Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Experimental evaluation of thermal performance of two different

finned latent heat storage systems
Ayad K. Hassan a, Jasim Abdulateef b, *, Mustafa S. Mahdi c, Ahmed F. Hasan c
a
Department of Materials Engineering, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Diyala, 32001, Diyala, Iraq
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Diyala, 32001 Diyala, Iraq

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Enhancing the reliability and acceptability of solar-based thermal energy system requires efficient
Comparative thermal assessment thermal storage to enable the storage of surplus energy collected during day time for use during
PCM non-day light hours. However, most phase change materials (PCMs) used with thermal storages
Circular fins
suffer from low thermal conductivity. Fin geometry has a major impact on the heat transfer rates
Melting front
Charging time
of thermal storage. For this purpose, a comparative thermal performance assessment during
Visualization charging is achieved for a shell-and-tube-type latent heat storage unit (LHSU) using different fin
geometries. An experimental analysis is conducted on three LHSU geometries: non-finned LHSU,
longitudinal finned (LF) LHSU (LF-LHSU) and circular finned (CF) LHSU (CF-LHSU). In addition,
a visual observation of liquid fraction fronts is applied to confirm the completion of phase change
cycles. Experimental results showed that the total charging time reduced by up to 70% and 55%
using CF-LHSU and LF-LHSU, respectively. In comparison with the non-finned LHSU, the highest
cumulative energy stored enhancement using CF-LHSU was approximately 52%. The experi­
mental comparative assessment suggests that CF-LHSU provides improved charged thermal load
operations by a factor of 1.2 as compared with LF-LHSU.

1. Introduction

Solar thermal system is a key technology to face energy crisis caused by the mismatch between energy demand and availability. The
reliability and acceptability of such solar thermal system is lower than conventional systems because of the intensity variation of solar
energy with time. To increase the reliability of solar thermal systems, a latent thermal energy storage is essential to store/retrieve
energy during day time for later use overnight. The latent heat storage type of thermal storages enables the storage of high rates of
energy per unit volume. However, most common phase change material (PCM)-latent heat storage unit (LHSU) (PCM-LHSU) suffers
from the poor thermal conductivity of the PCM (0.15–0.3 W/m.K) used [1].
An extensive review of PCMs used in the LHSU was investigated by [2–6]. Considerable research discussed the heat transfer
characteristics of PCM in various bare tube-type LHSU designs [7–11]. These works, which were raised because of issues that sur­
rounded the energy supply, became the basic research methods for LHSU. Most current studies in thermal energy focused on designing
thermal engineering systems with more desirable performance because of the aforementioned reasons.
A survey from previous studies that deal with LHSU [12] shows that the two types of configurations used as a PCM containers

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jmabdulateef@gmail.com (J. Abdulateef).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2020.100675
Received 4 February 2020; Received in revised form 31 May 2020; Accepted 1 June 2020
Available online 5 June 2020
2214-157X/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

