Numerical Analysis of Latent Thermal Energy

Storage in Coaxial Component

Hampus Nilsson

Bachelor of Science Thesis

KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management
Energy Technology EGI-2017
SE-100 44 Stockholm
 ABSTRACT
Latent Thermal Energy Storage, LTES, is a system for storing energy for later use. It is
used in applications such as buildings, electronics and space shuttles. The problem asso-
ciated with the system is the relatively low charging and discharging power i.e. the time
to complete melting and solidification - in large because of the low thermal conductivity
of the phase change material, PCM. Several methods to improve the performance of the
system with existing PCMs have been examined, for example use of fins and multiple
tubes within the heat exchanger.
This thesis examines latent thermal energy storage in a coaxial component, during
both melting and solidification using PCM RT35. The examination is a comparative
study of a simplified, two-dimensional model of a horizontally orientated shell and tube
heat exchanger - versus - a vertically orientated one. The analysis is made in CFD
programme Ansys Fluent 17.1, through four different models.
The results show that the vertical orientation performs better in both cases, melting
and solidification. The energy transfer amount within the phase change time is the same,
although the vertical orientation is approximately 200% faster to complete melt and 90%
to complete solidification. The main reason for this discrepancy is the impact of gravity,
which is more prominent in the vertical orientation.

SAMMANFATTNING
Latent termisk energilagring är ett system som används för att lagra energi för senare
bruk. Det används i en rad olika tillämpningar, allt från byggnader och elektronik till
rymdfärjor. Ett av de största problemen som systemet brottas med, är tiden det tar att
ladda och urladda det, det vill säga, tiden det tar för fasbytesmaterialet att antingen helt
smälta eller stelna. Detta främst på grund av dess låga termiska konduktivitet. En rad
olika metoder för att tackla detta problem med existerande fasbytesmaterial har testats,
exempelvis genom användning av fenor och flera tuber på insidan av värmeväxlaren.
Detta kandidatexamensarbete undersöker latent termisk energilagring i en koaxiell,
enkelrörig värmeväxlare vid både smältning och stelning. En komparativ studie görs av
en förenklad tvådimensionell modell, orienterad horiosontellt respektive vertikalt. En
numerisk analys genomförs i CFD-programmet Ansys Fluent 17.1, av fyra olika fall.
Resultatet från dessa numeriska analyser visar att den vertikala orienteringen ger
kortare tid till kompletterat fasbyte vid både smältning och stelning. Energimängden
som överförs i de olika fallen är är densamma, dock är den vertikala orienteringen är
200% snabbare än den horisontella vid smältning och 90% vid stelning. Den största
anledningen till detta är gravitationens påverkan, vilken är mer dominant i det vertikalt
orienterade fallet.
 CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Why latent thermal energy storage (LTES)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Phase change materials (PCMs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Latent thermal energy storage systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Heat transfer characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Literature study - enhancement of performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.1 Heat transfer fluid varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.2 Flow regimes of heat transfer fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.3 Tube characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.4 Fins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.5 Conclusions from previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Numerical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2 Geometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.3 Initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.4 Ansys setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS & DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.1 General results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.1 Liquid fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.2 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.3 Performance comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.4 Energy comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 3.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

BIBlIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
 LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Illustration of latent energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Illustration of energy transfer during melting and solidification. . 2
1.3 Illustration of a LTES-system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Illustration of a shell and tube heat exchanger with PCM. . . . . . 3
1.5 A tube and shell heat exchanger with large eccentricity. . . . . . . 6
1.6 A tube and shell heat exchanger with longitudinal fins. . . . . . . 7

2.1 Horizontally orientated model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2 Vertically orientated model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1 Liquid fraction contours of case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2 Liquid fraction contours of case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3 Liquid fraction contours of case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Liquid fraction contours of case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5 Temperature contours of case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6 Temperature plot of case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7 Temperature contours of case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 Temperature plot of case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.9 Temperature contours of case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.10 Temperature plot of case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.11 Temperature contours of case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.12 Temperature plot of case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.13 Comparison of liquid fraction during melting . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.14 Comparison of liquid fraction during solidification . . . . . . . . 24
3.15 Plot of accumulated energy in case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.16 Plot of accumulated energy in case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.17 Plot of accumulated energy in case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.18 Plot of accumulated energy in case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

