See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370772267

Cesaro fins parametric optimization for enhancement in the solidification

performance of a latent heat storage system with combined fins, foam, and
nanoparticle

Article  in  Energy Reports · May 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.04.375

CITATION READS

1 33

4 authors, including:

Prashant Saini Satvasheel Powar

Indian Institute of Technology Mandi Indian Institute of Technology Mandi
10 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   1,286 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mrityunjay Doddamani
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi
186 PUBLICATIONS   2,416 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Condition Monitoring View project

Utilisation of solar energy in industrial applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Prashant Saini on 16 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Cesaro fins parametric optimization for enhancement in the

solidification performance of a latent heat storage system with
combined fins, foam, and nanoparticle
∗
Prashant Saini a , Atul Dhar a , Satvasheel Powar a,b , , Mrityunjay Doddamani a
a
School of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, 175005, India
b
School of Technology and Business Studies, Energy Technology, Högskolan Dalarna, Falun, 791 31, Sweden

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of Phase Change Materials (PCMs) for latent thermal energy storage enhances the availability of
Received 23 January 2023 solar energy. PCMs can store a large amount of energy in a small volume using almost entirely isother-
Received in revised form 5 April 2023 mal processes. Despite this, the poor thermal conductivity of PCMs is a significant disadvantage of
Accepted 25 April 2023
current PCMs, severely limiting their energy storage capabilities. As a result, the solidification/melting
Available online xxxx
rates are reduced to an unacceptable level, and the system reaction time is increased unreasonably.
Keywords: By combining the novel fin arrangement, nanoparticles, and metal foam, the current study improved
Metal foam the solidification rate of the PCM in the Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage System (LHTESS). LHTESS
Solidification performance was numerically evaluated in ANSYS Fluent 18.1 using a solidification and melting model. The addition
Porous metal foam of cesaro fins, nanoparticles, and metal foam significantly improved PCM solidification in the LHTESS.
PCM
PCM solidification time was reduced by 42.42% and 39.39% in Type-3 and Type-5 fin configurations,
LHTES system
respectively, when compared to Type-4 fin configuration. Furthermore, a temperature difference of 27
Nanoparticles
K between the Heat Thermal Fluid (HTF) and the PCM ensures the best solidification performance. By
incorporating nanoparticles into PCM and metal foam, the solidification time is reduced by 73.68%.
Depending on the foam structure and volume fraction of the nanoparticles, dispersing nanoparticles
in PCM with metal foam saves up to 75% of the time.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Solar, wind, and other intermittent renewable energy sources
must be made more accessible to make even more significant
contributions to the world’s energy supply chains. Developing
more efficient energy storage technology is one way to make
renewable energy systems more cost-effective than traditional
fossil fuels (He et al., 2020; Sciacovelli et al., 2015). TES (thermal
energy storage) has been regarded as the ideal alternative in
various applications, including air conditioning systems, solar
water heating systems, and so on Zhao et al. (2010), Barthwal
et al. (2021b) and Saini et al. (2023).
Thermal energy can be stored in three forms: thermochemical
energy, latent heat, and sensible heat. Latent heat is the most
appealing of these three methods due to its near-isothermal
storage procedure and high thermal energy storage density (Saini
et al., 2018). Under the same volume constraints, PCM-based
latent TES devices may store five to fourteen times more energy
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Mechanical & Materials Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, 175005, India.
E-mail addresses: satvasheel@iitmandi.ac.in, spw@du.se (S. Powar).
than sensible heat storage systems (Dincer and Rosen, 2011). This
facilitates integration into small-scale portable systems. However,
most of the PCMs have poor thermal conductivity, which is a
disadvantage (Diao et al., 2019). As a result, the operation of
latent TES systems is severely hampered because the discharging
and charging processes are prolonged, and the system’s reac-
tion time becomes excessively long. In some cases, there may
be serious safety concerns. Integration of heat pipes (Mosaffa
et al., 2012; Ghoneim, 1989), metal foams (Rathod and Banerjee,
2015; Khodadadi and Hosseinizadeh, 2007a; Mahdi and Nsofor,
2016a; Siahpush et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2015; Zhou and Zhao,
2011), and dispersing the nanoparticles of high thermal conduc-
tivity (El Hasadi and Khodadadi, 2013; Shabgard et al., 2014;
Mahdi and Nsofor, 2016b) are some of the methods for improving
PCM’s thermal conductivity.
Convection current movement is required in the liquid phase
of the PCM to improve heat transfer during the phase transition
of the phase change material due to the low thermal conductiv-
ity of the PCM. Although the PCM’s poor thermal conductivity
is addressed by using fixed enhancing structures such as heat
pipes, nanoparticles, fins, and so on. These permanent enhancing
structures obstruct the melting PCM flow and significantly impact

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.04.375
2352-4847/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Nomenclature LHTES Latent heat thermal energy storage