include cylindrical and rectangular containers. Based on this survey, shell-and-tube heat exchanger system is the most promising LHSU
unit. The reason is probably attributed to its simple maintenance and operation, availability, and possibility for future upgrades.
Furthermore, the shell-and-tube heat exchangers have been proven highly efficient for minimum volume [13]. An extensive review is
carried out by [14], who discussed various heat transfer improvement methods by adding fins, nanomaterial or metal foam inside
PCM, and metallic components inside the PCM and through the macroencapsulation of PCM. The increase in heat transfer area by using
finned tubes is a mostly suggested method. A literature review on the geometrical parameters of extended surfaces mounted in LHSU is
conducted by [15]. The fin geometry attached to the heat transfer fluid (HTF) tube inside the LHSU affects the heat exchange rates
critically because of the large heat transfer area. Thus, the fin geometry used with LHSU has a great effect on thermal performance,
which is based on time measurement characteristics to reach the completed charging/discharging cycle.
Several authors studied the performance enhancement of LF-LHSU [16–21]. The role of adding circular fins on the thermal
characteristics of LHSU were also investigated by [22–25]. The main conclusions were drawn on the basis of the mode of charging and
discharging of finned LHSU, which showed a more desirable performance than that from non-finned LHSU configuration. Furthermore,
the finned enhancement technique is governed by the geometric parameters of fins, namely, length/width, diameter, and number of
fins.
A comparative assessment of the thermal performance of different types of LHSU based on shell-and-tube heat exchanger
configuration has been carried out [26–31] under various working conditions (e.g., HTF type, PCM tube, fin material, and fin ge­
ometry). Medrano et al. [26] investigated the melting and solidification processes of five commercial LHSU experimentally using the
same HTF and PCM types (i.e., water as HTF and RT35 as PCM). Two of the LHSU were based on the compact plate and frame concept,
and the three others were based on the shell-and-tube heat exchanger concept. For the same operational conditions, the compact heat
exchanger provides better heat transfer to external volume ratio. Adèle et al. [27] evaluated the thermal performance of three different
LHSUs experimentally based on the shell-and-tube concept. The role of implementing fins with different materials and geometries (i.e.,
longitudinal steel fins and helical copper fins) was considered. They proposed the use of a dimensionless parameter as a tool to
compare the heat exchange power of different LHSUs regardless of the experimental conditions (e.g., initial and final temperatures)
and geometries (e.g., PCM volume, fins or not). The results show that the heat exchange power is improved by factor 10 when fins are
used. The implementation of longitudinal steel fins with thermal storage has dimensionless time characteristics that are comparable

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup.

2
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

with the helical copper fins. Jaume et al. [28] carried out a comparative study on the thermal performance of four different thermal
storages based on the shell-and-tube concept. The effect of adding fins and using two different HTFs (e.g., water and a commercial
silicone) have been investigated and compared experimentally. All experiments were conducted using the same type of PCM (e.g.,
paraffin RT58) and the same boundary conditions and methodology. For the same HTF, the results of the finned design showed an
enhancement of up to 40%. For the same LHSU design, the water HTF type showed better results by up to 44%. Guang-Shun et al. [29]
performed numerical modeling on the charging process of different shell-and-tube LHSUs (e.g., pipe and cylinder models) with
identical heat transfer area. A comparative study was carried out to investigate the influence of horizontal and vertical models with
different HTF inlets. The results show that the vertical model with bottom HTF injection provides better heat storage and melting rate
for the pipe model. The horizontal cylinder model exhibits higher heat storage and melting rate than the horizontal pipe model. Saeid
et al. [30] studied the effect of geometrical design on the vertical shell-and-tube LHSU during charging and discharging processes. The
heat transfer performance of cylinder and conical shell-and-tube LHSU is compared experimentally and theoretically. The results show
that the conical LHSU stores thermal energy much faster than the cylinder system at the same working conditions during charging.
Furthermore, slight difference was observed in its performance during the discharging process. Soheila et al. [31] compared LHSU with
different shell-and-tube configurations (parallel flow and counter flow) in horizontal and vertical orientations numerically. These
LHSU designs were compared with an alternative design using plate fins during charging and discharging cycles. The vertical
arrangement of fin plates for equal amount of heat transfer surface area provides better thermal enhancement than the shell-and-tube
configuration.
However, a comparative thermal performance assessment of LHSU-based shell-and-tube concept under different fin geometrical
parameters (e.g., fin geometric profile, number of fins) and similar operational conditions (e.g., PCM type, HTF type, and flow rate and
inlet temperature of HTF) has not been considered yet. For proper comparative assessment, the volume of the added fins per PCM
storage was kept approximately identical.
In this study, a detailed experimental analysis is conducted to establish the performance comparison of LHSU based on two different
geometric fin profiles (e.g., longitudinal and circular). The comparative performance assessment is presented in terms of the axial
temperature evolution of PCM, average temperature of PCM, and cumulative energy charged. For better analysis, the percentage
enhancement of LHSU is presented for finned and non-finned configurations. In the last section of this study, a visual observation of the
solid–liquid interface inside the PCM storage is also presented.

