Received: 25 September 2018 Revised: 22 November 2018 Accepted: 25 November 2018

DOI: 10.1002/er.4363

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Analysis of solidification in a finite PCM storage with

internal fins by employing heat balance integral method

Rohit Kothari1 | Sreetam Das2 | Santosh K. Sahu1 | Shailesh I. Kundalwal1

1
Discipline of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Indore,
Indore, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
College of Engineering and Technology,
Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
Correspondence
Rohit Kothari, Discipline of Mechanical
Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Indore, Khandwa Road,
Simrol, Indore 453552, India.
Email: rohitkothari2892@gmail.com
Funding information
Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India, Grant/Award
Number: DST/TMD/MES/2k17/65;
DST‐INSPIRE Fellowship program,
Government of India, Grant/Award
Number: IF170534
Summary
Here, a simplified analytical model has been proposed to predict solid fraction,
solid–liquid interface, solidification time, and temperature distribution during
solidification of phase change material (PCM) in a two‐dimensional latent heat
thermal energy storage system (LHTES) with horizontal internal plate fins.
Host of boundary conditions such as imposed constant heat flux, end‐wall tem-
perature, and convective air environment on the vertical walls are considered
for the analysis. Heat balance integral method was used to obtain the solution.
Present model yields closed‐form solution for temperature variation and solid
fraction as a function of various modeling parameters. Also, solidification time
of PCM, which is useful in optimum design of PCM‐based thermal energy stor-
ages, has been evaluated during the analysis. The solidification time was found
to be reduced by 93% by reducing the aspect ratio from 8 to 0.125 for constant
heat flux boundary condition. While, for constant wall temperature boundary
condition, the solidification time reduces by 99% by changing the aspect ratio
from 5 to 0.05. In case of convective air boundary surrounding, the solidifica-
tion time is found to reduce by 88% by reducing the aspect ratio from 8 to
0.125. Based on the analytical solution, correlations have been proposed to pre-
dict solidification time in terms of aspect ratio and end‐wall boundary
condition.

KEYWORDS
constant temperature phase transition, interface of solid and liquid, latent heat thermal energy
storage (LHTES), phase change material (PCM), solidification time

Nomenclature:
English Symbols: Ts, Temperature of solid PCM, °C; T f , Temperature of fin, °C; Lp, PCM's heat of fusion, J/kg; Tm, Solidification temperature of
PCM, °C; cs, Solid PCM's specific heat, J/kg/K; lc, PCM cell's half height, m; q″w , Wall heat flux, W/m2; t, Time, s; X(t), Interface of solid and liquid
(direction X), m; Y(t), Interface of solid and liquid (direction Y), m; St , St , cs ΔT ; cl ΔT (Stefan's number); k, Thermal conductivity of PCM, W/m°C;
s l Lp Lp
h h
k f , Thermal conductivity of fin material, W/m C; h, Coefficient of heat transfer during convection, W/m2/K; l f , Length of fin, m; Hs,
°
; H f , ; x,
ks kf
y, r, Coordinates
Greek Symbols: αs, αl, Solid and liquid PCM's thermal diffusivity, m2/s; α f , Fin material's thermal diffusivity, m2/s; ρ, PCM's density, kg/m3; δ, Fin's
lf
half thickness, m; σ, (Aspect ratio)
lc
Subfixes: l, Liquid; p, PCM; s, Solid; f , Fin

Int J Energy Res. 2019;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 KOTHARI
1 | INTRODUCTION
The demand of energy in various sectors such as indus-
trial, utility, and commercial sectors vary with time.1
Thermal energy storage (TES) systems have the ability
and are promising candidates for smoothing the tempo-
ral variation of energy demands. In addition, TES can
be used to utilize the renewable energy sources and
improve the energy efficiency. TES can be achieved by
using sensible or latent heat storage. The latter is more
preferable to the former because of constant temperature
phase transition and high storage density.2,3 Phase
change materials (PCMs) based Latent heat thermal
energy storage (LHTES) for storing thermal energy has
various applications such as photovoltaic (PV) system,
solar water heating, electronic cooling and thermal com-
fort. Important advancements in LHTES systems, mate-
rials and applications have recently been reviewed by
various researchers.4-9 Also, novel PCMs such as pork
fat have recently been used by Nizetic et al10 for PV
systems.
Heat transfer in LHTES materials, namely, PCMs, is
complex in nature because of nonlinear problem and
moving solid–liquid interface. The moving solid–liquid
problem is commonly termed as moving boundary prob-
lem (MBP).1-3 The analytical solution for the one‐
dimensional (1D) MBP termed as Stefan's problem.11,12
Analytical solutions of 1D MBP for different boundary
conditions were reported by Alexiades and Solomon13
and Ozisik.12 These include the perturbation method,
the Megerlin method, the quasi‐stationary approxima-
tion, Kantorovich method, and the heat balance integral
method (HBIM).
Several theoretical14-22 and numerical23-26 models were
proposed to obtain the PCM temperature variation during
solidification and melting. Solomon et al14 reported a solu-
tion for rectangular TES with convective air boundary con-
dition by using quasi‐stationary approximation. Lu15
presented 1D conduction‐based heat transfer model to
investigate melting of PCM in Cartesian coordinates.
Imposed heat flux was taken on the PCM top surface, while
the PCM bottom surface was taken as convective air envi-
ronment. Authors reported PCM temperature distribution
in terms of Biot number and time. Kothari et al17 developed
a mathematical model for obtaining the PCM temperature
distribution in an annulus by using Variational formula-
tion or quasi‐steady approximation. In addition to this,
several numerical methods were reported to obtain the
solution for moving boundary problem. In general, the
enthalpy method is commonly used because of the elimi-
nation of explicit treatment of boundary conditions at
solid–liquid interface.23 Zivkovich and Fuji24 introduced
enthalpy formulation‐based mathematical model and
ET AL.
simulated the transient behavior of encapsulated PCM in
a container. Good agreement was obtained between the
results and test data.
Low thermal conductivity is the most significant
drawback of PCM. Numerous investigations were
reported in literature to enhance the thermal conductiv-
ity of PCMs with high‐conductivity metal particles,
metal foam, and fins.27-30 Fins are widely used to
enhance the thermal conductivity of PCMs and heat
transfer in LHTES system. Several experimental and
numerical studies were reported on heat transfer
enhancement of LHTES systems with internal fins.31,32
During the experimental study performed by Velraj
et al30 with paraffin wax as PCM inside a cylindrical‐
vertical shell type heat exchanger, the solidification time
was found to be inversely proportional to the number of
internal longitudinal fins. Costa et al31 numerically ana-
lyzed the thermal performance of LHTES system with
and without internal fins using enthalpy‐based method.
It was reported that the fins significantly enhance the
thermal conductivity of PCMs. Also, the authors
reported the melt fraction and energy stored of the
PCM. The melting and solidification process of PCM
storage was investigated through both experimentally
and numerically by Lamberg et al.32 The investigations
were performed with and without fins, and the heat
capacity method was found to be more accurate com-
pared with the enthalpy method.
Several analytical studies were reported for analyz-
ing the PCM melting and solidification time with
fins.1-3,33-38 The analytical and numerical solutions for
the location of interface of solid and liquid and temper-
ature variation during solidification3 and melting33 of
PCM with finned two‐dimensional storage were
reported for constant end‐wall temperature condition.
It was reported that geometry of PCM and material
properties affect the PCM solidification time. Talati
et al2 reported the solution for PCM solidification in
two‐dimensional PCM storage having internal fins by
employing both analytical and numerical techniques
for constant heat flux wall condition. Position of inter-
face of solid and liquid and temperature variation of
fin in a rectangular‐finned PCM storage for convective
air environment at the boundaries were predicted by
Mosaffa et al.1 Bauer37 reported analytical solution for
PCM's solidification in fin geometries using effective
medium approach with constant end‐wall temperature
boundary condition. The model is useful to optimize
finned TES. Some of the studies that report the analyti-
cal solution for PCM storage having internal fins are
summarized in Table 1. This includes the solution for
location of interface of solid and liquid and solution
for various regions.
TABLE 1 Solid–liquid interface locations and solutions for regions 1 and 2 for rectangular phase change material storage with internal fins reported by various researchers
KOTHARI

Boundary
ET AL.