FVM Finite volume method
D Diameter (m)
LHTESS Latent heat thermal energy storage sys-
T Temperature (K)
tem
R Radius (m)
VF Volume fraction
h Total heat content (J/K)
LHSS Latent heat storage system
hsf Interfacial heat transfer coefficient
SIMPLE Semi-implicit method for
(W/m2 K)
pressure-linked equation
g Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 )
TTHX Triplex tube heat exchanger
p Pressure (Pa)
AMG Algebraic multigrid
Se , Su , Sv Source terms
PRESTO! Pressure staggering option
Cmush Mushy zone constant
HTF Heat transfer fluid
Tps PCM solidus temperature (K)
LHS Latent heat storage
Cp Specific heat (J/kg K)
PCM Phase change material
d Diameter (m)
B Boltzmann constant (J/K)
kse Effective thermal conductivity (W/m K)
Cf Inertial coefficient (m−1 ) convection heat transfer (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2018). In convection
u Velocity in x-direction (m/s) heat transfer, nanoparticles are preferred over heat pipes, fins,
Tpl PCM liquidus temperature (K) and other materials because nanoparticles create less resistance
∆h Latent heat (J/kg K) in the movement of melted PCM and increase the rate of heat
v Velocity in y-direction (m/s) transfer to PCM.
Am Coefficient used in mushy zone of PCM Extensive research has been conducted in the last decade to
enhance the PCM’s thermal conductivity, and numerous propos-
Pr Prandtl number
als have been proposed, including metal matrices (Atal et al.,
Asf Specific coefficient surface area
2016), fin insertion (Zhang et al., 2015; Fan and Khodadadi, 2012;
Re Reynolds number
Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017a), and heat pipes (Chandrasekaran et al.,
Tl Liquidus temperature of the PCM (K) 2014). However, each of these techniques has a substantial draw-
Greek letters back in that it adds extra weight or/and volume constraints in
creating light storage and small-size units in scenarios where
µ Dynamic viscosity (kg/m s) weight and volume are major design factors. Almost all PCMs
δ Coeff. of thermal expansion (K−1 ) exhibit the unwanted trait of poor thermal conductivity, high-
Γ Wall surface lighting a significant design challenge in the LHTES system design.
λ Thermal conductivity (W/m K) As a result, many upgrading processes have been evaluated to
ρ Density (kg/m3 ) overcome this shortcoming. Most of these methods are depen-
β Liquid fraction dent on the type of fins introduced into the PCM, such as pin fins,
ϕ Nanoparticle volume fraction circular/annular fins, plate fins, longitudinal fins, etc. The ease of
production, more heat transfer surface, and low cost of fabrication
ζ Correction factor
are some factors that influence this decision (Wu et al., 2011).
β Expansion coefficient. of nanoparticle
Heat transfer enhancement in PCM’s phase change depends on
ε Porous foam porosity
fin designs, explored in the following sections.
ω Pore density (PPI) The majority of the scientists working in this field have fo-
Subscripts cussed on incorporating rectangular or longitudinal fins into PCM
cavities (Pizzolato et al., 2017). This improvement can help to
ou, in Outer, inner tube increase the high heat transfer rate and addition to making the
f Liquid nanoPCM design and construction simpler. Gharebaghi and Sezai (2007)
s Porous foam replicated the rectangular PCM system and vertically heated walls
ref Reference with horizontal fins to optimize heat transfer. On both heated
w Wall walls, they maintained a constant temperature above the melting
sh Shell point of PCM. Because the heat transfer rate was higher with
pcm Phase change material horizontal fins on the vertically heated wall, horizontal fins on the
np Nanoparticle vertical wall were preferred over vertical fins on the horizontal
walls. The solidification and melting processes in a triplex tube
e Effective value
heat exchanger (TTHX) with an internal and external longitudinal
int Initial
fin were investigated by Al-Abidi and colleagues (2014). The
np Nanoparticle effects of flow rate variation on PCM melting were investigated.
p Pore Similarly, the heat transfer fluid’s non-steady and steady-state
eff Effective input temperatures were investigated for their effect on PCM
Abbreviations melting. Thermal gradients in both angular and radial directions
were also investigated.
TES Thermal energy storage Velraj et al. (1997) conducted a study on the solidification of
TESS Thermal energy storage system the PCM placed in the interior cylinder along with longitudinal
fins. As the heat transfer surface is far away from fins and liquid
PCM, a uniform reduction in thermal resistance is seen. As a
5671
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
result, the heat flow on the surface might increase dramatically
by increasing the number of fins. The exterior tube of the LHTES
framework was equipped with vertical longitudinal fins during
the solidification process, as reported by Castell et al. (2008). In
order to maximize convection heat transfer, vertically longitudi-
nal fins were placed on the heat transfer fluid side. Due to the
increased surface area for heat transfer, the solidification process
took less time after solving the heat transfer coefficient. Solomon
and Velraj (2013) experimentally investigate the use of PCM in
a double-pipe heat exchanger’s independent cooling framework
instead of solidification in the external tube. Eight longitudinal
fins of varying heights are made of copper, and the air is used as
HTF passes through the inner cylinder. Longitudinal fins increased
the cooling rate. Fins made of copper and arranged internal,
internal–external, external, and within the PCM cavity were also
used to improve the heat transfer rate.
Similarly, the highly conductive nanoparticles and PCM com-
bination can further boost heat transfer (Barthwal et al., 2021a).
An investigation by Li et al. (2020a) found that a surface with
a higher towering height and smaller breadth was shown to be
more efficient in thermal performance because of a reduced rate
of nanoparticle fouling. Several studies (for example, Li et al.
(2020b) and Wu et al. (2012)) have shown that even distributed
nanoparticles inside PCM can improve the PCM’s thermal conduc-
tivity and heat storage capacity. It was proposed by Khodadadi
and Hosseinizadeh (2007b) that even the dispersion of nanopar-
ticles to PCM would improve their thermal responsiveness. Ac-
cording to computer simulations, TES (Thermal Energy Storage)
systems should benefit from nanoparticles’ ability to increase
phase transition heat transfer. For this experiment, Wu et al.
(2012) used copper nanoparticles to study the solidification and
melting of paraffin. According to the study results, by dispersing
2% of copper nanoparticles by weight, paraffin’s thermal conduc-
tivity increased by 18% in the liquid and 14% in the solid phases.
Wu et al. (2012) numerically studied the enhancement in heat
transfer by adding alumina nanoparticles in paraffin. Better natu-
ral convection in nano-enhanced paraffin was obtained, resulting
in a faster melting rate when heating the container from the side
rather than the bottom of the container. Sciacovelli et al. (2013)
mathematically modeled the thermal behavior of a vertical shell
and tube thermal energy storage system (TESS) with a nanoPCM.
And the results show that with the use of nanoparticles, the
melting time was reduced by 15%.
To address the major issue of the PCM, this paper aims to
numerically investigate the effects of using novel fin configura-
tions, nanoparticles, and metal foam on the PCM solidification
process in an LHTESS. Fins, nanoparticle-metal foam combination
is investigated numerically in an LHTESS using a two-dimensional
model for possible solidification enhancement based on the en-
thalpy porosity approach. The developed model considers the
PCM melt’s convection, the non-Darcy effects of the metal foam,
and the nanoparticle’s Brownian motion. Ideally, nanoparticles
will have mobility along with the PCM and thus enhance the con-
duction. In addition, their convection contribution will be supe-
rior to that of just adding foam. On the other hand, the metal foam
has a higher area-to-volume ratio and hence promotes higher
PCM heat dispersion (rather than using nanoparticles alone). The
study mainly focuses on using novel fin configurations at low
nanoparticles VF (≤6%) and porosities (ε > 70%) because of
the following: (1) lower porosities and higher nanoparticle VF
reduce energy storage capacity and retrieval capability, (2) higher
nanoparticle VF increases the risk of segregation (i.e., the sep-
aration/settling of nanoparticles from PCM). There are no sig-
nificant published studies on heat transfer enhancement during
the solidification of PCM with fins, nanoparticle, and metal foam
combinations. The major focus of this study is on investigating
5672
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
and comparing the thermal response of the PCM in LHTESS in
the presence of novel fins configuration, nanoparticle and foam
combinations, metal foams alone, and nanoparticles alone. Other
PCM-based applications might benefit from the findings of this
work, including electronic cooling, energy-efficient building, and
solar energy storage. And the results illustrate the novel fin con-
figuration (i.e., cesaro fins) is one of the highest solidification
rate among the literature, along with the nanoparticles and metal
foam. Ease in manufacturing and a higher solidification rate sig-
nificantly improve the solidification and applicability of the new
fin configuration along with nanoparticles and metal foam.
A total of four distinct sections make up the present investiga-
tion. The PCM solidification rate in the different LHTESS designs
is briefly discussed in section one. In addition, the past experi-
mental, numerical investigations, the previous fin configurations,
and PCMs are presented. Section 2 includes the numerical model
description, physical model description of the LHTESS system,
governing equations, boundary conditions, grid independence,
and validation study. Section 3 discusses the full solidification
process time and examines the results with the effect of various
novel fin and nanomaterial configurations on the solidification
characteristics. The paper’s final section summarizes the findings
and recommendations for LHTESS.
2. Mathematical model
2.1. Physical model of LHTSS
This paper examines the solidification of PCM using a horizon-
tal axis shell-and-tube LHTESS. Fig. 1(a) depicts a finned design of
a horizontal axis shell and tube LHTESS. As seen in the illustration
(Fig. 1(b)), the cold HTF passes through the inner tube of LHTESS,
and the PCM is filled into the gap between the outer and inner
tubes. The solidification process of the LHTESS was made easier
and simpler to understand by using the 2D model (Fig. 1(c)).
The two-dimensional modeling provides a good balance between
computational cost and accuracy. Moreover, 2D modeling helps to
investigate the behavior of the PCM at different time scales and
captures the relevant physics or behavior of the LHTESS.
The physical model for the current investigation is as per the
literature of Kazemi et al. (2018). The thickness of the inner tube
and outer shell was assumed to be zero for the simplification
of the simulation model. The diameters of the outer shell (Dou )
and inner tube (Din ) are 0.06 m and 0.016 m (see Fig. 1(b)).
The characteristic length of the LHTES system is 44 mm. And
the length of the LHTES system is considered as 500 mm. Since
the LHTESS is normally covered with an insulator material, the
outside wall of the shell is referred to as an adiabatic boundary. To
allow solidification to begin, HTF was pumped into the inner tube
of LHTESS at a temperature lower than the melting temperature
of PCM (Tm ). Initially, LHTES is assumed to have a temperature of
363.15 K, which is higher than the PCM’s phase transition temper-
ature. HTF’s initial temperature is assumed to be 300.15 K because
it is close to room temperature and is a typical temperature at
which many TES systems are operated. Syltherm-800 is utilized
as the HTF, while RT82 is used as the PCM. RT82 is a pure organic
PCM with an infinite lifespan. According to the manufacturer, this
PCM has a constant thermal conductivity in both phases, allowing
it to effectively store cold and heat at a constant temperature.
Nanoparticles (i.e., Cu, CuO, and Al2 O3 ) of size 29 nm is used
in the current investigation. According to Saini et al. (2022) &
Teggar et al. (2021), in different engineering applications, a large
amount of heat has to be dissipated from smaller areas. In doing
so, fins are used to enhance the effective contact surface area to
increase the heat transfer by convection. The use of triangular
fins is preferable since triangular fins need less volume for the
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Fig. 1. A physical representational of cesaro finned latent heat thermal energy storage system.

