 450
 mentioned surface, lies the variable temperature 𝑇 , which generates the mis-
matching temperature gradient on the bottom surface of the TEG device, see Figure 9b.
An example of the definition of the thermoelectric boundary conditions, e.g., the temper-
ature on the cold side 𝑇 , the voltage reference 𝑉 , and the temperatures of the hot
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 side 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , 10 the
, is given in Figure 9representing the first row of of 20 para-

metric conditions described in Table 4.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Dirichlet thermoelectric boundary conditions for the mismatching condition simulation on the heat side surfaces
Figure 9. Dirichlet thermoelectric boundary conditions for the mismatching condition simulation on the heat side surfaces
(bottom surface). (a) Thermal boundary condition temperature 𝑇 (ambient, upper surface), and electromagnetic volt-
(bottom surface). (a) Thermal boundary condition temperature Tcold (ambient, upper surface), and electromagnetic voltage
age reference 𝑉 (ground) boundary conditions; (b) Thermal boundary conditions 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , on the bot-
reference Vre f (ground) boundary conditions; (b) Thermal boundary conditions Thot, max and on the bottom surfaces
tom surfaces (mismatching condition on heat side).
(mismatching condition on heat side).
Table 4 describes the parametric study simulation of the mismatching condition on the
Table 4 describes the parametric study simulation of the mismatching condition on
heat side, see Figure 9. The temperature Thot, max , and the electromagnetic boundary condi-
thetion
heat side, see Figure 9. The temperature 𝑇 , at, and
Vre f remained constant throughout the simulation
the electromagnetic boundary
a value of 500 K and 0 V, respec-
condition 𝑉 temperature
remainedTconstant throughout the simulation at a value of 500 K and 0 V,
tively. The hot, variable changed within a range of 300 ≤ Thot, variable ≤ 500) K
respectively. The temperature 𝑇
with steps of 10 K as the ambient temperature
, changed within from
Tcold increased a range
300 of
to 300 ≤𝑇 ,
450 K. ≤
500) K with steps of 10 K as the ambient temperature 𝑇 increased from 300 to 450 K.
2.4.2. Numerical Simulation of the Mismatching Condition on the Heatsink (Upper
Surfaces) of the TEG Device
Figure 10 shows the Dirichlet thermoelectric boundary conditions for the mismatch-
ing condition on the heatsink surfaces, which are assigned as follows: firstly, the upper
surface
 has two thermal boundary conditions
 that represent the mismatching condition
∆mismatching = Tcold,min − Tcold,variable , which are the surface temperature Tcold,min and
Tcold, variable that generate the mismatching temperature gradient on the upper surface of
the TEG device. Also, an electromagnetic boundary condition Vre f , which represents the
reference voltage, is placed on the electrode of the P-type material, see Figure 10a. Secondly,
a constant thermal boundary condition Thot is placed on the bottom surface of the model,
which represent the heat side temperature, see Figure 10b. Additionally, an example of the
definition of the thermoelectric boundary conditions e.g., the temperatures of the cold side
Tcold,variable and Tcold,min , the temperature on the hot side Thot , and the voltage reference
Vre f , is given in Figure 10 representing the first row of the parametric conditions described
in Table 5.

Table 5. Parametric study values of the thermoelectric boundary conditions of the mismatching
condition on the heatsink (upper surfaces) of the TEG module.

Thot Tcold,variable Tcold,min Vref

[K] [K] [K] [V]
(300 ≤ Tcold,variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 300
(350 ≤ Tcold,variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 350
500 0
(400 ≤ Tcold,variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 400
(450 ≤ Tcold,variable ≤ 500), steps of 10 K 450
 ondly, a constant thermal boundary condition 𝑇 is placed on the bottom surface of the
model, which represent the heat side temperature, see Figure 10b. Additionally, an exam-
ple of the definition of the thermoelectric boundary conditions e.g., the temperatures of
the cold side 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , , the temperature on the hot side 𝑇 , and the volt-
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 11 of 20
age reference 𝑉 , is given in Figure 10 representing the first row of the parametric con-
ditions described in Table 5.

(a) (b)
FigureFigure
10. Dirichlet thermoelectric
10. Dirichlet boundary
thermoelectric conditions
boundary conditionsforforthe
the mismatching condition
mismatching condition simulation
simulation on the
on the heatsink
heatsink surfaces
surfaces
(upper(upper
surface). (a) Thermal boundary conditions 𝑇 ,
surface). (a) Thermal boundary conditions Tcold,min and 𝑇 ,
and Tcold,variable (mismatching condition on heatsink), and and
(mismatching condition on heatsink),
the voltage reference 𝑉 electromagnetic boundary condition; (b) Constant
the voltage reference Vre f electromagnetic boundary condition; (b) Constant thermal thermalboundary
boundary Thot 𝑇on the
condition
condition on the
bottom surfaces.
bottom surfaces.
Table 5 describes the parametric study simulation of the mismatching condition on
Table 5 describes the parametric study simulation of the mismatching condition on
the heatsink (upper surface), see Figure 10. The temperature Thot , and the electromag-
the netic
heatsink (upper
boundary surface),Vseeremained
condition re f
Figure 10.constant throughout 𝑇the ,simulation
The temperature and the electromagnetic
at a value
boundary condition 𝑉 remained constant throughout the simulation
of 500 K and 0 V, respectively. The temperature Tcold,variable changed within at aa range
valueofof 500
(300 ≤ Thot, variable ≤ 500) K with steps of 10 K as the temperature Tcold,min increased from
300 to 450 K.

3. Results and Discussion

To calculate the total internal resistance of the TEG device, the geometric properties
of the temperature-dependent materials are needed. In this manner, Table 6 shows the
geometric properties of the copper, which has two sizes (see Figure 4), the N and P-type
materials, and the solder.