i
 LIST OF TABLES

2.I Properties of RT35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.II Ansys setup - Initial conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.III Ansys setup - meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.IV Ansys setup - Solution methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.V Ansys setup - Solution control - Under relaxation factors . . . . . 15
2.VI Ansys setup - Initial values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

ii
 NOMENCLATURE

Denomination Abbreviation

Concentrated solar power CSP

Heat transfer fluid HT F

Latent thermal energy storage LT ES

Liquid liq

Mushy zone mush

Phase change material PCM

Sensible heat thermal energy storage SHT ES

Solid s

iii
Denomination Symbol Unit

Characteristic length L m
m
Characteristic velocity u s
kg
Density r m3

Dynamic viscosity µ Pas

Energy Q J
1
Expansion coefficient b K
m
Gravity g s2
kg
Kinematic viscosity µ ms
J
Latent heat L kg

Stefan number Ste

J
Specific heat capacity Cp K
J
Latent heat L kg
J
Latent heat of fusion Lf kg

Liquid fraction l

Mass m kg

Nabla operator —

Pressure P Pa

Reynolds number Re
J
Sensible enthalpy h kg

Source term S

Temperature K K
W
Thermal conductivity k mK

Total enthalpy H J
m
Velocity vector V s
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

"I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Amir Abdi for his support, encouragement and
guidance during this project.
I would also like to say thank you to my friends for their role as sounding board and
for coping with me and my frustration."

Hampus Nilsson, May 2017, Stockholm

v
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Numerical Analysis of Latent Thermal Energy Storage in Coaxial Component is an

analysis of a transient heat transfer problem, carried out as a Bachelor of Science Thesis.

1.1 Why latent thermal energy storage (LTES)?

The principle behind LTES is latent energy of fusion. The latent energy of fusion
is the energy required for a phase change from solid to liquid to occur. The amount of
energy required to do this is described by equation 1.1.[1]

Q = mL f . (1.1)

Latent energy as phenomenon and energy quantity is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Illustration of latent energy.

When the substance melts, it remains at a nearly constant temperature, the phase
change temperature, while heat transfer occurs from the surroundings to the substance.
In the reverse process, solidification, heat transfer occurs from the substance to the sur-
roundings. These processes are illustrated in Figure 1.2.[2]

1
 Figure 1.2: Illustration of energy transfer during melting and solidification.

The primary advantage with LTES against sensible thermal energy storage, STES,
storage without phase-change, is the capacity to store a large amount of energy in a
relatively small volume.[3] LTES reduces the needed volume significantly in comparison
to STES. On the other hand, LTES battles with the low thermal conductivity of the phase
change material, PCM, i.e. the substance that change phase and thus increase or decrease
its energy content.[4]

1.1.1 Phase change materials (PCMs)

The PCMs differ in characteristics and substance. A number of different materials

have been examined in research and used in practice, e.g. organic compounds (paraffins),
inorganic salt hydrates (glabuersalt) and natural elements (sulphur, water).
There are certain characteristics a suitable PCM should posses, e.g. high heat of fu-
sion per unit mass and volume, high thermal conductivity, noncorrosive, nontoxic and
a low coefficient of expansion. From an economical standpoint a low price is also im-
portant.[5] As mentioned before, one of the problems with LTES is the low thermal
conductivity. Typical values for the PCMs are between 0.4 and 0.7 for salts and between
0.15 and 0.3 for different organic materials, e.g. paraffin.[4]
One experiment, tested a frustum-shaped multiple tube vertical heat exchanger with
different PCMs with different melting temperatures. They were ordered with the lowest
melting temperature on top and increased farther down the tube. This combination of
different PCMs seemed to improve heat transfer, although the results were contradic-
tive.[6]

2
1.1.2 Latent thermal energy storage systems

The use of PCMs are mainly for LTES-systems, though other applications occur, for
example cooling systems on space shuttles. LTES-systems are as mentioned systems
that store latent heat in the PCMs. The purpose of these systems are to store harvested
energy for later use, that otherwise may have been wasted.
A practical example of this could be in solar power systems. During the day the
energy-supply exceeds the demand, and therefore energy is stored in PCMs for usage in
the night, when the supply is absent but the demand is still present.[7] Such a system
leads to a more sustainable use of the energy already harvested. A system like this is
illustrated in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Illustration of a LTES-system.