S. No Reference Problem Adapted Conditions Solution for Region 1 (along X Direction) Solution for Region 2 (along Y Direction) Validation

1 "
  
1. Mosaffa et al Solidification in a Constant imposed ∞ cm exp½− λ2m þ η2 τ ψ Yes (numerical)
hð T m − T ∞ Þ θðζ ; tÞ ¼ ∑m¼1 cos ðλ m ζ Þ þ sin ð λ m ζ Þ þ
finite rectangular convective air T s ðx; tÞ ¼ N ð λm Þ λ2m þ η2 λm
ks þ hX ðt Þ
PCM storage with environment "
∞ β X ðt Þ cosðβ X ðt ÞÞ − sinðβ X ðt ÞÞ ψ ψþη
m A1 expðηζ Þ þ A2 expð−ηζ Þ where A1 ¼ − A2 ,
internal fins ½x þ 2 ∑ m
m  ψ−η ψ−η
n¼1 H s þ β2m þ H 2s X ðt Þ
2
# ψη½1 þ expðηÞ − ψ2 ½1 − expðηÞ 2ψλm

 eð−αs βm tÞ sinðβm ðX ðt Þ − x Þ A2 ¼
2  , tanðλm Þ ¼ − 2 ,
× β2m þ H 2s × 2 ψ þ η2 sinhðηÞ þ 4ψη coshðηÞ ψ − λ2m
β2m sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
ks T m þ hX ðtÞT ∞ 2ks ðT m − T ∞ Þ
þ Y ðt Þ ¼ t where Y(t) is solid–liquid interface,
ks hX ðt Þ ρs L
where βm cot (βmX(t)) = − Hs k s l2f h
η¼ ,ψ ¼ H f lf ¼ lf .
Y ðt ÞDk f kf
"
 #
2. Talati et al2 Solidification in a Constant imposed −8q″w ∞ exp −αs β2n t    Yes (numerical)
T s ðx; t Þ ¼ ∑ cos ð β x Þ −2ψ 1 2

n θ¼ expð−ξτ Þ þ ψ þ þ ψ η2 − η
finite rectangular end‐wall heat ks π n¼1 ð2n−1Þ2 ξ 6 ξ
 where (
PCM storage with flux ″
 ″

q x q X ðt Þ ∞ 2ψ ð−1Þnþ1 − 1


− w þ w þ Tm ; þ ∑n¼1 exp − ξ þ n2 π 2 τ
internal fins ks ks ξþn π 2 2

ð2n − 1Þπ

βn ¼ 2ψξ ð−1Þnþ1 − 1
2X ðt Þ þ 2 2 2 2
cosðnπηÞ;
n π ðξ þ n π Þ
hpffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i12 pffiffiffiffiffiffi
−1
ks l2f x
Y ðt Þ ¼ 2 1þ2ste 2 αs t where Y(t) is solid–liquid interface, ξ ¼ ,η ¼ .
Y ðt ÞDkf lf
2
3. Lamberg et al3 Solidification in a Constant imposed Sx¼0 ¼ 2λpffiffiffiffiffiffi
αs t λeλ where Sx = 0 = solid–liquid T = Tm + θ(Tw − Tm), pffiffiffi Yes (numerical)
coshððη − 0:5Þ νÞ 4
finite rectangular end‐wall St l cp ðT w − T m Þ θ¼ pffiffiffi − υτ
erf ðλÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ pffiffiffi coshð0:5 νÞ πe
π −L π 2 2
PCM storage with temperature
interface location, λ = root of transcendental ∞ ð−1Þn eð−ð2nþ1Þ π τ Þ
internal fins ∑n¼0 

ð2n þ 1Þ½1 þ ν= ð2n þ 1Þ2 π 2
equation
cosðð2n þ 1Þπ ðη − 0:5ÞÞ;
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
γ ¼ 2ξkλ2 θτ where γ = solid–liquid interface location, ξ = modified Stefan
number
33 ffi 2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4. Lamberg et al Melting in a semi‐ Constant imposed Sx ðt Þ ¼ 2λpffiffiffiffiffi
αl t λeλ where Sx(t) = solid–liquid B 2 1 B 2 Yes (numerical)
ðT w − T m Þ eBt− X =A − eBt− X =A
infinite rectangular end‐wall St l cp ð Tw − TmÞ 2
erf ðλÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ pffiffiffi " pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
π −L π pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PCM storage with temperature B 2 x BX 2 t
interface location, λ = root of transcendental 1 − e2 X =A þ erf pffiffiffiffiffi −
internal fins 2 At x
equation
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!!)
2 BX2
=A erf x BX 2 t
þe pffiffiffiffiffi −
2 At x h
T f ðx; t Þ ¼ T m þ where B ¼

eBt ρcp f D

(Continues)
3
 4

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Boundary
S. No Reference Problem Adapted Conditions Solution for Region 1 (along X Direction) Solution for Region 2 (along Y Direction) Validation

2



5. Mosaffa et al34 Solidification in a Constant imposed Ts − Tm r 

∞ exp −αs γ m t ∞ 1 Yes (numerical)
¼ ln − ∑m¼1 θðr; t Þ ¼ ∑m¼1 exp − γ 2m − ν2 τ ψo ðγ m ; ηÞ
shell and tube convective air T∞ − Tm a N ðγ m Þ N ðγ m Þ
ηout where, ψo(γm, η) = Yo(γmη)
PCM storage with environment Ω2 ½J o ðγ m r ÞY o ðγ m ΩÞ−Y o ðγ m r ÞJ o ðγ m ΩÞ × × ∫ − ηφðηÞψo ðγ m ; ηÞdη
1 ηin
internal fins  
½Y o ðγ m ΩÞI 1 − J o ðγ m ΩÞI 2 g
Ω J1(γmηout) − Jo(γmη)Y1(γmηout)
1=ðH s Rin Þ þ ln
Rin
where Jo and Yo is Bessel function of zero order.
Where U0Y0(γmΩ) − W0J0(γmΩ) = 0

Abbreviation: PCM, phase change material.

KOTHARI
ET AL.
KOTHARI ET AL.
In case of TES systems, the melting and solidification
time of PCMs affect the thermal performance. In general,
the solidification time is nearly three times greater than
the melting time.3 The solidification behavior of PCM is
found to depend on various thermal and geometrical
parameters including the aspect ratio, fin thickness, and
thermophysical properties of fin and PCM.37 It is evident
from the literature that numerous studies have been
made that analyze the melting/solidification behaviors
of PCMs with internal fins inside storage system involv-
ing rectangular and cylindrical geometries.1-3,33-38 Most
of the two‐dimensional analytical studies employ separa-
tion of variable (SV) method for the analysis. These tech-
niques compute the solution by truncating the series of
complex function. The truncation of infinite series of a
function may lead to errors in the solution. Therefore,
there is a need to develop theoretical models during solid-
ification of PCM with other methods involving important
parameters. HBIM is one of many analytical methods
used to solve conduction problems. HBIM has been used
to solve Stefan problems because of its simplicity, short
computation time while providing the solutions with rea-
sonable accuracy.39
Here, an effort has been made to obtain the behavior
of PCM during solidification process in two‐dimensional
rectangular PCM storage system with horizontal internal
fins subjected to various end‐wall boundary conditions,
namely, constant heat flux, end‐wall temperature, and
convective air environment. HBIM is employed to obtain
the solution. The objective of the present work is to
evaluate the temperature variation in PCM, predict loca-
tion of interface of solid and liquid, solidification time
for various geometrical and thermal boundary condi-
tions. In addition to this, correlations have been pro-
posed to predict solidification time as a function of
aspect ratio and end‐wall boundary condition for all
the cases.
2 | THE PHYSICAL PROBLEM
Figure 1 represents the schematic of PCM storage unit
with internal horizontal fins. Here, left and right walls
are subjected to constant temperature, constant heat
flux, and constant convective air environment condi-
tions. A simplified 1D model is developed to estimate
the location of interface of solid and liquid and temper-
ature variation of fin. Because of symmetry of PCM stor-
age unit, a single symmetry cell was considered for the
analysis and is shown in Figure 2. Two regions, namely,
Region 1 and Region 2, is considered for the analysis. In
Region 1, the transfer of heat is 1D, toward direction X.
Here, heat is transferred only by walls, and the fin does
5
FIGURE 1 A phase change material (PCM) storage with PCM
and internal horizontal fins
not affect the solidification of PCM as reported by
Lamberg and Siren.3,33 In Region 2, transfer of heat to
the PCM takes place by the wall as well as the fin. After
short duration, heat is mainly transferred by the fin. In
such case, the interface of solid and liquid is assumed
to move one dimensionally in direction Y. In solidifica-
tion process, conduction is assumed to be primary mode
of transfer of heat. The natural convection, at the inter-
face of solid and liquid because of the difference in tem-
perature of liquid PCM, has minimal effect on location
of interface of solid and liquid compared with heat con-
duction in solid PCM.1 Therefore, the natural convection
is not considered in the analysis. The heat transfer prob-
lem is complex because of the nonlinear and transient
nature. The following assumptions are made for the
analysis.1-3
(i) Initially, the temperature of PCM and fin is consid-
ered to be the same as that of solidification temper-
ature (Tm).
(ii) The temperature variation of fin is 1D because of
small thickness, geometry and high thermal
conductivity.
(iii) Various properties of fin, PCM, and heat transfer
fluid (HTF) are considered to be constant irrespec-
tive of temperature.
(iv) PCM is assumed to be homogeneous, and solidifica-
tion is considered to take place isothermally.
3 | MATHEMATICAL
FORMULATION
The present analytical model was developed in two parts.
The problem can be treated as Stefan's problem13 in
6 KOTHARI ET AL.