Table 6. Geometric properties of the N and P-type, copper, and solder materials. H : height; W : width; D : depth; A : area.

W H D
Number A
Material x-Coordinate y-Coordinate z-Coordinate
of Components [m2 ]
[m] [m] [m]
N and P-type 4 (2 N and 2 P) 0.00150 0.00120 0.00150 2.25×10−6
Copper (large) 3 0.00150 0.00030 0.00350 5.25×10−6
Copper (small) 2 0.00150 0.00030 0.00175 2.63× 10−6
Solder 8 0.00150 0.0001 0.00150 2.25×10−6

However, the total internal resistance in every point of the thermoelectric material
is hard to calculate due to the three-dimensional temperature gradients induced by the
mismatching conditions on the TEG device. For this reason, the total internal resistance
of the copper and the N-P-type materials of the TEG module was calculated applying
the mean value theorem to the polynomial regressions of the resistivities of the copper
ρcopper ( T ) and the N and P-type materials ρ N − P ( T ), see Figure 2 and Table 2 for the
polynomial regressions, respectively.
 Energies
Energies 14, x 14,
2021, 2021, FOR 8016
PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
13 of 21

OnOn thetheother
one hand,
hand,the
themean
meanvalue of of
value thethe
resistivity of the
resistivity N and
of the P-type
N and materials
P-type materials
𝜌 ρ N − P ( T ) for the simulation of the mismatching condition on the heat
(𝑇) for the simulation of the mismatching condition on the cold side (seeside (see Section 2.4.1)
Section
is defined by the piecewise-defined functionin Equation (14).
2.4.2) is defined by the piecewise-defined functionin Equation (15).

 ρ ( ) R T=
 ρ N − P ( T ), if T = Tcold
T , if Thot,variable
Tcold,variable (14)
ρ N − P, TH ( T ) =  N − P hot
 T
mismatching on 1 hot,variable
 
1
R Thot,max 
ρ N − P ( T ) dT + T ρ N − P ( T ) dT , if Thot,variable 6= Tcold
ρ N − P , mismatching on T (T ) =  −T hot,max − Tcold
T Tcold
hot,variable
1
cold
Thot
cold
  1 Thot  (15)
C
  ρ N − P (T ) dT  +   ρ N − P (T ) dT  , if Thot ≠ Tcold,variable
 Thot −On Tcold,min hot − Tcold,variable
  Tvalue
T
the other hand, the mean
cold,min T
of the resistivity of the N and P-type materials
cold,variable

ρ N − P ( T ) for the simulation of the mismatching condition on the cold side (see Section 2.4.2)
The temperature-dependent
is defined by the piecewise-definedtotal internal
functionin resistance
Equation (15). 𝑅 (𝑇) of the TEG device is
calculated
 using Equation (16), where 𝑊 , 𝐴 , and 𝜌 (𝑇) are the width, area, and
 ρ N − P ( T ), if T = Tcold,variable
ρ N − P, mismatching on TC ( T ) = the variable R Tresistivity
hot
of the
 N and RP type materials,
Thot
 respectively. 𝑅 (15), ,
 T −T1 hot 1
Tcold,min ρ N − P ( T ) dT + Thot − Tcold,variable Tcold,variable ρ N − P ( T ) dT , if Thot 6 = Tcold,variable
𝑅 hot
,
cold,min and 𝑅 are the constant resistivities of the temperature-independent
materials. The temperature-dependent total internal resistance R ( T ) of the TEG device is
total

( )
calculated using Equation (16), where WN − P , A N − P , and ρ N − P ( T ) are the width, area, and
2WN − P  ρ N − P T 
Rthe ( )
total T =
variable resistivity
and Rsolder are the A
of the N +
constant
andRcopper,large + Rcopper,small
P type materials,
resistivities of the
+ Rsolder Rcooper,large , Rcopper,small (16)
respectively.
temperature-independent materials.
N −P

Figure 11 shows
Rtotal the2W
(T ) = N − P [ ρ N − P ( T )]
temperature-dependent total+internal
+ Rcopper,large + Rsolder𝑅
resistance
Rcopper,small (𝑇)
(16)of the
TEG device compared to the A mismatching
N−P temperature difference Δ𝑇 . Figure
Figure 𝑅
11a presents (𝑇) the
fortemperature-dependent
the mismatching condition on theresistance
heat sideR(bottom surfaces),
11 shows total internal total ( T ) of the
in which can be
TEG device observed
compared themismatching
to the decreasingtemperatureelectrical resistance
difference as
∆Tthe delta of mismatching
mismatching . Figure 11a
Δ𝑇presents Rtotalincreases. This
( T ) for the mismatching as Δ𝑇
is because condition on the
on the heat sidehot side issurfaces),
(bottom higher, the in tem-
which can be observed the decreasing electrical
perature on the bottom surfaces gets colder, thus decreasing resistance as the delta of mismatching
electrical resistance of the
∆Tmismatching
N and increases. Similarly,
P-type materials. This is because Figureas11b ∆Tmismatching
shows 𝑅 on the (𝑇)hot forside
the is higher, the con-
mismatching
temperature on the bottom surfaces gets colder, thus decreasing
dition on the heatsink (upper surfaces) of the TEG device, where the increment the electrical resistanceof the
of the N and P-type materials. Similarly, Figure 11b shows Rtotal ( T ) for the mismatching
mismatching temperature difference Δ𝑇 causes the increment of the tempera-
condition on the heatsink (upper surfaces) of the TEG device, where the increment of the
ture of the upper
mismatching surfaces, difference
temperature then raising the electrical
∆Tmismatching causesresistance of the
the increment N and
of the P-type mate-
temperature
rials.
of the upper surfaces, then raising the electrical resistance of the N and P-type materials.