The exchange of energy in the LTES-system is made possible via a heat exchanger,
usually a shell and tube exchanger. The most common version is with the PCM on shell
side, albeit the opposite occur. The heat transfer fluid, HTF, in most applications water,
flow in the tube. There is a variety of different configurations of heat exchangers.[2] A
common setup of a simple shell and tube heat exchanger is illustrated in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Illustration of a shell and tube heat exchanger with PCM.

3
1.2 Heat transfer characteristics
The heat transfer as such in LTES will behave differently during melting and solidi-
fication of the PCM. Conduction and convection are significant in different stages of the
process.[4]
When starting the melting process, conduction dominates the heat transfer, due to
the solid state of the PCM. After a while, the PCM will start to melt since the temper-
ature is increasing. With increasing amount of liquid fraction close to the tube, natural
convection becomes more dominant. This is because natural convection is caused by the
buoyancy effect, which is increasing as liquid fraction is increasing. When the natural
convection mechanism becomes dominant, the rate of melting increases even more.[8]
During solidification the initial dominating mechanism is convection. The tempera-
ture initially drops very fast, until the PCM closest to the tube has reached the freezing
temperature. When the fraction closest to the tube starts to solidify, the dominant mecha-
nism change to conduction, due to the solid state, which slows the rate of the temperature
change down. This occurs due to the low thermal conductivity of the PCM.[4]
The temperature gradient of the HTF, i.e. the rate of energy transfer, will be greatest
at the start of the charging process, gradually decreasing to a state where the outlet
temperature is nearly constant.This is because the PCM is completely solidified in the
start and gradually, with an exponential rate, will melt. The opposite will therefore occur
during discharging.[8]

1.3 Literature study - enhancement of performance

The factors that impact charging and discharging of LTES have been shown to be
multiple e.g. flow regime in the HTF, number of tubes in the heat exchanger and PCM
properties. There has been extensive research in the area of LTES recent years, on how
to improve performance of LTES, i.e. decrease melting and solidification time. A few of
these results, in short, will be presented in the following paragraphs.

1.3.1 Heat transfer fluid varieties

HTF is as mentioned the fluid that transfers the heat to and from the PCM. The HTF is
in most experiments and applications water, due to its well-suited characteristics; stable,
available and sustainable. Another HTF with proper characteristics suitable as HTF is
liquid oil, though it’s less commonly used, partly because of its unsustainable nature.[3]
Experiments have been conducted, with inorganic salt as HTF, which consists of a
mixture of nitrate salts of lithium, sodium and potassium. This advanced mixture, with

4
a melting temperature of 65 C and a stable thermal limit exceeding 500 C, has been
developed for use in concentrated solar power, CSP, applications. The mixture possess
many of the desired properties for an effective transfer and even though the development
is in an early stage, the results are promising.[9]
Liquid metals, such as sodium (Na) and lead-bismuth (PbBi) have also been used
as HTF in CSP-applications.[10] These substances are not particularly environmentally
friendly and therefore more sustainable alternatives are desired.

1.3.2 Flow regimes of heat transfer fluid

Different flowing characteristics of the HTF have been examined to investigate if it

impacts the behaviour, and therefore the time, of melting and solidification of the PCM.
The magnitude of Reynolds number is given by equation 1.2.
ruL
Re = (1.2)
µ
The Reynold’s number describes the type of the flow, laminar or turbulent. When
Reynold’s number was altered between 1000 and 2000, thus consistently laminar, it only
reduced the melting time between 1% and 3%, which indicates that the magnitude of the
Reynolds number, at least when the flow is laminar, does not have a significant effect on
heat transfer. This is probably because there is no major difference in vortex formations,
which if existed, would enhance transfer rate.[8]
The temperature of the HTF has been showed to have effect on the heat transfer rate.
Increase of the inlet temperature is the same as increase of the Stefan number, which
describes the ratio of sensible heat to latent heat, given by equation 1.3.

c p DT
Ste = . (1.3)
Lf
In experiments using RT50, an organic paraffin-like substance, as PCM, increase of
the inlet temperature during melting to 80 C from 70 C, decreased melting time to 37%
of the original time.[11]
In the reversed process, there has been showed that decreasing the HTF inlet temper-
ature, increased the discharging pace, thus decreased time to complete solidification of
the PCM.[12]

5
1.3.3 Tube characteristics

The most simple heat exchanger is with one shell and tube. With more tubes, the heat
transfer surface expands, but more importantly, the convection transfer phenomenon is
more effectively utilised.
An experiment with RT35, used two and three tubes, which decreased melting time
with 10.12% and 22.78% from the original time. With a fourth tube melting time de-
creased to 29.11% of the original time.[13]
The tube orientation in the shell has been shown to impact the rate of melting in a
significant way. With increased eccentricity, i.e how much closer the tube is to the bottom
of the shell, the effect of natural convection increased, thus decreasing the melting time.
With a large eccentricity, melting time has been shown to decrease as much as 64%.[8]
A tube and shell heat exchanger with large eccentricity is illustrated in Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5: A tube and shell heat exchanger with large eccentricity.