3.1 | Constant imposed heat flux at the

walls

3.1.1 | Region 1, {0 ≤ x ≤ X(t)}

The transient heat conduction equation in one dimension

for the PCM (Figure 2A) can be expressed as follows:

∂2 T s 1 ∂T s
¼ ; 0 ≤ x ≤ X ðt Þ; t ¼ 0: (1)
∂x 2 αs ∂t

The initial and boundary conditions are given by:

T s ðx; 0Þ ¼ T m ; 0 ≤ x ≤ lf ; (2a)

dX ðt Þ ∂T s ðX ðtÞ; t Þ
−ρLp ¼ −ks ; (2b)
dt ∂x
∂T s
−k s ¼ q″w q″w < 0: (2c)
∂x
Here, X (t) is the distance of interface of solid and liquid
in direction X.
On integrating the governing Equation 1 from end‐
wall to solid–liquid interface with respect to x and utiliz-
ing the initial and boundary conditions, Equations 2a to
2c and 1 can be rewritten as follows:

d X ðtÞ
∫ ρcs ½T s ðx; t Þ − T m dx ¼ −ρLp X ′ ðt Þ − q″w ðt Þ; 0 < x < X ðt Þ:
dt 0
(3)

In order to solve the above equation and boundary condi-

tions (Equations 2a‐2c), a guess temperature profile is
assumed and is given as follows:

T s ðx; t Þ ¼ T m þ Aðt Þ½x − X ðt Þ þ Bðt Þ½x−X ðt Þ2 ; (4)

where, A (t) and B (t) are the constants; given by:

" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
Lp 4cs q″w X ðt Þ
A ðt Þ ¼ −1 þ 1 − ; (5)
2cs X ðt Þ k s Lp

FIGURE 2 Schematic of different regions in a two‐dimensional " sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#2

phase change material (PCM) storage with different boundary Lp 4cs q″w X ðtÞ
B ðt Þ ¼ 2 −1 þ 1− ; (6)
wall conditions (A) constant heat flux, (B) constant temperature, 8cs fX ðt Þg k s Lp
and (C) constant convective air environment [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] Utilizing Equations 4 to 6, polynomial form solution for
various parameters such as cs, q″w , ks, ρ, Lp, X(t), and t.
This can be written in the following form.
Region 1, which is specifically solvable MBP. In Region
2, transfer of heat is assumed to follow the direction Y, A1 fX ðtÞg4 þ B1 fX ðtÞg3 þ C 1 fX ðtÞg2 þ D1 fX ðt Þg þ E 1 ¼ 0
and energy balance is required for the analysis. The (7)
problem is further divided based on different boundary where,
conditions. This has been elaborated in subsequent
2
sections. A1 ¼ cs q″w ; (8)
KOTHARI ET AL. 7

in which δ is the half thickness of fin and Y (t) is the dis-
B1 ¼ 16k s cs Lp q″w ρ2 − 1 ; (9)
tance of interface of solid and liquid in direction Y.
h i The initial and boundary conditions of the fin are

2
C1 ¼ 4k s 16k s L2p − 3cs q″w t − k s ρ2 L2p ; (10) given by:

T f ðx; 0Þ ¼ T m 0 ≤ x ≤ lf ; (17a)
D1 ¼ 96k 2s Lp q″w t; (11)



2 ∂T f ð0; t Þ ∂T f lf ; t
E 1 ¼ 6ks q″w t ; (12) −k f ¼ kf ¼ q″w : (17b)
∂x ∂x
In order to obtain X (t), we need values of various proper-
On integrating the governing equation along the half‐
ties of PCM such as cs, q″w , ks, ρ,Lp, and t. The values of
length of fin with respect to x, Equation 15 can be rewrit-
various properties of PCM are summarized in Table 3.
ten as follows:

3.1.2 | Region 2, {0 ≤ x ≤ Y(t)} l =2  lf =2

1 d
f

 ∂T f ðx; t Þ
∫ T f − T m dx ¼ (18)
Here, the interface of solid and liquid moves only in one αf dt 0 ∂x 0
direction that is in direction Y. In such case, one can con- l =2
f


sider the heat transfer takes place because of conjugate − M ∫ T f − T m dx:
effect of heat transfer through fin. Figure 3 shows the 0

arbitrary differential element dx, which is detached from

The solution of Equation 15 for different boundary condi-
the PCM storage. An energy balance for the element dx
tions has been reported by several researchers.1-3 While,
can be written as follows:
for HBIM method, one needs to assume the guess temper-
−q″x þ q″xþdx þ q″in ¼ E_ st ; (14) ature profile, and this can be written as follows:
h pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi i
where, E_ st is the rate of change of energy storage per
T f ðx; tÞ ¼ T m þ t Aðt Þe M x þ Bðt Þe− M x þ Cðt Þ : (19)
unit area of the fin. Substituting rate equations, the
energy balance equation (Equation 14) can be rewritten
Applying the initial and boundary conditions given by
as follows:
Equations 17a and 17b of the fin in Equation 18, and
∂2 T f
 1 ∂T f substituting in Equation 19, one can obtain the tempera-
− M Tf − Tm ¼ ; (15)
∂x 2 αf ∂t ture variation of fin and is given by:
where,
q″w
T f ðx; t Þ ¼ T m þ tP1 þ pffiffiffiffiffi
ks kf M
M¼ ; (16) " pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi #
k f δY ðt Þ
e M x þ e− M x þ e M ðx−lf Þ þ e− M ðx−lf Þ
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi ; (20)
e M lf − e− M lf

where,

2α q″ Q  pffiffiffiffi 
P1 ¼
f w  − p1ffiffiffiffiffi e M lf − 1
lf kf 1 þ Mαf t lf M
 p ffi 
ffiffiffi (21a)
R1
− pffiffiffiffiffi 1 − e− M lf ;
lf M
" pffiffiffiffi #
q″w 1 þ e− M lf
Q1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi ; (21b)
k f t M e M lf − e− M lf

" pffiffiffiffi #
FIGURE 3 Energy balance in a differential element of the phase q″w 1 þ e M lf
change material storage [Colour figure can be viewed at R1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi (21c)
k f t M e M l f − e− M l f
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
8 KOTHARI ET AL.

d X ðt Þ

ks ∫ ρcs T j ðx; t Þ − T m dx
M¼ : (21d) dt 0
k f δY ðt Þ ¼ −ρLp X ′ ðt Þ − k s T s ð0; t Þ for 0 < x < X ðt Þ: (25)