(a) (b)
Figure 11. Temperature-dependent
Figure 11. Temperature-dependent total
totalinternal
internal electrical resistance
electrical resistance 𝑅 ( T ) (𝑇)
Rtotal of thermoelectric
of the the thermoelectric generator
generator (TEG) de-
(TEG) device
vice compared to the mismatching temperature difference Δ𝑇 . (a) 𝑅 (𝑇) for the mismatching
compared to the mismatching temperature difference ∆Tmismatching . (a) Rtotal (T) for the mismatching condition on the heat side condition on
the heat sidesurface).
(bottom (bottom (b)surface). (b)the
Rtotal (T) for (𝑇) for the
𝑅 mismatching mismatching
condition condition
on the heatsink (upperon the heatsink
surface) (upper
at a constant surface)
temperature on at
theaheat
constant
temperature on the
side Thot = 500 K.heat side 𝑇 = 500 K.

3.1. Numerical Results and Contours of the Mismatching Condition Simulation on the Heat Side
(Bottom Surface) of the TEG Device
Figure 12 presents the numerical results of the mismatching condition simulation on
 Energies 2021, 14, 8016 13 of 20

Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3.1. Numerical Results and Contours of the Mismatching Condition Simulation on the Heat Side
14 of 21
(Bottom Surface) of the TEG Device
Figure 12 presents the numerical results of the mismatching condition simulation on
the heat side (bottom surfaces) of the TEG device compared to the mismatching temperature
circuit voltage 𝑉 . Figure 12b shows the electric available power 𝑃 , calculated with
difference ∆Tmismatching , which spans from 0 to 200 K. Figure 12a presents the open-
Equation (10). Figure
circuit voltage 12c shows
Voc . Figure the thermal
12b shows efficiency
the electric 𝜂 power
available , computed as the ratio
Pe , calculated withof the
electric power 𝑃 heat energy input 𝑄
Equation (10). Figure 12c shows the thermal efficiency ηTEG , computed as the ratio of nu-
and the , Equation (13). The above-mentioned
merical results
the electric are presented
power Pe and thefor
heatdifferent
energy input cold Qside temperatures
h , Equation ranging
(13). The between (300 ≤
above-mentioned
𝑇 numerical
≤ 450) results
𝐾. Furthermore, an inverse
are presented for differentrelation
cold canside be seen between
temperatures the numerical
ranging between re-
(300 ≤ T
sults and thecoldincrement of Δ𝑇
≤ 450) K. Furthermore, an . In other words, the open-circuit voltage 𝑉 gen-
inverse relation can be seen between the numerical
results
erated by and the increment
the TEG of ∆Tmismatching
device decreases because . In
theother words, thegradient
temperature open-circuit theVhot
voltage
between oc and
generated by the TEG device
cold surfaces gets smaller as when Δ𝑇 decreases because the temperature gradient between
is higher. Thus, the electric power 𝑃the
hot and cold surfaces gets smaller as when ∆Tmismatching is higher. Thus, the electric
and the thermal efficiency 𝜂 also have the same behavior. Additionally, the mathe-
power Pe and the thermal efficiency ηTEG also have the same behavior. Additionally, the
matical tendency
mathematical of 𝑉 of
tendency Voc 𝑃andisPlinear,
and whereas the tendency of 𝜂 is exponential.
e is linear, whereas the tendency of ηTEG is exponential.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 12. Numerical
Figure 12. Numericalresults of the
results of the mismatching
mismatchingsimulation conditionon
simulation condition onthe
thehot
hot side
side (bottom
(bottom surface)
surface) compared
compared to theto the
mismatching temperature
mismatching temperaturedifference
difference Δ𝑇∆Tmismatching on
onthe
thehot
hotside
sideofofthe
the thermoelectric
thermoelectric generator
generator device.
device. (a) Open-circuit
(a) Open-circuit
voltage 𝑉 ; (b)
voltage Voc ;Electric power
(b) Electric power 𝑃P; e(c)
; (c)Thermal efficiency η𝜂TEG . .
Thermalefficiency

Figure 13 presents the temperature and the voltage contours of the TEG device for
the mismatching condition on the heat side (bottom surface) at an ambient temperature
of 𝑇 = 300 K. On the one hand, Figure 13a–c show the two-dimensional 𝑥𝑦-plane
temperature contour distributions located at the middle of the 𝑧-coordinate of the TEG
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 14 of 20