same amount of heat transfer as compared to rectangular fins,
corrugated fins, spiral fins & fins with variable thickness. Trian-
gular fins have maximum heat flow per unit mass with ease in
manufacturing compared to other complex shapes (Saini et al.,
2022; Teggar et al., 2021).
5673
Table 1 summarizes the thermophysical properties of the ma-
terials used in the current study. Table 2 represents the thermo-
physical characteristic of aluminium, nickel, and steel. One-half
of the 2D model is used in the current study because of LHTESS’s
symmetrical structure to decrease computing effort and time,
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Table 1
Thermo-physical characteristics of copper metal foam, heat transfer fluid, and phase change material (RT-82).
S. no. Copper HTF RT-82 (PCM)
1. Solidus temperature (K) – – 350.15
2. Liquidus temperature (K) – – 358.16
3. Reference temperature (K) – 273.15 355.15
4. Density (kg/m3 ) 8978 864.05 –
5. Solidus density (kg/m3 ) – – 950
6. Liquidus density (kg/m3 ) – – 770
7. Thermal expansion coefficient (1/K) – – 0.001
8. Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 387.6 0.1200 0.2
9. Latent heat (J/kg) – – 176,000
10. Dynamic viscosity (Pa s) – 0.00299 0.03499
11. Specific heat (J/(kg K)) 381 1745 2000

Table 2 6. Thermal non-equilibrium was considered between metallic

Thermo-physical characteristics of aluminum, nickel, and steel. foam ligament and PCM.
S. no. Aluminium Nickel Steel 7. The inner tube wall is maintained at a constant temper-
1. Density (kg/m3 ) 2719 8900 8030 ature, whereas the outside tube wall is considered as an
2. Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 202.4 91.74 16.27 adiabatic wall.
3. Specific heat (J/(kg K)) 871 460.6 502.48
8. Unsteady condition is considered in the numerical model-
ing of the solidification process.
9. The solidification process does not account for the volume
as shown in Fig. 1(d). There are five distinct fin designs used changes in PCM and nanoPCM.
in this work to increase the solidification performance of the
The density of the PCM is solved by using the Boussinesq
LHTESS, and these designs are compared alongside nanoparti-
approximation, and the change in the density of the PCM is
cles and copper metal foam with different porosity. These five
calculated by using the following equation:
different configurations are designed to cater to the problem
ρl
of non-uniform temperature distribution inside the LHTESS. The ρ=
following are the five designs presented in this paper: (a) fins β (T − Tl ) + 1
are equally dispersed around the circumference of the inner tube The continuity equation is represented by Eq. (1) (Hossein-
(i.e., the angle between in each fin remain the same around the zadeh et al., 2021):
circumference of an inner tube), (b) uniform distribution of the
∂ρ ∂ ρ uj
( )
fins in the lower and upper part of the LHS system (i.e., increase + =0 (1)
the number of fins in the lower region than that in the upper re- ∂t ∂ xj
gion of the LHS system and having the same angle between each The modeled momentum conservation is computed by Eq. (2)
fin), (c) uniform distribution of fins with change in fins structure (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2021):
(i.e., the angle between in each fin remain the same around the
∂ ui ∂ ui ∂p
( )
1
circumference of an inner tube with variation in the fin structure), µeff ∇ ui −
2
+ ρβe T − Tref gi
( )
+ uj = (2)
(d) fins are dispersed circumferentially with an increase in the ∂t ∂ xi ρ ∂ xi
angle at the normal fin (i.e., the angle with the normal fin is The modeled energy conservation is computed by Eq. (3) (Saini
more and remaining fins having the same angle), (e) increase the et al., 2022):
number of fins uniformly around the circumference of the inner
∂T ∂T ∂ k ∂T Lf ∂ S
( )
tube (i.e., the total number of fin around the circumference of + ui = + (3)
inner tube is increased). Fig. 2 shows all five fin configurations ∂t ∂ xi ∂ xi ρ C p ∂ xi ρ Cp ∂ t
in the LHTSS, along with their measurements. Except for the last where,
fin configuration (i.e., e), the remaining all 4 cases have the same Tref defines the reference temperature (i.e., 273.15 K), and S
number of fins and constant fin volume. represents the solid fraction of PCM in the PCM solidification
process. The value of S varies from 1 (solid) to 0 (liquid) as per
2.2. Governing equations formula (4) (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2021):
( )
T0
⎧
Numerical simulations are used to examine the influence of
⎪
⎪ S = T m + − T /T0 (Tm − T0 ) < T < (Tm + T0 )
2
⎨
various cesaro fins on the solidification performance of the LHSS. (4)
A two-dimensional transient heat transfer model is used for the ⎪
⎪ S=1 T < (Tm − T0 )
T > (Tm + T0 )
⎩
numerical simulations using the following assumptions: S=0
where,
1. Apart from density, PCM’s thermophysical properties are
Tm , T0, and T are the melting temperature, melting interval tem-
assumed to be constant.
perature, and initial temperature of the PCM.
2. Apart from the buoyancy term, the density is approximated
The energy balance for the PCM region is computed by using
using the Boussinesq approximation.
Eq. (5) (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2021):
3. PCM’s heat loss to the surrounding medium is considered
negligible. dT dS
ρ Cp = ∇ (k∇ T ) + Lf (5)
4. The metal foam structure is homogeneous, open-celled, dt dt
and isotropic between PCM and metal foam. where,
5. No internal working fluid flow or heat source is considered Cp represents the specific heat capacity, k defines the thermal
since the solidification process of PCM is primarily due to conductivity, S refines the solid fraction, T represents the tem-
heat conduction. perature, and Lf represents the latent heat of fusion.
5674
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Fig. 2. Five fin design configurations of latent heat thermal energy storage system with its dimensions.