The location of interface of solid and liquid in Region 2, A(t) and B(t) are the constants in assumed temperature
that is in direction Y, Y (t) is defined following the profile, and their values are obtained as follows:
Megerlin method13 as below.
Lp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1=2 A ðt Þ ¼ −1 þ 1 − 2st s ; (26)

1 þ 2Ste−1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi c s X ðt Þ
Y ðt Þ ¼ 2 αs t Megerlin method; (22)
2
Lp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
where, Ste denotes the Stefan number and is provided by: B ðt Þ ¼ 2 −1 þ 1−2st s : (27)
2cs fX ðt Þg


cs T m − T f
Ste ¼ : (23) Utilizing Equations 4 and 25 to 27, the position of inter-
Lp
face of solid and liquid is given as follows:
It may be noted by using Equations 20 to 23, one can
obtain temperature variation of the fin and the location "sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
3ð−1 þ 2st s − 1 − 2st s Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffi
of interface of solid and liquid Y (t). X ðt Þ ¼ 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi αs t : (28)
−7 − 2st s þ 1 − 2st s

3.2 | Constant imposed temperature at

the walls
Figure 2B shows the location of interface of solid and liq-
uid during solidification in two different regions for con-
stant imposed temperature at the end‐walls.
3.2.1 | Region 1, {0 ≤ x ≤ X(t)}
Here, the solution of the model is obtained by considering
similar governing equation (Equation 1), initial condition
(Equations 2a and 2b), and assumed temperature profile
(Equation 4).
In addition to this, boundary condition for constant
imposed end‐wall heat flux (Equation 2c) is replaced with
constant end‐wall temperature boundary condition and is
given as follows:


T s ð0; t Þ ¼ T s lf ; t ¼ T w < T m :
On integrating the governing equation (Equation 1) from
end wall to interface of solid and liquid with respect to x
and utilizing the initial and boundary conditions given by
Equations 2a, 2b, 24, and 1 can be rewritten as follows:
3.2.2 | Region 2, {0 ≤ x ≤ Y(t)}
It may be noted that solution of Region 2 for this model is
obtained by considering similar governing equation
(Equation 15), initial condition (Equation 17a) and
assumed temperature profile (Equation 19).
Apart from above equations, following boundary
conditions for constant imposed end‐wall heat flux
(Equation 17b) is replaced with constant end‐wall tem-
perature boundary condition and is given as follows:


T f ð0; t Þ ¼ T f lf ; t ¼ T w : (29)
Applying the initial and boundary conditions of the fin
(Equations 17a and 29) in Equation 18 and substituting
in Equation 19, one can obtain the temperature variation
of fin and is given by:
(24)
T f ðx; t Þ ¼ T w
h pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffi i
þtP2 e M ðx−lf Þ þ e− M x − 1 þ e− M lf ; (30)
where,

pffiffiffiffiffi
ðT m − T w Þlf M
P2 ¼ 2  pffiffiffiffi 3 (31a)
pffiffiffiffi n pffiffiffiffi o n pffiffiffiffi o l pffiffiffiffi ffin
p ffiffiffi
ffi o Mα t e − M lf
− 1
f M f
2t 4e− M lf eð M lf =2Þ − 1 þ 1 − eð− M lf =2Þ − 1 þ e− M lf þ 5
2 1 þ Mαf t
KOTHARI ET AL. 9

The value of constants A(t) and B(t) assumed in tempera-

ks
M¼ (31b) ture profile (Equation 4) are obtained as follows:
k f δY ðt Þ
Lp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Here, the interface of solid and liquid Y (t) is defined sim- A ðt Þ ¼ 1 þ st s − 1 ; (37)
cs X ðt Þ
ilar to the Equation 22. Also, variation in temperature of
the fin and the location of interface of solid and liquid Y
(t) can be obtained using Equations 22 23 and 30‐(31a).
−Lp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
B ðt Þ ¼ 2 1 þ st s −1 ; (38)
3.3 | Convective air environment at the 2cs fX ðt Þg
walls where, sts is Stefan number for solid PCM and is given by
cs ðT m − T ∞ Þ
The location of interface of solid and liquid during solid- st s ¼ .
Lp
ification in two different regions for convective air envi-
Utilizing Equations 4, 35, 37, and 38, the solid–liquid
ronment boundary condition is shown in Figure 2C.
interface position is given as follows:
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
3.3.1 | Region 1, {0 ≤ x ≤ X(t)} 3ht st s − 2f1 − 1 þ st s g
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi :
X ðt Þ ¼ (39)
ρcs 7 − st s − 1 þ st s
In addition to governing Equation 1, initial and boundary
conditions (Equations 2a‐2b) and assumed temperature
profile (Equation 4), constant air environment boundary 3.3.2 | Region 2, {0 ≤ x ≤ Y(t)}
condition is used instead of constant imposed end‐wall
heat flux (Equation 2c) to obtain the solution. And the In addition to Governing Equation 15, initial condition
solution is given as follows: (Equation 17a) and assumed temperature profile (Equa-
tion 19), constant air environment boundary condition
−∂T s ð0; t Þ
þ H s fT s ð0; t Þ − T ∞ g ¼ 0: (34) is used instead of constant imposed end‐wall heat flux
∂x
(Equation 17b) for obtaining the solution. The solution
The governing Equation 1 can be rewritten by integrating is given as follows:
it with respect to x from end wall to interface of solid and
liquid, and substituting the initial and boundary condi- −∂T f ð0; t Þ  
þ H f T f ð0; t Þ − T ∞
tions (Equations 2a, 2b, and 34), we can obtain the fol- ∂x

∂T f lf ; t 
 
lowing relation: ¼ þ H f T f lf ; t − T ∞ ¼ 0: (40)
∂x
d X ðt Þ
∫ ρcs ½T s ðx; t Þ − T m dx ¼ −ρLp X ′ ðt Þ The temperature variation of fin is obtained by substitut-
dt 0 (35)
ing Equations 17a, 18, and 40 in Equation 19 given as fol-
− h½T ∞ − T ð0; t Þ for 0 < x < X ðt Þ:
lows:
Assuming, h pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
T f ðx; t Þ ¼ T ∞ þ tP3 Q3 e M x þ e− M x
k s þ hX ðt Þ ( !
≈ 1; (36a) pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffii#
2k s þ hX ðt Þ M M
þ Q3 × −1 −1− ; (41)
Hf Hf
2hX ðt Þ
≈ 1: (36b) where,
k s þ hX ðt Þ

ðT m − T ∞ Þlf
P 3 ¼ "( pffiffiffiffiffi ! pffiffiffiffiffi) ( pffiffiffiffi ! )#; (42a)
M M   n −
pffiffiffiffi o e M lf − 1  pffiffiffiffi 
t R3 −1 −1− lf þ 2S3 þ R3 þ e M lf pffiffiffiffiffi þ S3 1 þ e M l f
Hf Hf M
10 KOTHARI ET AL.

pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
M −pffiffiffi ffi M pffiffiffiffi solid and liquid and solid fraction of PCM obtained from
e M lf
þ þ 1 − e− M lf the present prediction with the two‐dimensional numeri-
Hf Hf
Q3 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi ; (42b) cal solution of Talati et al,2 Lamberg et al,3 and Mosaffa
M M lfp ffiffiffi
ffi M pffiffiffiffi
e þ − 1 þ e M lf et al1 for constant heat flux, end‐wall temperature, and
Hf Hf
convective air boundary condition, respectively, and the
αf H f t results of the validation are shown in Figure 4A‐C and
R3 ¼ ; (42c) Table 2A‐C. For the sake of brevity, the location of solid
1 þ Mαf t
and liquid interface in directions X and Y are compared
ks at σ<1. The average error, between the present predic-
M¼ ; (42d) tions and two‐dimensional numerical results, in
k f δY ðt Þ
obtaining the location of interface of solid and liquid in
Here, the interface of solid and liquid Y(t) is defined sim-
direction X is found to be 0.69, 1.73, and 1.06 mm for con-
ilar to the Equation 22. Also, temperature variation of fin
stant heat flux, end‐wall temperature, and convective air
and location of interface of solid and liquid Y(t) can be
boundary condition, respectively. While, the average
obtained using the Equations 22, 23, and 41 to 42d.
error in obtaining the location of interface of solid and
liquid in direction Y is found to be 0.19, 0.39, and
4 | C O M P A R I S O N O F P R E S EN T 0.57 mm in direction Y for constant heat flux, end‐wall
PREDICTION WITH NUMERICAL temperature, and convective air boundary condition,
RESULTS respectively.
The solid fraction of PCM during solidification for
In order to verify the present analytical model, efforts varied range of aspect ratio and different boundary condi-
have been made to compare the location of interface of tion are compared with the two‐dimensional numerical