Figure 13 presents the temperature and the voltage contours of the TEG device for
the mismatching condition on the heat side (bottom surface) at an ambient temperature
of Tcold = 300 K. On the one hand, Figure 13a–c show the two-dimensional xy-plane
temperature contour distributions located at the middle of the z-coordinate of the TEG
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
device z = − D/2 (D: depth) at a mismatching temperature difference ∆Tmismatching = 0,
100 and 200 K, respectively. On the other hand, Figure 13d–f present the three-dimensional
open-circuit voltage contour distributions at ∆Tmismatching = 0, 100 and 200 K, respectively.
voltage andto
According output power production,
the contours, the Figureand thuscorrespond
13a,d the maximum theefficiency
maximum points due voltage
electric to the
zero mismatching temperature difference Δ𝑇 = 0. Once a
and output power production, and thus the maximum efficiency points due to the zeromismatching temper-
ature difference
mismatching is induceddifference
temperature on the heat ∆Tside (bottom-right
mismatching surface),
= 0. Once e.g., Figuretemperature
a mismatching 13b,c the
open-circuit induced𝑉on
difference isvoltage , the
theelectric output
heat side power 𝑃 and
(bottom-right the thermal
surface), 13b,c𝜂the open-
efficiency
e.g., Figure de-
crease. The above-mentioned
circuit voltage Voc , the electricbehavior is generated
output power Pe andby the
the mismatching
thermal condition
efficiency on the
ηTEG decrease.
right side of the temperature
The above-mentioned behavior contours, which
is generated bycauses a reductioncondition
the mismatching in the temperature
on the rightgra-
side
dient between the upper and bottom surfaces. The voltage not only
of the temperature contours, which causes a reduction in the temperature gradient decreases duebetween
to the
reduction
the upper ofandthebottom
temperature
surfaces.gradient but also
The voltage because
not of the Joule
only decreases dueheating due to theof
to the reduction
flowing electric current
the temperature gradientthat is also
but generated by of
because thethe
leftJoule
side heating
of the TEG
duedevice, as can beelectric
to the flowing seen
in Figurethat
current 13e,f.
is generated by the left side of the TEG device, as can be seen in Figure 13e,f.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 13. Contour distribution results of the mismatching condition simulation on the heat side (bottom surfaces) of the
Figure 13. Contour distribution results of the mismatching condition simulation on the heat side (bottom surfaces) of
thermoelectric generator TEG device at 𝑇 = 300 K. (a–c) are the two-dimensional 𝑥𝑦-plane temperature contour dis-
the thermoelectric
tributions generator
located at TEG
the middle device
of the at Tcold =of300
𝑧-coordinate the K.
TEG(a–c) are the
device 𝑧 =two-dimensional xy -plane
−𝐷/2 at a mismatching temperature
temperature contour
difference
distributions
Δ𝑇 located at the middle of the z -coordinate of the TEG device z = − D/2 at a mismatching temperature
= 0, 100 and 200 K, respectively; (d–f) are the three-dimensional open-circuit voltage contour distributions
at Δ𝑇
difference ∆Tmismatching
= 0, 100=and 100 K,
0, 200 and 200 K, respectively; (d–f) are the three-dimensional open-circuit voltage contour
respectively.
distributions at ∆Tmismatching = 0, 100 and 200 K, respectively.
3.2. Numerical Results and Contours of the Mismatching Condition Simulation on the Heatsink
3.2. Numerical
(Upper Surface)Results and Device
of the TEG Contours of the Mismatching Condition Simulation on the Heatsink
(Upper Surface) of the TEG Device
Figure 14 presents the numerical results of the mismatching condition simulation on
Figure 14 presents the numerical results of the mismatching condition simulation on
the cold side (upper surfaces) of the TEG device compared to the mismatching tempera-
the cold side (upper surfaces) of the TEG device compared to the mismatching temperature
ture difference Δ𝑇 , which spans from 0 to 200 K. Figure 14a presents the open-
difference ∆T , which spans from 0 to 200 K. Figure 14a presents the open-circuit
𝑉 . Figure 14b shows the electric output available power 𝑃 , calculated
circuit voltagemismatching
voltage Voc . Figure 14b shows the electric output available power Pe , calculated with
with Equation (10). Figure 14c shows the thermal efficiency 𝜂 , computed as the ratio
Equation (10). Figure 14c shows the thermal efficiency ηTEG , computed as the ratio of
of the electric power 𝑃 and the heat energy input 𝑄 , Equation (13). These numerical
results are presented for different cold-side mismatching temperatures ranging between
(300 ≤ 𝑇 , ≤ 450) K. The curve tendencies of the numerical results are inversely pro-
portional to the increment of the mismatching temperature difference Δ𝑇 due
to the shortening of the temperature gradient between the upper and bottom surfaces, as
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 15 of 20

the electric power Pe and the heat energy input Qh , Equation (13). These numerical
results are presented for different cold-side mismatching temperatures ranging between
(300 ≤ Tcold,min ≤ 450) K. The curve tendencies of the numerical results are inversely
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
proportional to the increment of the mismatching temperature difference ∆Tmismatching due
to the shortening of the temperature gradient between the upper and bottom surfaces, as
the temperature boundary conditions Tcold,min and Tcold,variable increase. Unlike the linear
linear tendency
tendency 𝑉 electric
of Voc ,ofthe , the electric
outputoutput
powerpower 𝑃 the
Pe and andthermal
the thermal ηTEG 𝜂present
efficiency
efficiency pre-a
sent a non-linear
non-linear tendency.
tendency.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Numerical
Numericalresults
resultsofofthe
themismatching
mismatchingsimulation condition
simulation conditiononon
thethe
heatsink (upper
heatsink surface)
(upper compared
surface) to the
compared to
mismatching temperature difference Δ𝑇 on the cold side of the TEG device. (a) Open-circuit voltage 𝑉 ; (b)
the mismatching temperature difference ∆Tmismatching on the cold side of the TEG device. (a) Open-circuit voltage Voc ;
Electric power 𝑃 ; (c) Thermal efficiency of the TEG device 𝜂 .
(b) Electric power Pe ; (c) Thermal efficiency of the TEG device ηTEG .