2. Experimental setup and procedure

2.1. Experimental setup

The schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. The experimental setup is mainly composed of the shell-and-tube heat
exchanger type, thermal bath (500 L water tank with 2 kW electric heater), thermocouples (K-type with ±0.15oC accuracy and
temperature range of 0-200 oC), flowmeter (turbine flow meter with an accuracy of 0.25%), a multichannel data logger (National

Table 1
Specifications of (a) non-finned tube (b) longitudinal-finned tube (c) Circular-finned tube.

3
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

instrument® cDAq-9174 base, 2 × 9213 16ch cards, LabVIEW® data logger), and a personal computer. The experimental setup also
included a circulation pump (VA 35/180 Dab circulation pump) and the necessary piping and valves for regulating water flow. The
PCM storage is provided with the water HTF loop of the thermal bath to supply it with 70 ◦ C. The injection of the HTF was conducted
from the bottom of the test section. This setup can measure the thermal performance of LHSU during the charging phase change cycle.
The test section of the PCM storage used in the experimentation is composed of three designs of tube heat exchangers that are
mounted inside a transparent cylindrical shell. The heat exchangers that have been selected include:

• Bare tube, which is a simple non-finned tube.

• LF tube, which is a longitudinal-finned tube.
• CF tube, which is a circular-finned tube.

The main characteristics of the three proposed test sections are given in Table 1. All internal tubes are made of steel with a length of
56 cm, inner diameter of 20 mm, and thickness of 1.3 mm. The shell was made from Plexiglass with length of 50 cm, internal diameter
of 7 cm, and thickness of 0.5 cm. The shell was selected for low thermal conductivity and high transparency and placed around the heat
exchanger tube. Two flanges made from Plexiglass with 2 cm thickness were used to fix the tube to shell heat exchanger system. To
avoid the expansion of PCM, a 1 cm hole was drilled in the upper flange to pass the thermocouple wires and to maintain the test section
at atmosphere pressure. Combined with digital camera, the shell enables and record solid–liquid front motions. The annular region
between the exchanger and the shell is filled with selected PCM. To minimize thermal loss, a 3 cm thick insulator layer (glass wool) was
placed on the outer surface of the shell. This insulation layer was adjusted to enable the covering and uncovering of the test section
while taking images.
In LF-LHSU, the volume of the longitudinal fins was calculated according to:
V = l.w.t.N (1)

where l = length of a single longitudinal fin

w = width of a single fin

t = thickness of a single fin
N = number of fins

For CF-LHSU, the volume of the circular fins was calculated according to:
( )
V = π R2o − ro2 .t.N (2)

Fig. 2. Details of thermocouples used in the experimental measurement.

4
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

where Ro = radial distance from the tube axis to the fin tip

ro = radius of HTF tube

t = axial thickness of a single fin
N = number of fins

Longitudinal and circular fins are made of steel with a length of 46 cm and thickness of 0.9 mm and are welded on the surface of the
HTF tube. The fins are spaced at equal axial and angular positions for longitudinal and circular fins, respectively. Subsequently, all test
sections were filled with 1.21 kg of PCM. For proper comparative thermal performance assessment, the volume of added fins for LF and
CF designs was kept approximately constant. To achieve that, the number of fins were specified to be 5 and 17 for LF-LHSU and CF-
LHSU respectively (Table 1).
Eight thermocouples were spread throughout the annular space to measure the temperature variation during the charging cycle.
The arrangement of thermocouples which have installed along axial direction of LHSU was presented in Fig. 2. At each axial position, a
pair of thermocouples was placed at radial distance of 8 mm and 16 mm from heat exchanger tube. Two thermocouples were also fixed
at the entrance and exit of HTF pipe to register the readings of HTF inlet and outlet temperature.
A commercial grade paraffin wax sample produced by Iraqi Oil Company was selected as PCM because of its low price and
availability in the local market. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), thermal conductivity, and viscosity analyses were conducted
to determine the thermophysical properties of PCM. The measured thermophysical properties of PCM and HTF that have been used in
the experimental performance analysis is presented in Fig. 3 and Table 2.