FIGURE 4 Comparison of solid–liquid interface locations obtained by present model with the existing numerical solutions for (A) σ = 2,
t = 800 seconds, constant heat flux boundary condition; (B) σ = 5, t = 1085 seconds, constant end‐wall temperature boundary condition; and
(C) σ = 2, t = 1000 seconds, constant convective air environment boundary condition [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
KOTHARI ET AL. 11

TABLE 2A Comparison of present analytical model and two‐ TABLE 3 Thermal properties of phase change material and fin
dimensional numerical model2 for constant heat flux boundary material2
condition in different test cases
Property Paraffin Aluminum Fin
Solid
Density, ρ (kg/m3) 1450 2770
Fraction Solid Fraction
Predicted Obtained from Specific heat, c (J/kg‐K) 3600 875
from Two‐dimensional Thermal conductivity, k (W/m‐K) 0.6 177
Aspect Present Numerical Error
Latent heat of fusion, Lp (J/kg) 162 000 …
Ratio Time Study (εanal) Model,2 (εnum) (I‐II)
(σ) (s) (I) (II) × 100% Melting/solidification 28 …
temperature, Tm (°C)
0.5 400 0. 43 0.35 6.7
1 400 0. 30 0.25 3.3
2 400 0. 26 0.21 1.4 5 | R ESULTS A ND DISCUSSION

Here, an analytical model was developed to analyze the

temperature distribution in both PCM and fin during
TABLE 2B Comparison of present analytical model and two‐ the solidification of PCM inside the rectangular container
dimensional numerical model3 for constant temperature boundary with horizontal internal fins. The fraction of the fin
condition in different test cases length to the half‐height of symmetry section (l f /lc) is
considered as the cell aspect ratio (σ) (see Figure 1). Var-
Solid Fraction
ious cases with different values of σ are considered for the
Solid Obtained from
Fraction Two‐ analysis. For all the cases, half of the thickness of fin is
Predicted dimensional considered to be 0.5 mm. Initially, the liquid PCM is at
Aspect from Present Numerical Error the solidification temperature (Tm) inside the PCM stor-
Ratio Time Study (εanal) Model,3 (εnum) (I‐II) age unit. HBIM was employed to solve the conduction
(σ) (s) (I) (II) × 100% equation associated with different boundary conditions.
Paraffin, 0.2 724 0.90 0.79 10.6 Different guess profiles for temperature distribution were
Paraffin, 1 1085 0.29 0.23 6.1 used for the analysis. Furthermore, the present predic-
Paraffin, 5 1085 0.61 0.53 7.1 tions were compared with the results obtained by existing
analytical and numerical techniques.

TABLE 2C Comparison of present analytical model and two‐

dimensional numerical model1 for convective air boundary condi-
5.1 | Constant imposed heat flux at the
tion in different test cases
wall

Solid Solid Fraction The PCM and fin material considered for the present
Fraction Obtained from study are salt hydrate Climsel C28 and aluminum, respec-
Predicted Two‐dimensional tively. Their properties are summarized in Table 3. The
Aspect from Present Numerical Error different values of σ are taken as 0.5, 1, and 2 for the anal-
Ratio Time Study (εanal) Model,1 (εnum) (I‐II)
ysis. Dimensions of PCM storage unit are shown in
(σ) (s) (I) (II) × 100%
Table 4. Constant heat flux, q″w = −1000 W/m2, was taken
0.5 350 0.27 0.40 −13.0
for solidification of PCM in all the cases.
1 500 0.27 0.36 −9.4 Figures 5A‐F depict the comparison of location of
2 500 0.20 0.23 −3.0 interface of solid and liquid obtained from the present
mathematical model with the 1D analytical and two‐

TABLE 4 Dimensions of phase change material storage unit

solutions and is summarized in Table 2A. Present predic- Dimensions Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
tion exhibits good agreement with the numerical solu-
Length of fin, l f (mm) 10 15 20
tion.1-3 The maximum error between the present
Half height of cell, lc (mm) 20 15 10
prediction and the two‐dimensional numerical solution
is found to be ±13%. Therefore, the model can be useful lf 0.5 1 2
Cell aspect ratio, σ ¼
in designing the PCM‐based TES systems. lc
12 KOTHARI ET AL.

FIGURE 5 Comparison of solid–liquid interface locations obtained by present model with the one‐dimensional analytical and two‐
dimensional numerical solutions by Talati et al2 withq″w = −1000 W/m2 for (A) σ = 0.5, t = 400 seconds; (B) σ = 0.5, t = 800 seconds; (C)
σ = 1, t = 400 seconds; (D) σ = 1, t = 800 seconds; (E) σ = 2, t = 400 seconds; and (F) σ = 2, t = 800 seconds [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

dimensional numerical solutions of Talati et al2 for differ-
ent values of time steps (t) and σ. Present predictions
exhibit good agreement with the 1D results obtained by
employing SV method and two‐dimensional results
obtained by finite difference method.2
It is evident that geometry of PCM storage changes
the solidification rate. When σ is very less than unity,
heat flows only from wall to interface of solid and liquid,
in direction X. When σ is much larger than unity, heat
flows only from fin to interface of solid and liquid, in
direction Y. In case of σ equal to unity, heat flows from
both wall and fin to interface of solid and liquid, in the
directions X and Y. Figure 5 shows the comparison of
results obtained by using integral method in the present
study with various available mathematical models. Here,
the results of 1D analytical and two‐dimensional numer-
ical models of Talati et al2 are considered for comparison.
In all the cases, sharp corners are formed on the interface
of solid and liquid at the point near both the wall and the
fin surfaces. This is because of the high temperature at
the corners. The maximum error in solid–liquid interface
between the two sets of results was found to be 0.96 mm
in direction X and 0.40 mm in direction Y at σ = 2 and
t = 400 seconds. However, present model exhibits
KOTHARI ET AL. 13

excellent agreement with the two‐dimensional numerical

model when the value of σ = 0.5.
The temperature distributions of fin obtained from
the present analytical model are compared with the
results obtained by employing SV and finite difference
methods,2 and are shown in Figures 6A‐C. It is observed
from Figure 6A that the present predictions exhibit good
agreement with the results obtained by SV method. The
maximum error in temperature difference between both
sets of results was found to be very negligible (~0.095°C)
at σ = 2 and t = 800 seconds. It has been reported that
1D heat transfer occurs in case of short fins when the
value of σ is much smaller than unity. The temperature
variation along the fin length is found to be low because
of high thermal conductivity and constant heat flux.
However, the temperature variation increases as l f
increases. The current results exhibit excellent agreement
with the numerical solutions obtained by Talati et al.2
Also, the present predictions agree well with the results
obtained by employing SV method.
Solid fraction of PCM usually denotes the amount of
solidified PCM in the symmetric storage cell for a given
duration. The solid fraction of PCM changes from entirely
solid (ε = unity) to completely liquid (ε = 0) and is
expressed as follows1-3:

2X ðt Þ½lc − δ−Y ðt Þ þ lf Y ðt Þ
ε¼ : (43)
½lc − δlf

Time of PCM solidification in a rectangular storage hav-

ing fins for each symmetry cell was obtained using the
analytical formulation for different cases and is presented
in Figure 7. It is noticed from Figure 7 that the PCM
solidification is fast for smaller values of σ. Initially, the
PCM solidification is faster because of small thickness of
solid PCM layer. However, as the time progresses, the
thickness of solid PCM layer increases, which increases
the thermal resistance and solidification rate decreases.
Figure 8 shows variation in PCM's total solidification
time for different aspect ratio at constant volume of
PCM and TCE. It may be noted from the figure that solid-
ification time is less for lower aspect ratio of TES system
for constant volume of PCM and TCE. This may be due
to the fact that with the decrease in aspect ratio, distance
FIGURE 6 Comparison of fin temperatures obtained by present
between fins increases and a huge amount of heat is lib- model with the one‐dimensional analytical and two‐dimensional
erated from the end walls. The PCM's total solidification numerical solutions by Talati et al2 with q″w = −1000 W/m2 for (A)
time is found to be less for lower aspect ratio σ = 0.5, t = 400 seconds and t = 800 seconds; (B) σ = 1,
(σ = 0.125) compared with σ = 8 (Figure 8). The reduc- t = 400 seconds and t = 800 seconds; and (C) σ = 2, t = 400 seconds
tion in solidification time was found to be approximately and t = 800 seconds [Colour figure can be viewed at
93% by reducing the aspect ratio from 8 to 0.125 for a wileyonlinelibrary.com]
given imposed heat flux at the walls. In addition to this,
with the increase in the imposed heat flux from 500 to
14
FIGURE 7 (A) Variation of solid fraction of phase change
material (PCM) with time, (B) solidification time of PCM for
different cell aspect ratios [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
2000 W/m2, the solidification time reduces by approxi-
mately 60% for the same aspect ratio.
In the present study, a correlation has been proposed
for solidification time (ts) in terms of aspect ratio and
end‐wall boundary condition and expressed in
Equation 44.

−0:5976
t s ¼ 125077:867ðσ Þ0:6768 q″w : (44)
The proposed correlation for ts is valid for the range of
0.125 ≤ σ ≤ 8 and the error band to anticipate 99% test
data of the proposed correlation for solidification time
(ts) is found to be ±5% as shown in Figure 9.
KOTHARI ET AL.
FIGURE 8 Variation in total solidification time of phase change
material for different imposed heat flux at the end walls [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 9 Comparison of computed solidification temperature
with those predicted by the proposed correlation [Colour figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
5.2 | Constant imposed temperature at
the walls
In this study, pure n‐octadecane paraffin is used as the
PCM with aluminum as fins and commercial grade salt
hydrate (Climsel 23) used as the PCM with steel as fins
for the analysis. Table 5 summarizes the properties of fin
materials and PCM. Different values of σ such as 0.2, 1,
and 5 are considered for the analysis. Table 6 shows the
dimensions of PCM storage unit for which the constant
wall temperature was considered (Figure 2).
It is observed from Figure 10 that the aspect ratio (σ)
of PCM storage unit affects the rate of solidification. The
heat flows only in direction X, ie, from wall to interface of
KOTHARI ET AL. 15

TABLE 5 Thermal properties of phase change materials and fin materials3

Paraffin Salt Hydrate Aluminum Steel

Property n‐Octadecane Climsel23 Fin Fin

Density, ρ (kg/m3) 777 1480 2713 7854

Specific heat, c (J/kg‐K) 2660 2660 960 434
Thermal conductivity, k (W/m‐K) 0.149 0.6 180 60.5
Latent heat of fusion, Lp (J/kg) 241 360 148 000 … …
Melting/solidification temperature, Tm (°C) 28 23 … …
Viscosity, μ (kg/m‐s) 0.00385 … … …
−1
Thermal expansion coefficient, α (K ) 0.001 … … …

TABLE 6 Dimensions of phase change material storage, end‐wall temperature, and materials used in different test cases

Cases Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

PCM material Paraffin Paraffin Paraffin Salt hydrate Salt hydrate Salt hydrate
Fin material Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Steel Steel Steel
End‐wall temperature, Tw, (°C) 13 13 13 8 8 8
Length of fin, l f (mm) 10 50 50 10 50 50
Half height of cell, lc(mm) 50 50 10 50 50 10
lf 0.2 1 5 0.2 1 5
Cell aspect ratio, σ ¼
lc

solid and liquid when the value of σ is less than unity.
However, the heat flows only in direction Y, ie, from wall
to interface of solid and liquid when the reverse is true. In
case of σ equals to unity, heat flows from both wall to
solid–liquid interface and fin to solid–liquid interface,
ie, both in X and Y directions. Figures 10A‐E depict the
comparison of locations of interface of solid and liquid
obtained from the present 1D analytical predictions and
two‐dimensional numerical solutions of Lamberg et al3
for different values of t and σ. The maximum error in
predicting interface of solid and liquid by present model
was found to be 1.82 and 0.37 mm in X and Y directions,
respectively, at σ = 5 and t = 1085 seconds for
n‐octadecane. While, the maximum error for salt hydrate
was found to be 1.23 and 1.43 mm in X and Y directions,
respectively, at σ = 1 and t = 4226 seconds. However,
present model exhibits excellent agreement with the
two‐dimensional numerical model for σ = 0.2.
Here, efforts were also made to estimate the variation of
temperature in fin, and the same are presented in Figure 11
. The temperature variation of fin obtained from the pres-
ent analytical model was compared with the results
obtained by employing Fourier's ring theory and finite dif-
ference method.3 The maximum error in temperature by
the present model was found to be very negligible
(0.25°C) at σ = 5 and t = 1085 seconds for n‐octadecane.
While, the maximum error for salt hydrate was found to
be −1.389°C at σ = 1 and t = 4226 seconds. The present
results agree well with the existing numerical results.3
The variation of solid fraction with time for two differ-
ent PCMs for σ = 0.2 and σ = 5 was evaluated using Equa-
tion 43 and is demonstrated in Figure 12. It may be noted
that for the same aspect ratio the solidification rate is
higher for salt hydrate as compared with paraffin because
of better heat conductivity of salt hydrate compared with
paraffin. This may be due to the difference in density and
latent heat of fusion of two PCMs. The reduction in respec-
tive solidification rate is found to be 73.4% and 50% for
σ = 0.2 and σ = 5 for paraffin and salt hydrate.
Total solidification time of PCM for solidification time
of paraffin for different aspect ratio at constant volume of
PCM and TCE is presented in Figure 13. The solidification
time is found to be less for lower aspect ratio of TES sys-
tem. This may be because the distance between fins
increases with the decrease in aspect ratio and a large
amount of heat is discharged from the end walls. The
PCM's total solidification time is remarkably less for lower
value of aspect ratio (σ = 0.05) compared with σ = 5
(Figure 13). The reduction in solidification time was found
to be approximately 99% by reducing the aspect ratio from
5 to 0.05 for same imposed heat flux at the walls. In addi-
tion to this, with the decrease in the imposed end wall
from 18 to 8°C, the solidification time reduces by approx-
imately 54% for the same aspect ratio.
16 KOTHARI ET AL.

FIGURE 10 Comparison of solid–liquid interface locations obtained by present model with the one‐dimensional analytical, one‐
dimensional numerical and two‐dimensional numerical solutions by Lamberg et al3 for (A) σ = 0.2, t = 724 seconds; (B) σ = 5,
t = 1085 seconds; (C) σ =0.2, t = 169 seconds; (D) σ = 1, t = 4226 seconds; and (E) σ = 5, t = 1127 seconds [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

In the present investigation, a correlation has been
proposed for solidification time (ts) in terms of aspect
ratio and end‐wall boundary condition and expressed in
Equation 46.
t s ¼ 329:3757ðσ Þ1:0021 ðT w Þ1:0512 :
The proposed correlation for ts is valid for the range of
0.05 ≤ σ ≤ 8 and the error band to anticipate 99% test
data of the proposed correlation for solidification time
(ts) is found to be ±10% as shown in Figure 14.
5.3 | Convective air environment
boundary conditions
In this section, paraffin and aluminum are taken as PCM
and fin material, respectively. Their properties are sum-
marized in Table 7. Here, different values of σ such as
(46)
0.5, 1, and 2 are considered. The dimensions of PCM stor-
age unit are listed in Table 8. Constant air boundary con-
dition was considered for PCM storage unit (Figure 2).
HTF temperature and coefficient of heat transfer during
convection for PCM solidification were assumed constant
in all the cases (Figure 2C). Air was chosen as HTF
KOTHARI ET AL. 17