The experiments so far mentioned have all had a horizontal orientation of the heat
exchanger. When the experiments were carried out using a vertical tube and shell heat
exchanger, natural convection dominated the charging process and conduction domi-
nated in the discharging process, thus indicating no significant difference in the heat
transfer behaviour for vertical and horizontal orientation. This is because the heat trans-
fer mechanisms in general are the same.[4] This problem is what will be more closer
examined in this thesis.
Different material of the heat exchanger itself, i.e. the tubes, has been showed to
not effect melting and solidification time in a significant way, even when the thermal
conductivity of this material is increased.[14] This is probably because the difference of
the low thermal conductivity of the PCM, in relation to the high conductivity of the tube
material, is still very large.

6
1.3.4 Fins

For enhancing heat transfer, experiments using fins on the shell side of the heat ex-
changer were conducted. Different geometries were considered, e.g. longitudinal, rect-
angular and circular, also called radial fins.
The use of longitudinal fins were shown to be better than radial fins to improve the
heat transfer, though use of either sort was proven to be better than without.[15][16]
Using longitudinal fins have been shown to decrease melting time with 12% from not
using fins.[17]
Increasing height of the fins, as well as using thin fins rather than thick, have also
been shown to be beneficiary for improved heat transfer.[18][19] A tube and shell heat
exchanger with longitudinal fins is illustrated in 1.6.

Figure 1.6: A tube and shell heat exchanger with longitudinal fins.

1.3.5 Conclusions from previous work

As mentioned in previous paragraphs, there are several factors that have shown to
improve heat transfer in LTES.
A high inlet temperature of the HTF during charging and a low inlet temperature
during discharging decreases time to completed states.
Number and orientation of the tubes are one of the most important factors. Increas-
ing number of tubes as well as a high eccentricity when using a single tube improves
performance.
The use of fins, preferably longitudinal, high and thin, also improves heat transfer.
As PCM, a salt substance is better from a thermal conductivity standpoint. In practice
paraffin may though prove better. The most complex problem of the LTES is still though,

7
the low thermal conductivity of the PCM.

1.4 Purpose
In a time of environmental issues and climate change, the search for more efficient
energy systems is a constant process. More efficient usage of LTES could be one way
to more efficiently utilise already harvested energy. In this thesis, LTES in a coaxial
component is simulated and analysed in four different cases. The purpose is to see if
there is a difference in performance between horizontal and vertical orientation of the
heat exchanger, during charging and discharging.

1.5 Problem
Numerical analysis of latent thermal energy storage in coaxial component is a tran-
sient heat problem. In this transient problem, both conduction and convection are in-
volved and dominant at different times in the processes. Due to its nature, analytical
solutions are in practice impossible. This thesis desires to examine the nature of heat
transfer in thermal energy storage, with help of simulations in the CFD-software An-
sys 17.1.[20] The geometries considered are one thin two-dimensional tubes orientated
horizontally and one vertically orientated rectangle. This is possible due to the mirror
effect of the vertical case, which requires simulation of only one side of the tube. The
simulations will be of both melting and solidification.

8
 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

Analysing a transient heat transfer problems in multiple dimensions, with both con-
vection and conduction, is almost impossible to do analytically. Albeit this, knowing
what mechanisms involved is important to be able to setup the simulations correctly,
with proper boundary conditions and meshing. It is also important to be able to interpret
the obtained results. In the following paragraphs, governing equations and boundary
conditions will be considered. Also methods used when simulating and the different
cases considered, including PCM, will be presented.

2.1 Governing equations

In the analysis of the phase-changing process, the enthalpy porosity method is used,
which is described by Esapour et al. [13], and from where the assumptions and equations
in the following paragraph are derived from. When using this method, a few assumptions
needs to be made; flow is considered laminar and the viscous dissipation term is consid-
ered negligible. These assumptions make it possible to write the continuity-equation as
in equation 2.1.
— ·V = 0. (2.1)
The momentum-equation can be written as equation 2.2.