Figure 15 presents
Figure 15 presentsthe thetemperature
temperatureand andthethe voltage
voltage contours
contours of the
of the TEGTEG device
device for
for the
the mismatching condition on the heat side (bottom surface) at a mismatching
mismatching condition on the heat side (bottom surface) at a mismatching temperature tempera-
ture 𝑇 =
Tcold,min = K.
, 300 K. Figure
300Figure 15a–c 15a–c
show theshow the two-dimensional
two-dimensional xy-plane 𝑥𝑦-plane temperature
temperature contour
contour the middle of the 𝑧-coordinate
distributions located at the middle of the z-coordinate of the TEG device z device
distributions located at of the TEG = − D/2𝑧=
−𝐷/2 (𝐷: depth) at a mismatching temperature difference Δ𝑇
(D: depth) at a mismatching temperature difference ∆Tmismatching = 0, 100 and 200200 = 0, 100 and K,
𝐾, respectively.
respectively. OnOnthethe other
other hand,
hand, Figure
Figure 15d–f
15d–f present
present thethe three-dimensional
three-dimensional open-cir-
open-circuit
cuit voltage
voltage contour
contour at ∆T
distributions
distributions Δ𝑇
at mismatching = =0,0,100
100and
and200 200K,𝐾,respectively.
respectively. The
Figure
Figure 15a,d
15a,d correspond
correspond the maximum
maximum electric
electric voltage
voltage and
and output
output power production,
production,
having the maximum
maximum efficiency
efficiency point due to to the
the zero
zero mismatching
mismatching temperature
temperature difference
Δ𝑇
∆Tmismatching = = 0.0.IfIfaamismatching
mismatchingtemperature
temperaturedifference
difference isis induced
induced on on the cold side
(upper-right surface), e.g., Figure 15b,c, the open-circuit voltage 𝑉 , the electric output
power 𝑃 and the thermal efficiency 𝜂 decrease. The previous-mentioned behavior is
generated by the mismatching condition on the upper-right side of the temperature con-
tours, which causes a reduction in the temperature gradient between the upper and bot-
tom surfaces of the TEG device. Also, the voltage not only decreases due to the reduction
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 16 of 20

(upper-right surface), e.g., Figure 15b,c, the open-circuit voltage Voc , the electric output
power Pe and the thermal efficiency ηTEG decrease. The previous-mentioned behavior
is generated by the mismatching condition on the upper-right side of the temperature
contours, which causes a reduction in the temperature gradient between the upper
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
and
17 of 21
bottom surfaces of the TEG device. Also, the voltage not only decreases due to the reduction
of the temperature gradient but also because of the Joule heating when the flowing electric
current that is generated by the left side of the TEG device is dissipated as heat by the right
current that is generated by the left side of the TEG device is dissipated as heat by the
side of the TEG device, as can be seen in Figure 15e,f.
right side of the TEG device, as can be seen in Figure 15e,f.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 15. Contour distribution results of the mismatching condition simulation on the cold side (upper surfaces) of the
Figure 15. Contour distribution results of the mismatching condition simulation on the cold side (upper surfaces) of the
thermoelectric generator TEG device at 𝑇 , = 300 K. (a–c) are the two-dimensional 𝑥𝑦-plane temperature contour
thermoelectric
distributions generator TEG
located at the device
middle theTcold,min
of at = 300
𝑧-coordinate ofK.
the(a–c)
TEGare the two-dimensional
device xy -planetemperature
𝑧 = −𝐷/2 at a mismatching temperaturediffer-
contour
ence Δ𝑇
distributions located=at0,the and 200ofK,the
100middle z -coordinate
respectively; (d–f)ofare
thethe
TEG device z = −open-circuit
three-dimensional D/2 at a mismatching temperature
voltage contour distri-
butions at
difference mismatching == 0,
∆TΔ𝑇 0,100 200 K,
100 and 200 K, respectively.
respectively; (d–f) are the three-dimensional open-circuit voltage contour
distributions at ∆Tmismatching = 0, 100 and 200 K, respectively.
3.3. Comparison of the Numerical and Contour Results between the Mismatching Conditions on
3.3.
the Comparison
Heat and ColdofSides
the Numerical
of the TEGand Contour
Device Results between the Mismatching Conditions on
Simulations
the Heat and Cold Sides of the TEG Device Simulations
Figure 16 presents a comparison of the available electric power outputs 𝑃 for the
Figure 16condition
mismatching presents ona comparison
the heat side of (black-color
the availablecurves),
electricandpower
cold outputs Pe for the
side (red-color
mismatching
curves). Figure condition on thethe
16a presents heatvariation of 𝑃 for acurves),
side (black-color range of andthecold side (red-color
mismatching curves).
tempera-
Figure 16a presentsofthe
ture difference ≤ Δ𝑇 of Pe for ≤
(0variation 200) ofKthe
a range mismatching
. Figure 16b for temperature of (0 ≤ of
a range difference
(0Δ𝑇≤ ∆Tmismatching ≤ 150).
≤ 200) K. Figure
Figure 16c for16b of (0 ≤
for a range
a range (0 ≤ ∆Tmismatching
ofΔ𝑇 ≤ 100). ≤Figure
150). Figure
16d for16c
a for
arange
rangeof (0 ≤ Δ𝑇
of (0 ∆Tmismatching ≤≤ 50).
100).From
Figurethe16d for a itrange
figures of (0
can be seen ∆Tmismatching
≤ that 𝑃 decreases
≤ 50). From
line-
the
arlyfigures
for theitmismatching that Pe decreases
can be seencondition side 𝑇 for
on the hotlinearly 𝑃 decreases in
the mismatching
, while condition on the
a non-linear
hot
way for Tthe
side hot , while P
mismatching
e decreases in
condition a non-linear
on the cold way
side 𝑇for the
. mismatching
Thus, the tendency condition
of the on the
pre-
cold
sented Tcold . suggests
sidecurves Thus, thethat
tendency of the presented
the mismatching condition curves suggests
on the cold sidethat𝑇 the mismatching
(curves in
red color) on
condition of atheTEG device
cold sidecauses the electric
Tcold (curves output
in red power
color) of atoTEG
decrease
device more rapidly
causes the than
electric
a mismatching
output power tocondition
decreaseapplied on the than
more rapidly heat side 𝑇 .
a mismatching condition applied on the heat
side Thot .
Energies
Energies 2021,
2021, 14,
14, x8016
FOR PEER REVIEW 1817ofof 21
20