FIGURE 11 Comparison of fin temperatures obtained by present model with the one‐dimensional analytical, one‐dimensional numerical,
and two‐dimensional numerical solutions by Lamberg et al3 for (A) σ = 0.2, t = 724 seconds; (B) σ = 5, t = 1085 seconds; (C) σ = 0.2,
t = 169 seconds; (D) σ = 1, t = 4226 seconds; and (E) σ = 5, t = 1127 seconds [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

having the temperature of 10°C and the value of coeffi-
cient of heat transfer during convection at the wall was
taken as 65 W/m2/K1.1
Rate of solidification is influenced by the aspect ratio
of PCM storage unit. It can be seen from Figure 15 that
when σ is less than unity, heat flows only in direction
X, that is, from wall to solid–liquid interface. However,
heat flows only in direction Y, that is, from fin to inter-
face of solid and liquid, when the value of σ is greater
than unity. While, heat flows from both wall to solid–
liquid interface and fin to interface of solid–liquid (both
in the directions X and Y) at σ = 1. The comparison of
location of interface of solid and liquid obtained from
the present analytical investigation with the 1D mathe-
matical and two‐dimensional numerical solutions of
Mosaffa et al1 for different values of t and σ is presented
in Figure 15A‐F. The maximum error in interface of
solid–liquid by the present model was found to be
1.1477 mm in direction X at σ = 1 and t = 1000 seconds
and 0.973 mm in direction Y at σ = 2 and t = 1000 seconds.
The present model agrees well with the two‐dimensional
numerical model for σ = 0.5.
18 KOTHARI ET AL.

FIGURE 13 Variation in total solidification time of phase change

material for different imposed temperature at the end walls [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 12 (A) Variation of solid fraction of phase change

material (PCM) with time, (B) solidification time of PCM for
different cell aspect ratios and PCMs [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 14 Comparison of computed solidification temperature
with those predicted by the proposed correlation [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Here, the fin's temperature variation was determined

and compared with the results obtained by employing TABLE 7 Thermal properties of phase change material and fin
SV and enthalpy method,1 and is presented in Figure 15 material1
A‐C. It is noticed from Figure 16 that the present predic- Aluminum
tions exhibit good agreement with the result obtained by Property Paraffin Fin
SV method. The maximum error in temperature differ- Density, ρ (kg/m3) 830 2770
ence by the present model was found to be negligible at
Specific heat, c (J/kg‐K) 1920 (solid) 875
σ = 2 and t = 1000 seconds. It may also be observed that
3260 (liquid)
the length of fin significantly changes the temperature
Thermal conductivity, 0.514 (solid) 177
variation. For the small values of l f , the temperature dif-
k (W/m‐K) 0.224 (liquid)
ference is small, while it increases with the values of l f .
This is attributed to the 1D heat transfer in the small Latent heat of fusion, 251 000 …
Lp (J/kg)
length of a fin and its higher thermal conductivity. The
present predictions agree well with the existing numerical Melting/solidification 32 …
temperature, Tm (°C)
solutions.1
KOTHARI ET AL. 19

The variation of solid fraction with time for σ = 0.5 Figure 18 shows variation in PCM total solidification time
and σ = 2 was evaluated using Equation 43 and is demon- for different aspect ratio at constant volume of PCM and
strated in Figure 17. It is noticeable from Figure 17 that TCE. Different values of temperature of HTF and coeffi-
the PCM solidification is fast for smaller values of σ. cient of heat transfer during convection has been taken
for the analysis. Here, the reduction in solidification time
TABLE 8 Dimensions of phase change material storage unit
was found to be approximately 88% by reducing the
Dimensions Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 aspect ratio from 8 to 0.125 for a given imposed convec-
tive environment at the walls. Also, with the increase in
Length of fin, l f (mm) 10 15 20
the coefficient of heat transfer from 55 to 75 W/m2/K1,
Half height of cell, lc (mm) 20 15 10
the solidification time reduces by approximately 26% at
lf 0.5 1 2 T∞ = 10°C for the same aspect ratio. However, the reduc-
Cell aspect ratio, σ ¼
lc
tion in solidification time is obtained as approximately

FIGURE 15 Comparison of solid–liquid interface locations obtained by present model with the one‐dimensional analytical and two‐
dimensional numerical solutions by Maosaffa et al1 with h = 65 W/m2/K and T∞ = 10°C for (A) σ = 0.5, t = 350 seconds; (B) σ = 0.5,
t = 700 seconds; (C) σ = 1, t = 500 seconds; (D) σ = 1, t = 1000 seconds; (E) σ = 2, t = 500 seconds; and (F) σ = 2, t = 1000 seconds [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
20
FIGURE 16 Comparison of fin temperatures obtained by present
model with the one‐dimensional analytical and two‐dimensional
numerical solutions by Mosaffa et al1 with h = 65 W/m2/K and
T∞ = 10°C for (A) σ = 0.5, t = 350 seconds and t = 700 seconds; (B)
σ = 1, t = 500 seconds and t = 1000 seconds; and (C) σ = 2,
t = 500 seconds and t = 1000 seconds [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
KOTHARI ET AL.
FIGURE 17 (A) Variation of solid fraction of phase change
material (PCM) with time, (B) solidification time of PCM for
different cell aspect ratios at h = 65 W/m2/K and T∞ = 10°C
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
55% by reducing T∞ from 20to 10°C at h = 65 W/m2/K1
for the same aspect ratio. Here, it may be noted the
decrease of HTF temperature (T∞) has more effect on
solidification time compared with increase in coefficient
of heat transfer during convection (h).
The proposed correlation for solidification time (ts) in
terms of aspect ratio and end‐wall boundary condition is
expressed in Equation 47.
t s ¼ 125077:867ðσ Þ0:5014 ðhÞ−0:5814 ðT m −T ∞ Þ−1:0002 : (47)
The proposed correlation for ts is valid for the range of
0.125 ≤ σ ≤ 8 and Tm > T∞. The error band to anticipate
99% test data of the proposed correlation for solidifica-
tion time (ts) is found to be ±10% as shown in
Figure 19.
KOTHARI ET AL.
FIGURE 18 Variation in total solidification time of phase change
material for different convective air conditions at the end walls
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 19 Comparison of computed solidification temperature
with those predicted by the proposed correlation [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 | CONCLUSION
A theoretical model has been proposed to estimate vari-
ous parameters such as solid fraction, interface of solid
and liquid, solidification time, and temperature variation
during the solidification of PCM in a two‐dimensional
LHTES with horizontal internal fins. Various boundary
conditions, namely, constant heat flux, end‐wall tempera-
ture, and convective air boundary conditions, were con-
sidered at the walls of the storage system. HBIM was
used to obtain the solution. The conclusions obtained
from the present study are elaborated below.
21
• Closed form expressions were obtained for various
parameters such as temperature distribution, solid–
liquid interface, and solid fraction.
• Present predictions agree well with the results
obtained by employing SV and finite difference
methods.
• The solidification time is found to reduce by 93% and
99% by reducing the aspect ratio from 8 to 0.125 for
constant heat flux boundary condition and reducing
the aspect ratio from 5 to 0.2 for constant wall temper-
ature boundary condition, respectively.
• For the same aspect ratio, the solidification time is
found to be more for salt hydrate compared with paraf-
fin. By reducing the aspect ratio from σ = 0.2 to σ = 5,
the solidification time was found to reduce by 50% and
73% for paraffin and salt hydrate, respectively. The
solidification time was found to decrease by 88% for
paraffin by reducing the aspect ratio from 8 to 0.125
for constant convective air boundary condition.
• Correlations for the solidification time is given by