∂V 1
+V · —V = ( —P + µ—2V + rgb (T Tre f )) + S (2.2)
∂t r

The S-term is called the Darcy’s law damping term, the source term, which describes the
effects of phase change on the convective heat transfer, i.e fluid flow in porous media
with low Reynold’s number, defined in equation 2.3.

(1 l )2
S= AmushV (2.3)
l3
Amush is a constant describing the mushy zone. The thermal energy-equation can be
written as in equation 2.4.

∂h ∂H K
+ + — · (V h) = — · ( —h) (2.4)
∂t ∂t rC p

9
In equation 2.4. the enthalpy of the material is considered to be a combination of latent
heat, DH, i.e the enthalpy regarding the phase change, and the sensible enthalpy, h,
the enthalpy regarding temperature change without phase change. This combination of
enthalpies can be written as in equation 2.5 and 2.6

H = h+D (2.5)
Z T
H = hre f + C p dT. (2.6)
Tre f

The latent heat of the material L is a function of the fraction liquid or solid in a material,
described by equation 2.7.
DH = l L (2.7)
l is the liquid fraction, which can vary from 0, where the material is solid, to L, where the
material is liquid, thus making DH vary from 0 to L. The liquid fraction l is described
by equation 2.8. 8
> DH
< L =0
> if T < Ts
DH
l= L =1 if T > Tliq (2.8)
>
>
: DH = T Ts
if Ts < T < Tliq .
L Tliq Ts

With these assumptions and equations, it is possible to analyse the charging and dis-
charging of the PCM.

2.2 Numerical models

As mentioned before the number of cases considered are four. To do this, the numer-
ical models need to be prepared properly. In the following paragraphs, the setup will be
presented.

2.2.1 Materials

The PCM used in the numerical analyse is RT35, a paraffin-like organic substance.
Its properties are presented in table 2.II

10
 Table 2.I: Properties of RT35.

1
b 0.0006 K
J
Cp 2000 kgK
W
K 0.2 mK
J
L 170,000 kg
kg
r 815 m3

Tliquidus 309 K
Tsolidus 302 K
kg
µ 0.023 ms

2.2.2 Geometries

The number of geometries analysed are two. They are simplified models of a tube
and heat exchanger, orientated horizontally and vertically. The first model is a thin
geometry of a horizontal tube with a smaller diameter HTF tube co-centered inside. The
second geometry is a thin half of a vertical tube, due to symmetry. This means one side is
considered as the HTF side. The reason for modeling thin models rather than strict two-
dimensional models, is better convergence of the simulation. The models are illustrated
in figure 2.1 and figure 2.2.

11
Figure 2.1: Horizontally orientated model.

Figure 2.2: Vertically orientated model.

12
2.2.3 Initial conditions

As mentioned four cases will be considered, melting and solidification for each ge-
ometry. The same temperatures and boundary conditions will be applied for the geome-
tries. The four cases presented in table 2.2 will be considered. The surfaces that are not
the HTF surface will be considered adiabatic.

Table 2.II: Ansys setup - Initial conditions.

Case HTF- Initial PCM-

number Melting Solidification temperature temperature

Case 1 -
Horizontal Yes No 330 [K] 300 [K]

Case 2 -
Horizontal No Yes 285 [K] 330 [K]

Case 3 -
Vertical Yes No 330 [K] 300 [K]

Case 4 -
Vertical No Yes 285 [K] 330 [K]

2.2.4 Ansys setup

The setup of the simulation in Ansys is presented in table 2.III, table 2.IV, table 2.V
and table 2.VI. In Ansys setup, the double precision mode is used in all of the cases.
The "Energy" and "Solidification & Melting" modes are both turned to on. The "Mushy
Zone Parameter" is set to 100,000. In all cases the time step size is set to 1 second. The
convergence criteria is set to 10 4 in all cases.