The following Eq. (6) is used to express the energy equation The thermal conductivity of nanoPCM is calculated by using
for the fins since the fins have no phase change (Hosseinzadeh formula (12) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b):
et al., 2021). knp + 2kpcm − 2(kpcm − knp )ϕ
For fin: kf = kpcm + 5 × 104
knp + 2kpcm + (kpcm − knp )ϕ
dT
ρ Cp = ∇ (k∇ T ) (6)
√
dt BT
× βk ζ ϕρpcm Cp,pcm f (T , ϕ ) (12)
where, ρnp dnp
Cp represents the specific heat capacity, k defines the thermal
And f(T, ϕ ) is obtained from the following formula:
conductivity, and T represents the temperature.
NanoPCM thermophysical characteristics may be measured T
f (T , φ ) = (2.8217 × 10−2 ϕ + 3.917 × 10−3 )
using the formulae below. Tl
The density of nanoPCM is calculated by using the formula (7)
+ (−3.0669 × 10−2 ϕ − 3.91123 × 10−3 )
(Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b):
where dnp defines the diameter of the nanoparticle, T defines the
ρf = ϕρnp + (1 − ϕ )ρpcm (7)
temperature, B is the Boltzmann constant (1.381 × 10−23 J/K). The
The specific heat of nanoPCM is calculated by using for- following formula calculates the βk :
mula (8) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b):
βk = 8.4407(100ϕ )−1.07304
(ρ Cp )f = ϕ (ρ Cp )np + (1 − ϕ )(ρ Cp )pcm (8) In the above formulae ((7)–(12)), Cp defines the specific heat
The latent heat is calculated by using formula (9) (Mahdi and capacity of nano PCM, L defines the dynamic viscosity, µ defines
Nsofor, 2017b): the dynamic viscosity, β defines the expansion coefficient of nano
PCM, and ρ defines the density. And pcm, f, ϕ , and np refer to
(ρ L)f = (1 − ϕ )(ρ L)pcm (9) base PCM, nano PCM, the volume fraction of nanoparticle, and
The dynamic viscosity of the nanoPCM is calculated by using nanoparticle.
formula (10) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b): The Brownian motion of nanoparticles and their volume frac-
tion, size, and temperature are all considered in the above ther-
µf = 0.983e(12.959ϕ ) µpcm (10) mal conductivity model. The correction factor (ζ ) is derived from
the Brownian motion term. PCM’s solid phase has no Brownian
The expansion coefficient of nanoPCM is calculated by using
motion; thus, its value is the same as that of PCM’s liquid fraction.
formula (11) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b):
The momentum equation in the x and y-direction can be
(ρβ )f = ϕ (ρβ )np + (1 − ϕ )(ρβ )pcm (11) calculated by using the Eqs. (13) and (14) (Mahdi and Nsofor,
5675
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
√ ⏐
2017b): 2
⏐
kfe = (23)
⏐
⏐
(
∂u
)
(1 − λ)2 2(MA + MB + MC + MD ) ⏐
ρ + V · ∇ u = −∇ P = u∇ 2 u + Am u 3 kS =0
∂t λ +δ 4σ
MA =
µ ρ Cp |u| + πσ (1 − e))kS + (4 − 2e2 − πσ (1 − e))kf
( )
(2e2
− − √ u (13)
K K (e − 2σ )2
MB =
∂v
( )
(e − 2σ )e2 kS + (2e − 4σ − (e − 2σ )e2 )kf
ρ + V .∇v = −∇ P + µ∇ 2 v + (ρβ )g(T − Tint ) √
∂t ( 2 − 2e)2
(1 − λ)2 µ
(
ρ Cf |v|
) MC = √ √ √
+ Am v 3 − √ v (14) 2πσ 2 (1 − 2e 2)kS + 2( 2 − 2e − πσ 2 (1 − 2e 2))kf
λ +δ K K 2e
MD =
The local non-equilibrium thermal energy model is repre- e2 kS + (4 − e2 )kf
sented by Eqs. (15) and (16) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b): √

 2(2 − 35√ − 2ε)
∂T ∂λ
( )
8e
ερ C + V .∇ T + ερ L = kfe ∇ 2 T + hsf Asf (Tf − Ts ) σ = √2 (24)
√
(15)
∂t ∂t π (3 − 4e 2 − e)
∂ TS
( )
ε (ρ C p ) S = Kse ∇ 2 Ts + hsf Asf (Ts − Tf ) (16) In Eq. (24), the value of e is taken as 0.339.
∂t Metallic foam and PCM do not have an interfacial heat transfer
coefficient, which is critical in two-temperature models. Using
Finally, the continuity equation for the metal foam is calcu-
Zhukauskas’ empirical formulas (Žkauskas, 1987), the current
lated by using the Eq. (17) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b):
work determines the heat transfer coefficient (hsf ) between the
∇ · V⃗ = 0 metal foam and PCM using formula (25) (Žkauskas, 1987):
⎧
In the above Eqs. ((13)–(17)), T defines the temperature, L kf
0.76 Re0d.4 Pr 0.37 1 ≤ Red ≤ 40
⎪
⎪
defines the latent heat, Cf defines the inertial coefficient, hsf dl
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
defines the inertial heat transfer coefficient between metal foam ⎨
k
hsf = 0.52 Re0d.5 Pr 0.37
f
and PCM, kse defines the effective solid thermal conductivity, µ 40 ≤ Red ≤ 103 (25)
⎪ d l
defines the dynamic viscosity, v and u represent the velocities in
⎪
⎪
⎪ k
⎩0.26 Re0d.6 Pr 0.37 f 103 ≤ Red ≤ 2 × 105
⎪
the y and x-direction, subscript in these equations (i.e., s and f ) ⎪
represents the metallic foam and solid/liquid nanoPCM, kfe define dl
the effective fluid thermal conductivity, ε define the porosity of
√ d
2 l
Red = ρ u2 + v 2 + w
the copper foam, Tint defines the initial temperature, Am defines a εµ
coefficient used in the mushy zone of PCM, and its value is taken In the case of metallic foams, the specific coefficient surface
as 107 in the current study, λ defines the liquid fraction, and it is area (Asf ) is computed by using formula (26) (Mahdi and Nsofor,
calculated by using the formula (17) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b): 2017b):
3π dl (1 − e−(1−ε)/0.04 )
T < Ts
⎧
0 Asf = (26)
(0.59dp )2
⎪
⎨ (T − T )
⎪
s
λ= Ts < T < Tl (17)
⎪ (Tl − Ts )
⎪ 2.3. Initial and boundary conditions
T > Tl
⎩
1
Variables, including pore density, ligament diameter, and The discharging of cesaro finned LHTESS is the main focus of
porosity, characterize the metallic foam structure. These funda- this investigation. It is assumed that at time t = 0, the PCM is in
mental variables are shown below by formula (18) (Mahdi and its liquid phase at a constant temperature of 363.15 K, which is
Nsofor, 2017b): much higher than its liquidus temperature (Tl ). Before beginning
√ the solidification process, the following conditions must be met:
1−ε
( )
dl 1
= 1.18 (18) At t = 0, T = Tint. = 363.15 K
dp 3π 1 − e−(1−ε)/0.04
For the time t > 0, the HTF with a constant temperature of
where
300.15 K was exposed to the inlet of the inner tube through-
dp = 0.635 (mm)/ω (PPI) (19) out the discharging process (solidification). Thus, the following
boundary condition is defined:
Some other variables of the metal foam, such as inertial coef-
ficient, permeability, and Cf were calculated by using the formula At r = ri , T = Tw = 300.15 K
(20) as reported by Calmidi and Mahajan (2000):
−0.224( d l )−1.11
d
K 2.4. Numerical method
= 0.00073(1 − ε ) p (20)
d2p
(
dl
)−1.63 The simulations were conducted by using ANSYS Fluent 18.1.
−0.132
Cf = 0.00212 (1 − ε) dp
(21) The FVM addresses the solidification/melting heat transfer prob-
lem in the LHTESS in ANSYS Fluent. A constant value of 105 is
The copper metal foam thermal conductivity is calculated by considered for the mushy zone parameter. The pressure–velocity
using the formula (22) and (23) (Mahdi and Nsofor, 2017b): coupling is handled using the SIMPLE method, which uses a
√ ⏐
second-order upwind technique to discretize the governing equa-
2
⏐
kse = (22) tions. For pressure adjustment, PRESTO! the scheme is also used.
⏐
⏐
2(MA + MB + MC + MD ) ⏐ The AMG (Algebraic Multigrid) method is used to solve the
kf =0