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 16.
16. Comparison
Comparison between the numerical
between the numericalelectric
electricoutput powerP 𝑃results
outputpower results and
and thethe mismatching
mismatching temperature
temperature differ-
difference
e
ence Δ𝑇 of the mismatching condition simulations on the heat (red-color curves), and cold (black-color curves)
∆Tmismatching of the mismatching condition simulations on the heat (red-color curves), and cold (black-color curves) sides.
sides. (a) For (0 ≤ Δ𝑇 ≤ 200) K. (b) For (0 ≤ Δ𝑇 ≤ 150) 𝐾. (c) For (0 ≤ Δ𝑇 ≤ 100) K. (d)
(a) For (0 ≤ ∆Tmismatching ≤ 200) K. (b) For (0 ≤ ∆Tmismatching ≤ 150) K . (c) For (0 ≤ ∆Tmismatching ≤ 100) K. (d) For
For (0 ≤ Δ𝑇 ≤ 50) K.
(0 ≤ ∆Tmismatching ≤ 50) K.
4.
4. Conclusions
Conclusions
The
The generation
generationof of electric
electric power
power decreases
decreases when
when thethe mismatching
mismatchingtemperature
temperaturedif- dif-
ference
ference increases because of the reduction of the temperature gradient between the
increases because of the reduction of the temperature gradient between the hot
hot
and
and cold
cold sides
sides ofof the
the thermoelectric
thermoelectric generator
generator device
device (TEG).
(TEG). Although
Although the the values
values ofof the
the
open-circuit voltage are similar for the mismatching conditions applied
open-circuit voltage are similar for the mismatching conditions applied to both the cold and to both the cold
and hot sides
hot sides of theofTEG,
the the
TEG, the generation
generation of electric
of electric power ispower
higherisforhigher for a mismatching
a mismatching condition
condition on the hot side than on the cold side due to the lower values
on the hot side than on the cold side due to the lower values of the temperature-dependent of the temperature-
dependent electricalofresistance
electrical resistance the N andofP-typethe N materials
and P-type materials
when when a mismatching
a mismatching condi-
condition is applied
tion is applied
to the hot side.to Additionally,
the hot side. Additionally, the electric
the electric output poweroutput power
generated bygenerated
the TEG by the
device
TEG device
decreases decreases
when when the mismatching
the mismatching temperature temperature difference
difference increases. increases.
Then, Then, if a
if a mismatching
mismatching condition
condition is applied to is
theapplied
hot side,to the
the hot side,power
electric the electric power
decreases decreases
linearly andlinearly and
thus slower
thus slower than that of a mismatching condition applied to the cold side,
than that of a mismatching condition applied to the cold side, which decreases faster in a which decreases
faster in a non-linear
non-linear way. way.
In
Insummary,
summary, therethere are three main contributions of this paper. The first one is the val- vali-
idated
dated proposed model to evaluate thermoelectricthermoelectric couples
couples under
undermismatching
mismatchingconditions.
conditions.
The
The second
second contribution
contribution is is the
the inclusion
inclusion of of the
the behavior
behavior of of thermoelectric
thermoelectric properties
properties as as
temperature functions. The
temperature functions. Thelastlastcontribution
contributionis isthethe evaluation
evaluation of the
of the thermal
thermal efficiency
efficiency over
over
TEG TEG couples
couples considering
considering the mismatching
the mismatching conditions
conditions and thermal
and thermal variable
variable proper-
properties.
ties.
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 18 of 20

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.S.-V.; methodology, D.S.-V.; software, O.D.M.-C. and

D.S.-V.; validation, O.D.M.-C. and D.S.-V.; formal analysis, D.S.-V.; investigation, D.S.-V. and O.D.M.-C.;
resources, E.E.H.-B.; data curation, E.E.H.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, O.D.M.-C.; writing—
review and editing, D.S.-V.; visualization, O.D.M.-C.; supervision, D.S.-V.; project administration,
E.H-B.; funding acquisition, E.E.H.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano for the Open Access
fee payment under the project P21101 “Fortalecimiento Y Consolidación Del Grupo Automática,
Electrónica Y Ciencias Computacionales Para Responder A Las Necesidades De Las Industrias 4.0”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano for the Open Access
fee payment under the project P21101 “Fortalecimiento Y Consolidación Del Grupo Automática,
Electrónica Y Ciencias Computacionales Para Responder A Las Necesidades De Las Industrias 4.0”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

Roman letters Thot /TH Hot temperature (K)

A Area (m2 ) Tcold /TC Cold temperature (K)
D Thermoelectric device depth (m) Tmismatching Mismatching temperature (K)
→
E Electric field intensity vector (V m−1 ) TEG Thermoelectric generator
H Thermoelectric device height (m) Voc Open-circuit voltage (V)
h Heat transfer coefficient (Wm−2 K−1 ) W Thermoelectric device width (m)
I Electrical current (A) ZT Dimensionless figure of merit (−)
→
J Electric current density vector (A m−2 )
k Thermal conductivity (Wm−2 K−1 ) Greek letters
P Perimeter (m) α Combined Seebeck coefficient (VK−1 )
Pe Electrical output power (W) αP P-type material Seebeck coefficient
Qh Heat energy input (J) αN N-type material Seebeck coefficient (VK−1 )
Qe Heat to electrical energy conversion (J) β Thomson coefficient
Qconv Heat loss due to convection (J) ∆ Mathematical difference
Qs Heatsink energy (J) ηTEG Efficiency of the thermoelectric device (%)
→
q Heat flux vector (W m−2 ) ρ Electrical resistivity (Ωm)
.
q Heat generation rate per unit volume (W m−3 ) ρ N−P Mean value of the N and P resistivities (Ωm)
RL Load electrical resistance (Ω) σ Electrical conductivity (s m−1 )
Rtotal TEG’s total electrical resistance (Ω) φ Electric scalar potential (V )