2.2. Experimental procedure

The experiments were conducted using the same PCM and HTF under the same operational conditions. The test section is arranged
vertically, and the PCM in liquid state is filled in the heat exchanger. The water was circulated from the water tank of the thermal bath
to the test section where the flowmeter measures the flow rate of HTF inside the storage unit. Initially, few tests were conducted to
check the PCM leakage in the storage system. Melting testing of PCM was carried out when PCM reaches its solid state. The initial
operating conditions of melting was specified when all sensors embedded in the PCM shows the same readings. In the charging cycle,
hot HTF from bath at a required temperature is pumped, and thermocouple measurements were recorded by using a multichannel data
logger every 1 min while the experimental image of the liquid fraction fronts was set every 10 min. Performance evaluation is first
conducted for non-finned LHSU followed by LF-LHSU and CF-LHSU. The completion of the phase change cycle was confirmed by visual
inspection, wherein pictures are taken by camera.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Performance analysis

During the charging cycle, transient temperature evolution in different axial directions of LHSU helps determine the heat transfer
rate and molten PCM regions at different time instants. The temperature evolution of PCM for non-finned-LHSU, LF-LHSU, and CF-
LHSU is shown in Fig. 4 to compare the temperature variation of PCM among the three LHSU designs. The non-finned design was
selected as the reference test section. The experimental results are measured for 70 ◦ C of HTF inlet temperature and mass flow rate of 3
l/min during charging. The melting cycle length has a variable duration that depends on the design.
The general overview of the temperature evolution of the PCM in Fig. 4a is that three separated regions exist in LHSU during
charging. These regions include solid PCM (region 1), solid–-liquid phase transition state (region 2), and liquid PCM (region 3).
However, the information collected from the charging experiments are as follows:

Table 2
Thermophysical properties of PCM sample and water.
Property Value
Paraffin wax (PCM)
Melting temperature range (◦ C) 48.3–62
Heat of fusion (J/kg) 114540
Specific heat (J/kg.oC) 2000
Thermal Conductivity (W/m.oC) 0.14
Density (kg/m3) 820
Viscosity (Pa.s) 0.033
Thermal expansion (1/K) 6 × 10− 4

Water (HTF)
Specific heat (J/kg.oC) 4180
Density (kg/m3) 996

5
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

Fig. 3. Melting temperature and enthalpy of PCM measured by DSC.

• For non-finned LHSU, region 1 starts at the beginning of the charging cycle (i.e., T=30 ℃) and ends when PCM starts melting (i.e.,
T=48 ℃). During this period, the sensible heat is transferred from wall of the heat exchanger tube to the solid PCM. Moreover, the
PCM temperature rises uniformly at different axial locations across the test section. Heat transfer is conducted almost solely by the
conduction mode from the hot HTF to the solid PCM.
• The second region starts when the PCM temperature increases above 48℃. Different PCM temperature evolutions can be observed
depending on the axial location along the LHSU. In each case, the PCM temperature rises dramatically than that during region 1
because of the passage of the melting front. This region can be defined by the PCM melting temperature range (48 ℃–62 ℃).
• The PCM temperature at the top portion of the test section (D) increases more rapidly than those in the middle and lower parts. The
rapid increase in temperature of PCM in this position is due to the development of a thin layer of molten PCM around the HTF wall.
This molten layer is set to move because of the buoyancy induced natural convection and results in a rapid completed melting.
Similar behavior is also observed in the previous literature [1,32]. The lowest PCM temperature is noted at the lower portion (A) of
LHSU. As the time advanced, the melting begins from the top of the test section and proceeds downward until the process is
completed.
• As with the results for non-finned LHSU, the evolution of PCM temperature in the finned LHSU design at different axial locations
along the HTF tube are also presented in Fig. 4a. In general, the LF-LHSU and CF-LHSU designs complete the melting process in a
shorter time than the non-finned design. This result could be interpreted by the increased heat transfer area, which was due to the
addition of fins that enhanced the heat exchange between HTF and PCM, thereby causing the fins to produce higher melting rates.
This finding is consistent with previous observations [1].
• In CF-LHSU, the liquid PCM extends in radial radiation parallel to the circular fin surface from the bottom axial plane to the top
axial plane. The high temperature gradient in the radial direction of the CF induces a strong natural convection circulation in the
liquid PCM. Thus, the molten PCM moves up and fills the top region rapidly. However, a more molten PCM is formed because of the
heat transfer, which enhances the upper region. Thus, the PCM melts in a short time. As a result, the CF-LHSU reaches to the final
melting temperature in a quicker time as compared with non-finned and LF designs.
• At the end of the process, after the PCM has completely melted, the temperature variation of PCM among different axial locations
are reduced and almost stabilizes around the final temperature. In this case, region 3 is lied over a temperature range of 62℃ –70
℃. The length of time needed to reach the steady state temperature depends on the LHSU design.