5676
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Fig. 3. Grid and time-step independence test and model validation.

linearized equations quickly. Under-relaxation factors of 0.7, 0.3,
1, and 1 are assigned to momentum, pressure, density, and
energy, respectively. Maximum residuals for all iterations are
smaller than 10−8 for convergence criteria.
5677
2.5. Grid independency test and model validation
A quadrilateral grid is employed in the computational domain
to mesh a 2-D cross-section (see Fig. 3(a)). A grid independence
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
test is performed in this study to ensure that the grid system
has no impact on the numerical results. Three alternative grids
(coarse, moderate, and fine) with 25 712, 45 690, and 65 316
elements are utilized to demonstrate grid independence. Fig. 3(b)
and (c) shows the dynamic changes in the liquid fraction of PCM
during the solidification of PCM in the LHTES system utilizing ce-
saro fins. Here, the temperature of the inner tube is kept constant
at a constant value of 303.15 K. The dynamic change in PCM’s
liquid fraction varies due to the grid system (see Fig. 3(b)). The
difference in liquid fraction diminishes as the number of elements
increases. For three distinct time steps (i.e., 0.1 s, 0.5 s, and 1
s), the current study also evaluates the sensitivity of the time
step size. Fig. 3(c) shows the dynamic fluctuation in PCM’s liquid
fraction for the three-time step size (i.e., 0.1 s, 0.5 s, and 1 s).
In terms of computational time and cost, the current study uses
45,690 elements with a time step of 0.5 s.
Fig. 3(d) depicts the current model, which has been verified by
the experimental results of Ismail et al. (2001). The experiment’s
boundary conditions, initial conditions, and physical character-
istics were all utilized to validate the present results. Fig. 3(d)
shows that the current method’s results are in close accord with
Ismail et al. (2001). Fig. 3(e) illustrates the current model vali-
dation with the results of Khodadadi and Hosseinizadeh (2007c).
The numerical results obtained by the present model are com-
pared to those reported by Khodadadi and Hosseinizadeh (2007c)
in order to validate the model used to simulate the solidification
of nanoPCM. Fig. 3(e) shows the liquid fraction during nanoPCM
solidification at volume fractions of φ = 0.0, 0.1, and 0.2. Notably,
φ = 0.0 denotes the pure PCM (i.e., PCM free from nanoparticles).
This represents that the current model is reliable and can be
used to examine the PCM solidification in the LHTESS with fins,
nanoparticles, and metal foam.
3. Results and discussion
The LHTESS has been mathematically modeled for the solid-
ification of PCM (i.e., RT-82), along with nano-enhanced PCM
and copper metal foam with different fin configurations. The
simulations continued until the PCM had completely solidified.
Nanoparticle VF (i.e., 2%, 4%, and 6%) and metal foam with foam
porosity (i.e., ε = 98%, 95%, 85%, 75%) are all shown in the liquid
fraction and temperature profile. In addition, the lower porosity
of the metal foam was not taken into account, as lower porosity
significantly reduce the PCM’s storage capacity. The PCM was
entirely melted when the simulation began.
3.1. Effect of fins density and fin structure
Figs. 4 and 5 represent the liquid fraction and temperature
contour during the phase change in the LHTESS with different fin
configurations, i.e., Type-1, Type-2, Type-3, Type-4, and Type-5
(see Fig. 2). Liquid fraction distribution in PCM is closely linked
to fin geometry. Solidification of the PCM surrounding the metal
fins occurs at a higher rate in the beginning. Nevertheless, as
the solidification process continues, the PCM layer formed sur-
rounding the metal fins will thicken and impede the heat transfer.
It was difficult to transmit the heat from liquid PCM to metal
fins because of the solid PCM barrier near the metal fins. And at
this point, the heat transfer in liquid PCM only relied on the low
thermal conductivity of the liquid PCM. As a result, PCM solidifies
at a much slower rate as it progresses through the solidification
process.
As seen from the liquid fraction contours (Fig. 4), five fin con-
figurations (see Fig. 2) have a substantially higher solidification
rate compared to LHTESS without using fins, as LHTESS with-
out fins takes higher time mentioned in Ref. Mahdi and Nsofor
5678
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
(2016b, 2018). Type-3 and Type-5 fin configurations have a little
higher cross-sectional area than the remaining three fin config-
urations (i.e., Type-1, Type-2, and Type-4) (see Fig. 2), resulting
in better heat transfer. And increase in the PCM solid region in
Type-3 and Type-5 fin configurations compared to remaining fin
configurations (see Fig. 2). From a temperature distribution per-
spective, the temperature near the fins represents the increasing
trend in the radial direction. The low-temperature zone is tightly
wrapped around the fins, as can be seen from the temperature
distribution contours in Fig. 5. It is clear that the solidification
front of Type-3 and Type-5 fin configurations is a little quicker
compared to the remaining fin configurations, which are less than
700 s.
Fig. 6(a) represents the solid fraction progression of PCM in the
LHTESS improved by five different fin configurations. The Type-
3 and Type-5 fin configurations’ slopes are slightly steeper than
the others, representing a significant difference in the PCM solid-
ification rates of PCM corresponding to other fin configurations
(i.e., Type-1, Type-2, and Type-4). This steeper slope is due to
a higher surface area, which reduces the thermal resistance and
leads to enhancement in the conduction dominating mechanism
during the discharging process. And the similar effect can be seen
in the streamlined distribution of the different fin configurations,
as shown in Fig. 7. The solid fraction evolution curves may be
separated into two distinct stages, as seen in Fig. 6. The gradient
of solid fraction development is quite steep in the first stage (t <
250 s), indicating that PCM is solidifying at a rapid rate. Slower
solidification rates begin to show when time passes 250 s (t >
250 s). Due to the fin structure (i.e., cesaro fins), solidification per-
formance in the LHTESS significantly improved. Fig. 6(b) shows
the PCM solidification time in the LHTESS throughout the phase
change process in different fin configurations. Type-3 and Type-5
fin configurations have shorter solidification times than other fin
configurations. The solidification time of Type-3 and Type-5 fin
configurations are 570 s and 600 s, which is 42.42% and 39.39%
shorter compared to Type-4 (i.e., having the highest solidification
time) fin configuration. So, during the energy discharging opera-
tion, the LHTES system with more number of fins (see Fig. 2(e))
and by improving the fin structure (see Fig. 2(c)) achieves better
temperature distribution and the fastest solidification rate (see
Figs. 5 and 6) (Type-3 and Type-5). Fig. 6(c) shows a comparison
of the PCM average temperature for various fin designs. Based
on the graph, it is easy to observe that the average temperature
of the PCM solidification process for various fin layouts is very
similar. Fig. 6(d) illustrates the total energy plot for the different
fin configurations. Discharging rates are depicted by the slope
of the diagrams in this graph, while total discharge times are
shown at the end of the graph. As can be seen from this figure,
adding fins to LHTESS has a faster PCM solidification rate than
a system without fins, which means that adding fins is a more
effective enhancement approach for discharging/solidification en-
hancement in such types of systems. So, to summarize, the order
of solidification performance is Type-3 > Type-5 > Type-1 >
Type-2 > Type-4.
3.2. Effect of the inlet HTF temperature and fin material
Fig. 8(a) represents the impact of Type-3 fin configuration
on the solidification performance of PCM at various inlet HTF
temperatures. The results depict that the solidification time of
the PCM reduces as the difference in the temperature between
the HTF and PCM increases. This is because of the higher tem-
perature difference and improved heat transfer capacity. Fig. 8(b)
represents the total solidification time of the PCM for the various
temperature of HTF with a Type-3 fin configuration. The solidifi-
cation time of the PCM increases from 570 s to 1380 s as the inlet
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