−0:5976
t s ¼ 125077:867ðσ Þ0:6768 q″w , ts = 329.3757
(σ)1.0021(Tw)1.0512, and ts = 125077.867(σ)0.5014(h)
−0.5814
(Tm − T∞)−1.0002 for constant heat flux, end‐
wall temperature, and convective boundary condi-
tions, respectively. The error band to anticipate 99%
test data of the proposed correlation for solidification
time (ts) is found to be ±10%.
The present analytical model can contribute to better
understanding of solidification of PCM in a finite storage
with internal fins. The present study reports the effect of
various geometrical and thermal boundary conditions on
solidification time. The present analytical model can be
useful in optimum design of PCM‐based TES system with
internal fins.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The financial support received from DST, Government of
India (DST Sanction No.: DST/TMD/MES/2k17/65) is
gratefully acknowledged by the authors. Also, the finan-
cial support received from DST‐INSPIRE Fellowship pro-
gram (IF170534) is admired by the first author.
ORCID
Rohit Kothari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7678-6690
RE FER EN CES
1. Mosaffa AH, Talati F, Rosen MA, Tabirizi HB. Approximate
analytical model for PCM solidification in a rectangular finned
22
container with convective cooling boundaries. Int Comm Heat
Mass Tran. 2012;39(2):318‐324.
2. Talati F, Mosaffa AH, Rosen MA. Analytical approximation for
solidification process in PCM storage with internal fins: imposed
heat flux. Heat Mass Tran. 2011;47(4):369‐376.
3. Lamberg P, Siren K. Approximate analytical model for solidifi-
cation in a finite PCM storage with internal fins. App Math
Model. 2003;27(7):491‐513.
4. Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermal Energy Storage: System and Appli-
cations. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
5. Zalba B, Marin JM, Cabeza LF, Mehling LF. Review on thermal
energy storage with phase change materials, heat transfer anal-
ysis and applications. Appl Therm Eng. 2003;23(3):251‐283.
6. Farid MM, Khudhair AM, Cabeza LF, Mehling H. A review on
phase change energy storage: materials and applications. Energ
Conver Manage. 2004;45(9‐10):1597‐1615.
7. Sharma SD, Sagara K. Latent heat storage materials and sys-
tems: a review. Int J Green Energ. 2005;2(1):1‐56.
8. Baljit SSS, Chan H, Sopian K. Review of building integrated
applications of photovoltaic and solar thermal systems. J Clean
Prod. 2016;137:677‐689.
9. ISarbu I, Dorca A. Review on heat transfer analysis in thermal
energy storage using latent heat storage systems and phase
change materials. Int J Energ Res. 2018;1‐36. https://doi.org/
10.1002/er.4196
10. Nižetić S, Arıcı M, Bilgin F, Grubišić‐Čabo F. Investigation of
pork fat as potential novel phase change material for passive
cooling applications in photovoltaics. J Clean Prod.
2018;170:1006‐1016.
11. Carslaw H, Jaeger J. Conduction of Heat in Solids. 2nd ed. New
York: Oxford University Press; 1959.
12. Ozisik MN. Heat Conduction. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley
and Sons; 1993.
13. Alexiades V, Solomon AD. Mathematical Modelling of Melting
and Freezing Processes. Washington DC: Hemisphere Publish-
ing Corporation; 1993.
14. Solomon AD, Wilson DG, Alexiades V. The quasistationary
approximation for the Stefan problem with the convective
boundary condition. Int J Math Math Sci. 1993;7:549‐563.
15. Lu TJ. Thermal management of high power electronics with phase
change cooling. Int J Heat Mass Tran. 2000;43(13):2245‐2256.
16. Chakraborty S. Dutta, P. (2003) analytical solution for heat
transfer during cyclic melting and freezing of phase change
material used in electronic of electrical packaging. J Electron
Packag. 2003;125(1):126‐133.
17. Kothari R, Sahu SK, Kundalwal SI. Comprehensive analysis of
melting and solidification of a phase change material in an
annulus. Heat Mass Tran. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231‐
018‐2453‐9.(In press)
18. Xia Q, Chen Y, Yang C, Zhang T, Zang Y. A new model of phase
change process for thermal energy storage. Int J Energ Res.
2018;42(12):3877‐3887.
19. Jiji LM, Gaye S. Analysis of solidification and melting of PCM
with energy generation. Appl Therm Eng. 2006;26(5‐6):568‐575.
KOTHARI ET AL.
20. Kalaiselvam S, Veerappan M, Aaron AA, Iniyan S. Experimental
and analytical investigation of solidification and melting charac-
teristics of PCMs inside cylindrical encapsulation. Int J Therm
Sci. 2008;47(7):858‐874.
21. Saha SK, Dutta P. Performance analysis of heat sinks with phase
change materials subjected to transient and cyclic heating. Heat
Tran Eng. 2015;36(16):1349‐1359.
22. Kalaiselvam S, Parameshwaran R, Harikrishnan S. Analytical
and experimental investigations of nano particles embedded
phase change materials for cooling applications in modern
buildings. Renew Energy. 2012;39(1):375‐387.
23. Voller VR. Fast implicit finite‐difference method for analysis of
phase change problems. Numer Heat Tr B Fund.
1990;17(2):155‐169.
24. Zivkovich B, Fujii I. An analysis of isothermal phase change of
phase change material within rectangular and cylindrical con-
tainers. Sol Energ. 2001;70(1):51‐61.
25. Esen M. Thermal performance of solar aided latent heat store
used for space heating by heat pump. Sol Energ.
2000;69(1):15‐25.
26. Arıcı M, Bilgin F, Nižetić S, Papadopoulos AM. Phase change
material based cooling of photovoltaic panel: a simplified
numerical 2 model for the optimization of the phase change
material layer and general economic 3 evaluation. J Clean Prod.
2018;189:738‐745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.057
27. Mettawee EBS, Assassa GMR. Thermal conductivity enhance-
ment in a latent heat storage system. Sol Energ.
2007;81(7):839‐845.
28. Siahpush A, O'brien J, Crepeau J. Phase change heat transfer
enhancement using copper porous foam. ASME Trans Heat
Trans. 2008;130:1614‐1616.
29. Lacroix M. Study of heat transfer behavior of a latent heat ther-
mal energy storage unit with a finned tube. Heat Mass Tran.
1993;36(8):2083‐2092.
30. Velraj R, Seeniraj RV, Hafner B, Faber C, Schwarzer K. Heat
transfer enhancement in latent heat storage system. Sol Energ.
1999;62:19‐28.
31. Costa M, Buddhi D, Oliva A. Numerical simulation of latent
heat thermal menergy storage system with enhanced heat con-
duction. Energ Conver Manage. 1998;39(3‐4):319‐330.
32. Lamberg P, Lehtiniemi R, Henell AM. Numerical and experi-
mental investigation of melting and freezing processes in
phase change material storage. Int J Therm Sci.
2004;43(3):277‐287.
33. Lamberg P, Siren K. Analytical model for melting in a semi‐
infinite PCM storage with an internal fin. Heat Mass Tran.
2003;39(2):167‐176.
34. Mosaffa AH, Talati F, Tabrizi HB, Rosen MA. Analytical model-
ling of PCM solidification in a shell and tube finned thermal
storage for air conditioning systems. Energ Buildings.
2012;49:356‐361.
35. Lamberg P. Approximate analytical model for two phase solidi-
fication problem in a finned phase‐change material storage.
Appl Energy. 2004;77(2):131‐152.
KOTHARI ET AL.
36. Mosaffa AH, Talati F, Rosen MA, Tabrizi HB. Phase change
material solidification in a finned cylindrical shell thermal
energy storage: an approximate analytical approach. Therm
Sci. 2013;17(2):407‐418.
37. Bauer T. Approximate analytical solutions for the solidification
of PCMs in fin geometries using effective thermophysical prop-
erties. Int J Heat Mass Tran. 2011;54(23‐24):4923‐4930.
38. Taghilou M, Talati F. Analytical and numerical analysis of
PCM solidification inside a rectangular finned container with
time‐dependent boundary condition. Int J Therm Sci.
2018;133:69‐81.
23
39. Sahu SK, Das PK, Bhattacharyya S. A three‐region conduction‐
controlled rewetting analysis by the heat balance integral
method. Int J Therm Sci. 2009;48(11):2100‐2107.
How to cite this article: Kothari R, Das S, Sahu
SK, Kundalwal SI. Analysis of solidification in a
finite PCM storage with internal fins by employing
heat balance integral method. Int J Energy Res.
2019;1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4363