The variation of average PCM temperature with time for non-finned and finned LHSU are shown in Fig. 4b. Similar periods to those
discussed above are observed. Notably, the large heat transfer induced by the provision of fins leads to rapid PCM melting. Thus, the
reduction in total charging time, which ranges from 55% to 70%, is clearly observed because of the fins. However, the largest charging
time saving is more pronounced with CF-LHSU than its counterpart. The CF surface extended in the radial direction more than the LF
surface, which has produced a higher temperature gradient from the base until the tip of the fin. As a result, the recirculation of molten
PCM bounded between the CF enhances the heat transfer in the radial direction and along the axial plane of the LHSU, thereby causing

6
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

Fig. 4. Temporal variation of PCM temperature during charging of LHSU (a) PCM temperature at different axial locations (b) Average PCM
Temperature.

PCM to melt in a shorter time. The general overview of Fig. 4 is that the temperature profile of finned heat exchangers that show large
heat transfer rate must be left-shifted.

3.2. Energy charged assessment

The thermal characteristics of LHSU designs in terms of power input and cumulative energy stored are analyzed for charging. The
power input (instantaneous heat rate, qch) provided by HTF in the charging period is determined by:
qch = ṁ cpHTF (Tin − Tout ) (3)

where ṁ, cpHTF , Tin, and Tout are the flow rate, specific heat and inlet and outlet temperatures of HTF, respectively. Stored cumulative
energy (Qcum,ch) was calculated by summing the instantaneous heat transfer rates overall time intervals of charging, which can be
expressed by [33]:
∑
Qcum,ch = Δt ṁcpHTF (Tin − Tout ) (4)

7
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

where Δt is the time interval between which the rate of heat transfer is calculated.
The results of power input and cumulative energy charged during the charging process for the three LHSU designs are presented in
Fig. 5 for the operational conditions of HTF of 70 ℃ and flow rate of 3 l/min. For comparison, the melting time of the circular fins (105
min) was considered a reference. The total cumulative energy increased significantly for the case of finned LHSU compared with the
LHSU without fins. The reason is that the finned design has a heat transfer area that is 3.77 times larger than the non-finned design
despite the same amount of PCM used.
The large heat transfer provided by the finned HTF tube leads to charge higher heat transfer rates during the melting cycle. The
highest stored cumulative energy is obtained with CF-LHTS design (154.4 kJ) followed by LF-LHSU (126.8kJ) and non-finned LHSU
(74.8 kJ). However, the CF-LHSU stores more latent energy (52%) than LF-LHTS (41%).
The power input for all LHSU designs during charging experiments presents in Fig. 5 indicates a decreasing trend with time which
can be explained by the ever-increasing amount of molten PCM. The maximum power input is obtained with CF-LHSU (73.4 W)
followed by LF-LHSU (62.5 W) and bare LHSU (33.02 W). The CF-LHSU was the most attractive because it has a relative high storage
density and low charging time leading to a good heat exchange power.
The uncertainty analysis is required to calculate the uncertainty associated with the energy stored during the charging period
because of uncertainties in the measurements recorded by thermocouples and flowmeters. The uncertainty in the instantaneous heat

Fig. 5. Power input and cumulative energy stored during charging process.