References
1. Twaha, S.; Zhu, J.; Yan, Y.; Li, B. A Comprehensive Review of Thermoelectric Technology: Materials, Applications, Modelling and
Performance Improvement. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 698–726. [CrossRef]
2. Ray, T.R.; Choi, J.; Bandodkar, A.J.; Krishnan, S.; Gutruf, P.; Tian, L.; Ghaffari, R.; Rogers, J.A. Bio-Integrated Wearable Systems: A
Comprehensive Review. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 5461–5533. [CrossRef]
3. Machacek, Z.; Walendziuk, W.; Sotola, V.; Slanina, Z.; Petras, R.; Schneider, M.; Masny, Z.; Idzkowski, A.; Koziorek, J. An
Investigation of Thermoelectric Generators Used as Energy Harvesters in a Water Consumption Meter Application. Energies 2021,
14, 3768. [CrossRef]
4. Cózar, I.R.; Pujol, T.; Massaguer, E.; Massaguer, A.; Montoro, L.; González, J.R.; Comamala, M.; Ezzitouni, S. Effects of Module
Spatial Distribution on the Energy Efficiency and Electrical Output of Automotive Thermoelectric Generators. Energies 2021, 14, 2232.
[CrossRef]
5. Albatati, F.; Attar, A. Analytical and Experimental Study of Thermoelectric Generator (Teg) System for Automotive Exhaust
Waste Heat Recovery. Energies 2021, 14, 204. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 19 of 20

6. Ismail, B.I.; Ahmed, W.H. Thermoelectric Power Generation Using Waste-Heat Energy as an Alternative Green Technology. Recent
Patents Electr. Eng. 2009, 2, 27–39. [CrossRef]
7. Kim, T.Y. Prediction of System-Level Energy Harvesting Characteristics of a Thermoelectric Generator Operating in a Diesel
Engine Using Artificial Neural Networks. Energies 2021, 14, 2426. [CrossRef]
8. Dzulkfli, M.S.b.; Pesyridis, A.; Gohil, D. Thermoelectric Generation in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Energies 2020, 13, 3742. [CrossRef]
9. Nagayoshi, H.; Tokumisu, K.; Kajikawa, T. Evaluation of Multi MPPT Thermoelectric Generator System. In Proceedings of the
26th International Conference on Thermoelectrics, Jeju, Korea, 3–7 June 2007; pp. 318–321. [CrossRef]
10. Cotfas, P.A.; Cotfas, D.T. Comprehensive Review of Methods and Instruments for Photovoltaic-Thermoelectric Generator Hybrid
System Characterization. Energies 2020, 13, 6045. [CrossRef]
11. Lashin, A.; Al Turkestani, M.; Sabry, M. Performance of a Thermoelectric Generator Partially Illuminated with Highly Concen-
trated Light. Energies 2020, 13, 3627. [CrossRef]
12. Shure, L.I.; Harvey, J.S. Survey of Electric Power Plants for Space Applications; NASA: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1965.
13. Radioisotope Power Systems. Available online: https://rps.nasa.gov/ (accessed on 31 July 2021).
14. Voyager, the Interstellar Mission. Available online: https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft/ (accessed on 31 July 2021).
15. Montecucco, A.; Siviter, J.; Knox, A.R. The Effect of Temperature Mismatch on Thermoelectric Generators Electrically Connected
in Series and Parallel. Appl. Energy 2014, 123, 47–54. [CrossRef]
16. Tang, Z.B.; Deng, Y.D.; Su, C.Q.; Shuai, W.W.; Xie, C.J. A Research on Thermoelectric Generator’s Electrical Performance under
Temperature Mismatch Conditions for Automotive Waste Heat Recovery System. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2015, 5, 143–150.
[CrossRef]
17. Hakim, A.; Lim, J.H. The Effect of Temperature Mismatch on Interconnected Thermoelectric Module for Power Generation. AIP
Conf. Proc. 2020, 2233, 02009. [CrossRef]
18. Kidegho, G.; Njoka, F.; Muriithi, C.; Kinyua, R. Evaluation of Thermal Interface Materials in Mediating PV Cell Temperature
Mismatch in PV–TEG Power Generation. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 1636–1650. [CrossRef]
19. Ruzaimi, A.S.S.; Hassan, W.Z.W.; Azis, N.; Ya’acob, M.E.; Elianddy, E.; Aimrun, W. Performance Analysis of Thermoelectric
Generator Implemented on Non-Uniform Heat Distribution of Photovoltaic Module. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 2379–2387. [CrossRef]
20. Haxel, G.B.; James, B.H.; Greta, J.O. Rare Earth Elements—Critical Resources for High Technology; United States Department of the
Interior Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2002; pp. 1–11.
21. Champier, D. Thermoelectric Generators: A Review of Applications. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 140, 167–181. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, S.; Ren, Z. Recent Progress of Half-Heusler for Moderate Temperature Thermoelectric Applications. Mater. Today 2013, 16,
387–395. [CrossRef]
23. Leblanc, S.; Yee, S.K.; Scullin, M.L.; Dames, C.; Goodson, K.E. Material and Manufacturing Cost Considerations for Thermo-
electrics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 313–327. [CrossRef]
24. Lin, C.X.; Kiflemariam, R. Numerical Simulation and Validation of Thermoeletric Generator Based Self-Cooling System with
Airflow. Energies 2019, 12, 4052. [CrossRef]
25. Sanin-Villa, D.; Monsalve-Cifuentes, O.D.; Del Rio, J.S. Early Fever Detection on COVID-19 Infection Using Thermoelectric
Module Generators. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2021, 11, 3828–3837. [CrossRef]
26. Ramos-Paja, C.A.; Bastidas, J.D.; Saavedra-Montes, A.J.; Guinjoan-Gispert, F.; Goez, M. Mathematical Model of Total Cross-Tied
Photovoltaic Arrays in Mismatching Conditions. In Proceedings of the IEEE 4th Colombian Workshop on Circuits and Systems
(CWCAS), Barranquilla, Colombia, 1–2 November 2012. [CrossRef]
27. Choi, T.; Kim, T.Y. Three-Zone Numerical Modeling Method for Predicting System-Level Waste Heat Recovery Performance of
Thermoelectric Generator with Various Electrical Array Configurations. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 240, 114270. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, P.; Wang, K.F.; Wang, B.L.; Cui, Y.J. Modeling of Thermoelectric Generators with Effects of Side Surface Heat Convection
and Temperature Dependence of Material Properties. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 133, 1145–1153. [CrossRef]
29. Wee, D. Analysis of Thermoelectric Energy Conversion Efficiency with Linear and Nonlinear Temperature Dependence in
Material Properties. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 3383–3390. [CrossRef]
30. Ju, C.; Dui, G.; Zheng, H.H.; Xin, L. Revisiting the Temperature Dependence in Material Properties and Performance of
Thermoelectric Materials. Energy 2017, 124, 249–257. [CrossRef]
31. Thielen, M.; Sigrist, L.; Magno, M.; Hierold, C.; Benini, L. Human Body Heat for Powering Wearable Devices: From Thermal
Energy to Application. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 131, 44–54. [CrossRef]
32. Antonova, E.E.; Looman, D.C. Finite Elements for Thermoelectric Device Analysis in ANSYS. In Proceedings of the ICT 2005 24th
International Conference on Thermoelectrics, Clemson, SC, USA, 19–23 June 2005; pp. 200–203. [CrossRef]
33. Chen, W.H.; Liao, C.Y.; Hung, C.I. A Numerical Study on the Performance of Miniature Thermoelectric Cooler Affected by
Thomson Effect. Appl. Energy 2012, 89, 464–473. [CrossRef]
34. Oliveira, K.S.M.; Cardoso, R.P.; Hermes, C.J.L. Numerical Assessment of the Thermodynamic Performance of Thermoelectric
Cells via Two-Dimensional Modelling. Appl. Energy 2014, 130, 280–288. [CrossRef]
35. Huang, M.J.; Yen, R.H.; Wang, A.B. The Influence of the Thomson Effect on the Performance of a Thermoelectric Cooler. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 2005, 48, 413–418. [CrossRef]
36. Strasser, M.; Aigner, R.; Franosch, M.; Wachutka, G. Miniaturized Thermoelectric Generators Based on Poly-Si and Poly-SiGe
Surface Micromachining. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2002, 97–98, 535–542. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 8016 20 of 20