13
 Table 2.III: Ansys setup - meshing

Meshing Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Number of
elements 27,720 27,396 29,700 29,304

Number of
nodes 42,195 41,697 45,372 44,775

Table 2.IV: Ansys setup - Solution methods

Solution methods Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Scheme Simple

Gradient Least Squares Cell Based

Pressure Presto! Second Order

Momentum Second Order Upwind

Energy Second Order Upwind

14
Table 2.V: Ansys setup - Solution control - Under relaxation factors

Under relaxation
factors Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Pressure 0.27 0.27 0.3 0.3

Density 0.9 0.9 1 1

Body Forces 0.9 0.9 1 1

Momentum 0.67 0.67 0.7 0.7

Liquid Fraction Update 0.81 0.81 0.9 0.9

Energy 0.9 0.9 1 1

Table 2.VI: Ansys setup - Initial values

Initial values Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Gauge Pressure [Pa] 0

X, Y, Z-velocity 0

15
 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the results from the numerical analysis are presented and the pro-
cesses examined and discussed. A comparison between the cases is made and analysed.
A recommendation for future work is also suggested.

3.1 General results

The results from the simulations of the four cases, shows that the vertical orientation
enables both faster melting and solidification. In this section, contours of liquid fraction,
contours of temperature and temperature plots are presented.

3.1.1 Liquid fraction

In figure 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, contours of the liquid fraction during the processes are
shown.

Figure 3.1: Liquid fraction contours of case 1: Melting in horizontal component.

16
Figure 3.2: Liquid fraction contours of case 2: Solidification in horizontal component.

Figure 3.3: Liquid fraction contours of case 3: Melting in vertical component.

17
 Figure 3.4: Liquid fraction contours of case 4: Solidification in vertical component.

3.1.2 Temperature

In figure 3.5, 3.7, 3.9 and 3.11, temperature contours of temperature change in the
different cases are presented. Graphs of the average temperature, i.e. the temperature
gradient, during the process are also presented in figure 3.6, 3.8, 3.10 and 3.12.

18
 Figure 3.5: Temperature contours of case 1: Melting in horizontal component.

Figure 3.6: Temperature plot of case 1: Melting in horizontal component, shows the
average temperature in the PCM in relation to time.

19
 Figure 3.7: Temperature contours of case 2: Solidification in horizontal component.

Figure 3.8: Temperature plot of case 2: Solidification in horizontal component, shows

the average temperature in the PCM in relation to time.

20
 Figure 3.9: Temperature contours of case 3: Melting in vertical component.

Figure 3.10: Temperature plot of case 3: Melting in vertical component, shows the
average temperature in the PCM in relation to time.

21
 Figure 3.11: Temperature contours of case 4: Solidification in vertical component.

Figure 3.12: Temperature plot of case 4: Solidification in vertical component, shows the
average temperature in the PCM in relation to time.

22
3.1.3 Performance comparison

The purpose of the simulations is to see which of the orientations is best. In figure
3.13 and figure 3.14, a comparison between the two different orientations is made, both
during melting (figure 3.5) and solidification (figure 3.6). As depicted in the figures,
the vertical orientation is better in both cases, i.e. the time to complete melting and
solidification is the shortest. In the case of melting, the vertical orientation is approxi-
mately 200% faster than the horizontal orientation. In the case of solidification, vertical
orientation is approximately 90% faster than horizontal orientation.

Figure 3.13: Comparison of liquid fraction during melting between horizontal and ver-
tical orientation in relation to time.

23
Figure 3.14: Comparison of liquid fraction during solidification between horizontal and
vertical orientation in relation to time.

3.1.4 Energy comparison

The reason of using LTES in the first place is to store energy for later use. Thus, it is
important to know how much energy is stored in the PCM. In figure 3.15, 3.16, 3.17 and
3.18 the accumulated energy received by or released from the PCM are shown. As can
be seen, the energy transferred in the different cases is approximately the same. This is
because the transferred energy is calculated with respect to a full size tube, with a mass
of 0,6 kg. The simulations are done until the PCM has fully changed state, not until the
temperature is the same. Thus, the energy content would, in a full-scale simulation, be
the same in both orientations, albeit the transfer rate would not be the same.

24
Figure 3.15: Plot of accumulated energy in relation to time in case 1: Melting in hori-
zontal component.

Figure 3.16: Plot of accumulated energy in relation to time in case 2: Solidification in

horizontal component.

25
Figure 3.17: Plot of accumulated energy in relation to time in case 3: Melting in vertical
component.

Figure 3.18: Plot of accumulated energy in relation to time in case 4: Solidification in

vertical component.