Fig. 4. The liquid fraction contour of phase change material during solidification using different fin configurations.
HTF temperature increases from 300.15 K to 336.15 K, which is
an increase of 142%. As the inlet HTF temperature increases from
336.15 K to 348.15 K, there is a massive increase of 182.6% in the
solidification time of the PCM, i.e., from 1380 s to 3900 s. Fig. 6(c)
illustrate the total energy plot for the different inlet temperature
of HTF. As seen in Fig. 6(c), the higher the HTF temperature, the
lower the solidification time will be due to lower heat transfer to
the PCM. In order to increase the cooling rate of the PCM, there
should be a temperature difference of at least 300.15 K, according
to the current study.
Fig. 8(d) and (e) represent the impact of fin material on the
solidification behavior of the PCM in the LHTESS. In the current
study, four different fin materials are utilized to look at the
impact of fin material on the solidification behavior of the PCM.
5679
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
As clear from Fig. 8(d) and (e), copper has a lower solidification
time due to higher thermal conductivity than aluminium, steel,
and nickel. There is a reduction of solidification time by 78.9%
using copper, i.e., from 1020 s to 570 s. Thus, the use of copper
is preferred in the LHTESS. Fig. 8(f) represents the total energy
plot for the different fin materials. Fig. 8(f) shows that copper
has a higher total energy transfer rate due to higher thermal
conductivity, resulting in lower solidification time.
3.3. Effect of the nanoparticles
As per the previous explanation, two fin configurations (i.e.,
Type-3 and Type-5) are proven to be the best configurations
for the solidification of PCM. These two fins configurations are
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
Fig. 5. Temperature contour of phase change material during solidification using different fin configurations.
further investigated for three different volume fractions and three
different nanoparticles. Fig. 9(a) and (b) represent the effect
of Type-3 and Type-5 fin configurations with three different
nanoparticles for the three different volume fractions on the
solidification behavior of the PCM. It has been shown that when
the VF of the nanoparticles increases, the thickness of the solid
PCM also increases. To put it in another way, the presence of
the nanoparticles and fins in the LHTESS increases the solidifica-
tion rate significantly, along with the improved conductive heat
transfer over the liquid PCM. Fig. 9(c) and (d) further show that
increasing the concentration/VF of the nanoparticles reduces the
5680
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
time PCM takes to solidify. Fig. 9(e) and (f) illustrate the total en-
ergy plot for the Type-3 and Type-5 fin configurations for copper
and copper oxide nanoparticles for three different VFs. As seen in
the graphs, copper nanoparticles have higher energy transfer than
copper oxide nanoparticles resulting in lower solidification time
for three different VFs due to their higher thermal conductivity.
When the VF of nanoparticles is increased, the temperature
contours become less cluttered, as illustrated in Figs. 10(a) and
10(b). Thermal conductivity and viscosity of nanoPCM are en-
hanced when the VF of nanoparticles increases. NanoPCM solid-
ifies faster because of the improved conduction and increased
thermal conductivity.
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
Fig. 6. Impact of fin configurations on the solidification of phase change material (Ste = 0.20).
3.4. Effect of metal foam and nanoPCM on solidification of the
LHTESS
Fig. 11 represents the comparison of time evaluation of liq-
uid fraction during the solidification of cesaro finned LHTESS
using three different VF of nanoparticles (i.e., 2%, 4%, and 6%)
and four porous foam porosities (i.e., ε = 75%, 85%, 95%, and
98%). The nanoparticles with higher volume fractions lead to
the accumulation of nanoparticles on the bottom of the LHTESS
and the nanoparticles’ uneven dispersion inside PCM. The lower
concentration varies from 1% to 8% is best suitable to enhance
the heat transfer in PCM, as mentioned in Ref. Mahdi and Nsofor
(2016b, 2018). Similarly, the low porosity of metal foam lead to a
lower volume of PCM and lowers its capacity, as per Ref. Atal et al.
(2016). For ensuring sufficient heat storage capacity and avoiding
the settling of nanoparticles, these ranges were selected for the
investigation. Fig. 11 depicts that as the solidification starts, the
VF of the copper nanoparticles does not have a substantial effect.
It means that there will be no enhancement in the solidification
rate until the natural convection is initiated. As time increases
and natural convection begins, the liquid fraction of the PCM
reduces as the VF of the nanoparticles increases. The solidification
5681
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
time keeps on decreasing with the increase in the VF of nanopar-
ticles. Due to the metal foam flow resistance, there is a minor
effect of VF of nanoparticles on the PCM liquid fraction, mainly for
the case of 95% porosity of the copper metal foam. This represents
that nanoparticles have the ability to enhance the thermal storage
capabilities of the PCM with increasing metal foam porosity.
Fig. 11(a) shows that the duration of the solidification process
dramatically decreases when the porosity of metal foam de-
creases from 0.98 to 0.75. The PCM solidifies in the 0.75-porosity
foam in about 150 s, but the 0.98-porosity foam takes about
390 s to solidify, which is a 160% reduction in the solidification
time. This is because metal foams with fewer pores will have
less nanoPCM available to fill the gaps. More heat is transferred
through the foam ligaments because the nanoPCM’s thermal con-
ductivity is substantially lesser than copper foam. By reducing the
porosity of the copper metal foam, the heat transfer rate between
nanoPCM and metal foam increases. Solidification time is short-
ened as a result of an improved solidification rate. Fig. 11(b), (c),
and (d) further represent the impact of VF of nanoparticles and
the porosity of copper metal foam on the solidification behavior
of the PCM in LHTESS. Moreover, the solidification rate of the
nanoPCM with high porosity is slower but slightly faster, with
the increase in VF of nanoparticles and vice-versa.
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
Fig. 7. Streamline distribution of different fin configurations during solidification/discharging of the PCM.
4. Conclusions
A novel cesaro fin was presented in the current work to
enhance the heat transfer performance of the LHTESS and try
to solve a major issue of the PCM. The solidification and melt-
ing model of ANSYS Fluent 18.1 was used for the numerical
modeling of 2D LHTESS. The solidification behavior and temper-
ature distribution have all been studied. In the current study,
the solidification performance of the LHTESS was analyzed ir-
respective to fin designs, inlet HTF temperature, fin material,
metal foam, and nanoparticles. To the best of our knowledge,
the best-performing fin configuration reports the reduction of
solidification time by 78%, whereas the present fin configuration
has a reduction of solidification time by 73.68%. And the obtained
results are one among the best-performing configurations pub-
lished in the literature. The following are the key findings of this
study:
5682
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
1. The configuration of the fins significantly influences the
solidification behavior of the PCM. LHTESS with more fins
(Type-5) and improved fin structure (Type-3) transfer heat
more evenly and solidify PCM with a much faster rate,
compared to LHTESS systems with equally distributed fins
(Type-1) and traditionally used quadrilateral fins.
2. The temperature of the HTF strongly influences PCM so-
lidification time. As per the results, the solidification time
was reduced by 584.2% as the temperature reduced from
348.15 K to 300.15 K. The results represent that when the
difference in temperature between the HTF and PCM is
higher than 300.15 K, a faster solidification rate can be
achieved.
3. Copper foam considerably reduces the solidification time
in LHTESS by 160%. And the dispersion of copper nanopar-
ticles can even further shorten the solidification time.
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Fig. 8. Solidification behavior of phase change material at various conditions.