8
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

Fig. 6. Pictures of melting fronts for (a) non-finned LHSU (b) longitudinal-finned LHSU (c) circular-finned LHSU.

9
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

transfer rate depends on the uncertainty in the measurement of HTF temperature and mass flowrate. The instantaneous energy rate (Q)
is calculated by measuring HTF temperature at the inlet (Tin) and outlet (Tout) of the heat exchanger tube and mass flowrate of HTF(ṁ).
The root-sum-sequence uncertainty method was used to calculate the uncertainty of the measurements with a 95% confidence level in
single sample experiment. According to this method, the uncertainty of heat transfer (Q) is calculated using the equation suggested by
Kline and McClintock [34]:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
[( ) ( ) ( )2 ]
∂Q 2 ∂Q 2 ∂Q
UQ = (UT )2 + (UT )2 + (Um )2 (5)
∂Tin ∂Tout ∂m

where UT and Um are the uncertainties in the measurement that come from the HTF temperature and mass flowrate readings,
respectively. For the current experiments, the calculated uncertainty in heat transfer was 4.3%.

3.3. Visual analysis results

To have an idea on the transient behavior of PCM inside each design, pictures taken by a camera during the charging cycle are
shown in Fig. 6. At the beginning of the charging cycle, the phase change of the PCM from solid state to liquid state near the HTF pipe is
clear. The volume expansion of PCM is visible, the liquid level increases, and the melting fronts move uniformly downward for HTF
tube with and without fins. As time advanced, the melting rate at the top part of the test section increased because of the buoyancy
effect and then proceeds to move downward until the end of the melting cycle.
The role of adding fins on the melting front shape is demonstrated in Fig. 6b and 6c. The test section with circular fin is the first one
to complete the melting process. For CF-LHSU, the evolution of PCM melting front was more uniform than that of the LF case with each
equally spaced fin section because of the attached CF. The molten PCM first appeared next to the hot wall of HTF tube, and the
isotherms of molten PCM were parallel to the fin surface. As time progressed, the fin temperature increased because of the high thermal
conductivity of the fin material. Increased amount of molten PCM was observed over the tip of the circular fins because the length in
the radial direction is long. Thus, the existence of CF strengthens the natural convection and enhances the overall performance of the
storage unit.

4. Conclusions

A comparative thermal performance assessment on the three different shell-and-tube LHSU was conducted during the melting
(charging) process. The findings led to the following conclusions based on the experimental measurements:

• During the analysis of the temperature evolution, it can be seen that the three LHSU designs have almost similar thermal behavior
where the finned geometries is observed to be left-shifted due to large heat transfer area.
• The CF-LHSU design reaches to the final melting state in a shorter time followed by the LF-LHSU and then the non-finned design.
• The enhancement of the stored cumulative energy during charging is pronounced with CF-LHSU. However, the largest charging
rate of approximately 52% is reported with circular-finned thermal storage. The saving in charging time due to implementation of
circular fins is the largest (approximately 70%).
• The implementation of circular fins has a major effect on the power input of the PCM where the maximum power input is 73.4 W.
• For the two fin designs with identical volume added to the PCM, the good heat exchange power obtained by CF-LHSU is attributed
to the greater surface area of the fin oriented in the radial direction of the thermal storage.
• For large-scale LHSU, the consideration of longitudinal fin is more preferable in most engineering systems because of its simple
structure and low manufacturing and assembly costs. Although the thermal performance of LHSU with circular fin is greatly
enhanced, the order design complexity still exists in this fin geometry.
• The role of adding fins on the length of phase change cycle was confirmed by an experimental image taken by a camera.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Manish K. Rathod, Jyotirmay Banerjee, Thermal performance enhancement of shell and tube Latent Heat Storage Unit using longitudinal fins, Appl. Therm. Eng.
75 (2015) 1084–1092.
[2] Saeid Seddegh, Xiaolin Wang, Alan D. Henderson, Ziwen Xing, Solar domestic hot water systems using latent heat energy storage medium: a review, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 49 (2015) 517–533.
[3] Saffa Riffat, Blaise Mempouo, Wenbo Fang, Phase change material developments: a review, Int. J. Ambient Energy 36 (2015) 102–115.
[4] Zakir Khan, Zulfiqar Khan, Abdul Ghafoor, A review of performance enhancement of PCM based latent heat storage system within the context of materials,
thermal stability and compatibility, Energy Convers. Manag. 115 (2016) 132–158.
[5] Ashish Agrawal, R.M. Sarviya, A review of research and development work on solar dryers with heat storage, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 35 (2016) 583–605.
[6] Y.B. Tao, Ya-Ling He, A review of phase change material and performance enhancement method for latent heat storage system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93
(2018) 245–259.