37. Abdel-Motaleb, I.M.; Syed, M.Q. Thermoelectric Devices: Principles and Future Trends. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1704.07742.
38. Snyder, G.J.; Snyder, A.H. Figure of Merit ZT of a Thermoelectric Device Defined from Materials Properties. Energy Environ. Sci.
2017, 10, 2280–2283. [CrossRef]
39. Kasap, S. Thermoelectric Effects in Metals; The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering: Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 2001;
pp. 1–11.
40. Shnawah, D.A.; Sabri, M.F.M.; Badruddin, I.A.; Said, S.B.M.; Ariga, T.; Che, F.X. Effect of Ag Content and the Minor Alloying
Element Fe on the Mechanical Properties and Microstructural Stability of Sn-Ag-Cu Solder Alloy under High-Temperature
Annealing. J. Electron. Mater. 2013, 42, 470–484. [CrossRef]
41. Liou, B.H.; Chen, C.M.; Horng, R.H.; Chiang, Y.C.; Wuu, D.S. Improvement of Thermal Management of High-Power GaN-Based
Light-Emitting Diodes. Microelectron. Reliab. 2012, 52, 861–865. [CrossRef]
42. Corning, D. SYLGARDTM 184 Silicone Elastomer Kit. Available online: https://www.dow.com/en-us/pdp.sylgard-184-silicone-
elastomer-kit.01064291z.html (accessed on 30 July 2021).
43. Wang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Mei, D.; Chen, Z. Wearable Thermoelectric Generator for Harvesting Heat on the Curved Human Wrist. Appl.
Energy 2017, 205, 710–719. [CrossRef]
44. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Workbench Product Release Notes 10.0; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2005.
45. Chen, Z.; Lin, M.Y.; Xu, G.D.; Chen, S.; Zhang, J.H.; Wang, M.M. Hydrothermal Synthesized Nanostructure Bi-Sb-Te Thermoelec-
tric Materials. J. Alloys Compd. 2014, 588, 384–387. [CrossRef]
46. Mackey, J.; Dynys, F.; Sehirlioglu, A. Uncertainty Analysis for Common Seebeck and Electrical Resistivity Measurement Systems.
Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2014, 85, 6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Mackey, J.; Dynys, F.; Sehirlioglu, A. Uncertainty Analysis of Seebeck Coefficient and Electrical Resistivity Characterization; NASA:
Akron, OH, USA, 2013; Volume 24.
48. Mechanical APDL Modeling and Meshing Guide; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2010; Volume 3304, pp. 724–746.
49. ANSYS Mechanical APDL Modeling and Meshing Guide; ANSYS 2020 R1 Release; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2020.
50. European Thermodynamics Limited. Thermoelectric Generator Module GM250-449-10-12. Available online: https://media.
digikey.com/pdf/DataSheets/EuropeanThermodynamicsPDFs/GM250-449-10-12.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2021).
51. Xiao, H.; Gou, X.; Yang, S. Detailed Modeling and Irreversible Transfer Process Analysis of a Multi-Element Thermoelectric
Generator System. J. Electron. Mater. 2011, 40, 1195–1201. [CrossRef]