5683
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Fig. 9. Effect of nanoparticles with three different volume fractions for Type-3 fin configuration and Type-5 fin configurations (see Fig. 2).

5684
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687

Fig. 10(a). Temperature contour of the latent heat thermal energy storage system using copper nanoparticles on Type-3 fin configuration.

Fig. 10(b). Temperature contour of the latent heat thermal energy storage system using copper nanoparticles on Type-5 fin configuration.

5685
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of the porosity of metal foam and nano-enhanced phase change material in the solidification of the latent heat thermal energy storage system using
Type-3 fin configuration.
4. Due to the high flow resistance caused by foam ligaments,
the potential for nanoparticles to improve PCM heat stor-
age capacity utilizing the suggested enhancement strategy
decreases as the metal foam porosity increases.
5. In porous nanoPCM, solidification achieves at a faster rate
compared to porous PCM or nanoPCM. Whereas the solid-
ification rate of porous nanoPCM decreases as the metal
foam porosity increases and increases with an increase in
the VF of nanoparticles.
6. Nanoparticles slightly decrease the convection heat trans-
fer during solidification but significantly enhance the con-
duction heat transfer. Whereas there is no significant im-
provement in the solidification of nanoPCM until the con-
vection is initiated.
7. It is possible to increase the solidification rate of PCM
by using a combination of nanoparticles and metal foam;
however, a proper combination of metal foam and nanopar-
ticle VF is necessary to minimize the PCM volume loss. The
high porosity of metal foam with low nanoparticle VF in
PCM is preferred since this combination does not reduce
the thermal energy storage capacity of LHTESS.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Prashant Saini: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Visual-
ization, Writing – original draft. Atul Dhar: Conceptualization,
5686
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Satvasheel
Powar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Resources,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Mrityunjay Doddamani:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Su-
pervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
Author Prashant Saini acknowledges the Ministry of Education,
Government of India, for supporting the scholarship for his Ph.D.
research.
References
Al-Abidi, A.A., et al., 2014. Experimental study of melting and solidification of
PCM in a triplex tube heat exchanger with fins. Energy Build. 68, 33–41.
P. Saini, A. Dhar, S. Powar et al.
Atal, A., Wang, Y., Harsha, M., Sengupta, S., 2016. Effect of porosity of conducting
matrix on a phase change energy storage device. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
93, 9–16.
Barthwal, Mohit, Dhar, Atul, Powar, Satvasheel, 2021a. Effect of nanomaterial
inclusion in phase change materials for improving the thermal performance
of heat storage: A review. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 4 (8), 7462–7480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.1c01268.
Barthwal, M., Dhar, A., Powar, S., 2021b. The techno-economic and environmen-
tal analysis of genetic algorithm (GA) optimized cold thermal energy storage
(CTES) for air-conditioning applications. Appl. Energy (ISSN: 0306-2619) 283,
116253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116253.
Calmidi, VV., Mahajan, RL., 2000. Forced convection in high porosity metal foams.
J. Heat Transf. 122, 557–565.
Castell, A., et al., 2008. Natural convection heat transfer coefficients in phase
change material (PCM) modules with external vertical fins. Appl. Therm. Eng.
28 (13), 1676–1686.
Chandrasekaran, P., Cheralathan, M., Kumaresan, V., Velraj, R., 2014. Enhanced
heat transfer characteristics of water-based copper oxide nanofluid PCM
(phase change material) in a spherical capsule during solidification for
energy-efficient cool thermal storage system. Energy 72, 636–642.
Diao, Y.H., Liang, L., Zhao, Y.H., Wang, Z.Y., Bai, F.W., 2019. Numerical investiga-
tion of the thermal performance enhancement of latent heat thermal energy
storage using longitudinal rectangular fins and flat micro-heat pipe arrays.
Appl. Energy 233–234, 894–905.
Dincer, I., Rosen, M., 2011. Thermal Energy Storage: Systems and Applications.
John Wiley & Sons.
El Hasadi, YM., Khodadadi, J., 2013. Numerical simulation of the effect of the
size of suspensions on the solidification process of nanoparticle-enhanced
phase change materials. J. Heat Transf. 135, 052901.
Fan, L., Khodadadi, J., 2012. A theoretical and experimental investigation of
unidirectional freezing of nanoparticle-enhanced phase change materials. J.
Heat Transf. 134, 092301.
Gharebaghi, M., Sezai, I., 2007. Enhancement of heat transfer in latent heat
storage modules with internal fins. Numer. Heat Transf. A 53 (7), 749–765.
Ghoneim, A., 1989. Comparison of theoretical models of phase-change and
sensible heat storage for air and water-based solar heating systems. Sol.
Energy 42, 209–220.
He, G., Lin, J., Sifuentes, F., 2020. Rapid cost decrease of renewables and storage
accelerates the decarbonization of China’s power system. Nature Commun.
11, 2486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16184-x.
Hosseinzadeh, Kh., Montazer, Elham, Shafii, Mohammad Behshad, Ganji, A.R.D.,
2021. Solidification enhancement in triplex thermal energy storage system
via triplets fins configuration and hybrid nanoparticles. J. Energy Storage 34,
102177.
Ismail, K., Alves, C., Modesto, M., 2001. Numerical and experimental study on
the solidification of PCM around a vertical axially finned isothermal cylinder.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 21 (1), 53–77.
Kazemi, M., Hosseini, M.J., Ranjbar, A.A., Bahrampoury, R., 2018. Improvement of
longitudinal fins configuration in latent heat storage systems. Renew. Energy
116, 447–457.