10
A.K. Hassan et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100675

[7] S. Asgarpour, Bayazitoglu, Heat transfer in laminar flow with a phase change boundary, J. Heat Tran. 104 (1982) 678–682.
[8] K.A.R. Ismail, C.L.F. Alves, Analysis of the shelland- tube PCM storage system, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Heat Transfer Conference, 1986,
pp. 1781–1786.
[9] B. Yimmer, M. Adami, Parametric study and optimization of phase change thermal energy storage systems, National Heat Transfer Conference, Multiphase Flow,
Heat Mass Tran. 109 (1989) 1–8.
[10] Y. Cao, A. Faghri, A study of thermal energy storage system with conjugate turbulent forced convection, ASME J. Heat Transf. 114 (1992) 1019–1027.
[11] Y. Zhang, A. Faghri, Analytical solution of thermal energy storage system with conjugate laminar forced convection, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 39 (1996) 711–724.
[12] Francis Agyenim, Neil Hewitt, Philip Eames, Mervyn Smyth, A review of materials, heat transfer and phase change problem formulation for latent heat thermal
energy storage systems (LHTESS), Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2) (2010) 615–628.
[13] Marcel Lacroix, Study of the heat transfer behavior of a latent heat thermal energy storage unit with a finned tube, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 36 (8) (1993)
2083–2092.
[14] S. Jegadheeswaran, Sanjay D. Pohekar, Performance enhancement in latent heat thermal storage system: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (9) (2009)
2225–2244.
[15] Ammar M. Abdulateef, Sohif Mat, Jasim Abdulateef, Kamaruzzaman Sopian, Abduljalil A. Al-Abidi, Geometric and design parameters of fins employed for
enhancing thermal energy storage systems: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 1620–1635.
[16] Zakir Khan, Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, An experimental investigation of discharge/solidification cycle of paraffin in novel shell and tube with longitudinal fins based
latent heat storage system, Energy Convers. Manag. 154 (2017) 157–167.
[17] Ammar M. Abdulateef, Jasim Abdulateef, Abduljalil A. Al-Abidi, Kamaruzzaman Sopian, Sohif Mat, Mustafa S. Mahdi, A combination of fins-nanoparticle for
enhancing the discharging of phase-change material used for liquid desiccant air conditioning unite, J. Energy Storage 24 (2019) 100784.
[18] M. Kazemi, M.J. Hosseini, A.A. Ranjbar, R. Bahrampoury, Improvement of longitudinal fins configuration in latent heat storage systems, Renew. Energy 116
(2018) 447–457.
[19] Mustafa S. Mahdi, Ahmed F. Hasan, Hameed B. Mahood, Alasdair N. Campbell, Anees A. Khadom, Abdul Mun’em A. Karim, Adel O. Sharif, Numerical study and
experimental validation of the effects of orientation and configuration on melting in a latent heat thermal storage unit, J. Energy Storage 23 (2019) 456–468.
[20] Jay R. Patel, Manish K. Rathod, Thermal performance enhancement of melting and solidification process of phase-change material in triplex tube heat
exchanger using longitudinal fins, Heat Tran. Asian Res. 48 (2) (2019) 483–501.
[21] Ammar M. Abdulateef, Jasim Abdulateef, Kamaruzzaman Sopian, Sohif Mat, Adnan Ibrahim, Optimal fin parameters used for enhancing the melting and
solidification of phase-change material in a heat exchanger unite, Case Studies Ther. Eng. (2019), 100487.
[22] A.H. Mosaffa, F. Talati, B.H. Tabrizi, M.A. Rosen, Analytical modeling of PCM solidification in a shell and tube finned thermal storage for air conditioning
systems, Energy Build. 49 (2012).
[23] M.J. Hosseini, M. Rahimi, R. Bahrampoury, Thermal analysis of PCM containing heat exchanger enhanced with normal annular fines, Mech. Sci. 6 (no. 2) (2015)
221–234.
[24] Xiaohu Yang, Zhao Lu, Qingsong Bai, Qunli Zhang, Liwen Jin, Jinyue Yan, Thermal performance of a shell-and-tube latent heat thermal energy storage unit: role
of annular fins, Appl. Energy 202 (2017) 558–570.
[25] Haonan Cheng, Tao Luo, Jiabang Yu, Xiaohu Yang, Yanhua Liu, Zhaolin Gu, Liwen Jin, Experimental study of a shell-and-tube phase change heat exchanger unit
with/without circular fins, Energy Procedia 152 (2018) 990–996.
[26] Marc Medrano, M.O. Yilmaz, M. Nogués, I. Martorell, Joan Roca, Luisa F. Cabeza, Experimental evaluation of commercial heat exchangers for use as PCM
thermal storage systems, Appl. Energy 86 (10) (2009) 2047–2055.
[27] Adèle Caron-Soupart, Jean-François Fourmigué, Philippe Marty, Raphaël Couturier, Performance analysis of thermal energy storage systems using phase change
material, Appl. Therm. Eng. 98 (2016) 1286–1296.
[28] Jaume Gasia, Diriken Jan, Malcolm Bourke, Johan Van Bael, Luisa F. Cabeza, Comparative study of the thermal performance of four different shell-and-tube
heat exchangers used as latent heat thermal energy storage systems, Renew. Energy 114 (2017) 934–944.
[29] Guang-Shun Han, Hong-Sheng Ding, Yun Huang, Li-Ge Tong, Yu-Long Ding, A comparative study on the performances of different shell-and-tube type latent
heat thermal energy storage units including the effects of natural convection, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Tran. 88 (2017) 228–235.
[30] Saeid Seddegh, S.Saeed Mostafavi Tehrani, Xiaolin Wang, Feng Cao, Robert A. Taylor, Comparison of heat transfer between cylindrical and conical vertical
shell-and-tube latent heat thermal energy storage systems, Appl. Therm. Eng. 130 (2018) 1349–1362.
[31] Soheila Riahi, Wasim Y. Saman, Frank Bruno, Martin Belusko, N.H.S. Tay, Performance comparison of latent heat storage systems comprising plate fins with
different shell and tube configurations, Appl. Energy 212 (2018) 1095–1106.
[32] Digant S. Mehta, Karan Solanki, Manish K. Rathod, Jyotirmay Banerjee, Thermal performance of shell and tube latent heat storage unit: comparative assessment
of horizontal and vertical orientation, J. Energy Storage 23 (2019) 344–362.
[33] Moe Kabbara, Dominic Groulx, Alain Joseph, Experimental investigations of a latent heat energy storage unit using finned tubes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 101 (2016)
601–611.
[34] S.J. Kline, F.A. McClintock, Describing the uncertainties in single sample experiments, J. Mech. Eng. (1953) 3–8.

11