Khodadadi, J., Hosseinizadeh, S., 2007a. Nanoparticle-enhanced phase change
materials (NEPCM) with great potential for improved thermal energy storage.
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 34, 534–543.
Khodadadi, J., Hosseinizadeh, S., 2007b. Nanoparticle-enhanced phase change
materials (NEPCM) with great potential for improved thermal energy storage.
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 34 (5), 534–543.
Khodadadi, J.M., Hosseinizadeh, S.F., 2007c. Nanoparticle-enhanced phase change
materials (NEPCM) with great potential for improved thermal energy storage.
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 34 (5), 534–543.
Li, Z., et al., 2020a. Pool boiling heat transfer to CuO-H2O nanofluid on finned
surfaces. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 156, 119780.
Li, Z., et al., 2020b. Transient pool boiling and particulate deposition of copper
oxide nanosuspensions. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 155, 119743.
Liu, ZH., Zheng, BC., Wang, Q., Li, SS., 2015. Study on the thermal storage per-
formance of a gravity-assisted heat-pipe thermal storage unit with granular
high-temperature phase-change materials. Energy 81, 754–765.
Mahdi, JM., Nsofor, EC., 2016a. Melting of PCM with nanoparticles in a
triplex-tube thermal energy storage system. ASHRAE Trans. 122.
Mahdi, JM., Nsofor, EC., 2016b. Solidification of a PCM with nanoparticles in
triplex tube thermal energy storage system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 108, 596–604.
5687
View publication stats
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5670–5687
Mahdi, JM., Nsofor, EC., 2017a. Melting enhancement in triplex-tube latent heat
energy storage system using nanoparticles-metal foam combination. Appl.
Energy 191, 22–34.
Mahdi, Jasim M., Nsofor, Emmanuel C., 2017b. Solidification enhancement in
a triplex-tube latent heat energy storage system using nanoparticles-metal
foam combination. Energy 126, 501–512.
Mahdi, M.J., Nsofor, C.E., 2018. Solidification enhancement of PCM in a triplex-
tube thermal energy storage system with nanoparticles and fins. Appl.
Energy 211, 975–986.
Mosaffa, A., Talati, F., Tabrizi, HB., Rosen, M., 2012. Analytical modeling of PCM
solidification in a shell and tube finned thermal storage for air conditioning
systems. Energy Build. 49, 356–361.
Pizzolato, A., Sharma, A., Maute, K., Sciacovelli, A., Verda, V., 2017. Design of
effective fins for fast PCM melting and solidification in shell-and-tube latent
heat thermal energy storage through topology optimization. Appl. Energy
208, 210–227.
Rathod, MK., Banerjee, J., 2015. Thermal performance enhancement of shell and
tube Latent Heat Storage Unit using longitudinal fins. Appl. Therm. Eng. 75,
1084–1092.
Saini, Prashant, Dhar, Atul, Powar, Satvasheel, 2022. Parametric optimization of
a cesaro fins employed latent heat storage system for melting performance
enhancement. J. Energy Storage 51, 104534.
Saini, Prashant, Dhar, Atul, Powar, Satvasheel, 2023. Performance enhancement
of fin and tube heat exchanger employing curved trapezoidal winglet vortex
generator with circular punched holes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 209,
124142.
Saini, P., Patil, D.V., Powar, S., 2018. Review on integration of solar air heaters
with thermal energy storage. In: Tyagi, H., Agarwal, A., Chakraborty, P.,
Powar, S. (Eds.), Applications of Solar Energy. Energy, Environment, and Sus-
tainability. Springer, Singapore, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7206-
2_9.
Sciacovelli, A., Colella, F., Verda, V., 2013. Melting of PCM in a thermal
energy storage unit: numerical investigation and effect of nanoparticle
enhancement. Int. J. Energy Res. 37 (13), 1610–1623.
Sciacovelli, A., Gagliardi, F., Verda, V., 2015. Maximization of performance of
a PCM latent heat storage system with innovative fins. Appl. Energy 137,
707–715.
Shabgard, H., Faghri, A., Bergman, TL., Andraka, CE., 2014. Numerical simulation
of heat pipe-assisted latent heat thermal energy storage unit for dish-stirling
systems. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 136, 021025.
Siahpush, A., O’brien, J., Crepeau, J., 2008. Phase change heat transfer
enhancement using copper porous foam. J. Heat Transf. 130, 082301.
Solomon, G.R., Velraj, R., 2013. Analysis of the heat transfer mechanisms during
energy storage in a phase change material filled vertical finned cylindrical
unit for free cooling application. Energy Convers. Manage. 75, 466–473.
Teggar, Mohamed, Ajarostaghi, Seyed S.M., Yıldız, Çağatay, Arıcı, Müslüm, Is-
mail, Kamal A.R., Niyas, Hakeem, Lino, Fatima A.M., Mert, Mehmet Selçuk,
Khalid, Mohammad, 2021. Performance enhancement of latent heat storage
systems by using extended surfaces and porous materials: A state-of-the-art
review. J. Energy Storage 44 (Part A), 103340.
Velraj, R., et al., 1997. Experimental analysis and numerical modelling of inward
solidification on a finned vertical tube for a latent heat storage unit. Sol.
Energy 60 (5), 281–290.
Wu, S., Wang, H., Xiao, S., Zhu, D., 2011. An investigation of melting/freezing
characteristics of nanoparticle-enhanced phase change materials. J. Therm.
Anal. Calorim. 110, 1127–1131.
Wu, S., et al., 2012. An investigation of melting/freezing characteristics of
nanoparticle-enhanced phase change materials. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 110
(3), 1127–1131.
Zhang, P., Xiao, X., Meng, Z., Li, M., 2015. Heat transfer characteristics of a
molten-salt thermal energy storage unit with and without heat transfer
enhancement. Appl. Energy 137, 758–772.
Zhao, C-Y., Lu, W., Tian, Y., 2010. Heat transfer enhancement for thermal energy
storage using metal foams embedded within phase change materials (PCMs).
Sol. Energy 84, 1402–1412.
Zhou, D., Zhao, C-Y., 2011. Experimental investigations on heat transfer in phase
change materials (PCMs) embedded in porous materials. Appl. Therm. Eng.
31, 970–977.
Žkauskas, A., 1987. Heat transfer from tubes in crossflow. In: Hartnett, JP.,
Irvine, TF. (Eds.), Advances in Heat Transfer. Elsevier, pp. 87–159.