26
3.2 Discussion
In this section, the different cases, their results and the effective heat transfer mech-
anisms will be discussed.
As can be seen in figure 3.1, depicting case 1, the heat from the tube is transferred to
the solid state PCM in the surrounding shell via conduction. The PCM closest to the tube
then starts melting. As the melting continues and thus the liquid fraction increases, the
buoyancy effect becomes more prominent. This leads to circulation of melted material.
The heat transfer process is at this stage dominated by natural convection. This leads
to an even faster melting process due to the vortex formations, as can be seen in figure
3.6 approximately at time step 4,000. When all of the PCM above the tube has melted,
the melting process slows down, also shown in figure 3.6, approximately at time step
9,000. This is because all of the remaining PCM is below the the tube, which makes the
natural convection process less prominent. The melting process continues, though with
less speed due to the conduction now dominating the process, until all of the PCM has
melted.
In case 2, depicted in figure 3.2, the PCM closest the tube starts to cool. When
the PCM closest to the tube has solidified, though uneven due to convection, the heat
transfer rate slows down. This slows the solidification process down, as can be seen in
figure 3.8, where there is a significant change in the curve around time step 4,000. This
occurs due to the fact that the transfer process is now dominated by conduction in the
solid material. The solidification process then continues in this fashion until all of the
PCM has solidified.
In the vertical melting case, depicted in figure 3.3, the process is much alike case
1. Heat is transferred from the tube to the solid PCM in the shell in form of conduc-
tion, which starts melting the PCM closest to the tube. Pretty quick, the buoyancy effect
becomes prominent. Liquid PCM with lower density starts rising to the top of the geom-
etry, thus forming vortexes in the PCM. This increases the rate of melting, at this stage
dominated by natural convection. Because all of the PCM and the tube heating it, are
on the same level, the convection continues with almost the same speed until all of the
PCM has melted, unlike case 1. There is no significant decrease of the melting speed
once the buoyancy effect becomes prominent, which can be seen in figure 3.10, which
has approximately the same look through all of the process.
The last case, case 4, vertical solidification, is much alike case 2. The PCM cools
and the material closest to the tube solidifies. The conduction in the solidified material
slows the rate of solidification down, thus slowing the rate of the whole process down,
which can be seen in figure 3.12, where a significant change of the curvature can be seen
at time step 2,000. The process is at this stage dominated by conduction, and continues

27
until all of the material has solidified.
The heat transfer processes of melting and solidification yielded in the numerical
analysis, are the processes expected from the studies in the introduction chapter, which
suggests that the simulations are somewhat accurate. Though without actual real-world
experiments, the predictions are less valuable and reliable.

3.3 Future work

One of the drawbacks with the analysis here conducted is the simple geometry. The
simplified two-dimensional model is just that, a model, and a more thoroughly analysis,
simulation and comparison of a full-scale shell and tube heat exchanger in horizontal
and vertical orientation is desired.
There is a variety of other suggestions in the current research on how to improve
charging and discharging performance of LTES, of many mentioned in the literature
study. One on the most promising and common is a multi-tube heat exchanger. Such an
exchanger in a vertical orientation should be examined.
It is not only the orientation and tube setup that should be considered, but as men-
tioned before, also which PCM is used, and research on new PCM:s.
Finally, to validate the results, a full scale live model of the setup here considered
should be analysed.

28
 CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

Two different orientations of a shell and tube heat exchanger were compared and their
performance studied during melting and solidification. The results from the numerical
analysis show that:
• The melting time for the horizontal orientation is approximately 33,000
seconds and the melting time for the vertical orientation is about 11,000
seconds.
• The solidification time for the horizontal orientation is approximately
55,000 seconds and the solidification time for the vertical orientation
is about 29,000 seconds.
• A vertical orientation of the heat exchanger induce a melting time
about 200% faster than the horizontal orientation.
• A vertical orientation of the heat exchanger induce a solidification time
about 90% faster than the horizontal orientation.
• The main reason for the difference of performance in time is the effect
of gravity upon the heat exchanger, which induce a larger portion of
natural convection.
• LTES:s should be designed to maximise natural convection as the main
heat transfer mechanism.
• The models considered in this thesis are both unrealistic to use in prac-
tice, due to the long charging and discharging time. More efficient
geometries should be explored.

29
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Pierre Perrot. A to Z of Thermodynamics. Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN :

0-19-856552-6.
[2] Amy S. Fleischer. Thermal Energy Storage Using Phase Change Materials - Fun-
damentals and Applications. 1st ed. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2015. ISBN:
9783319209210.
[3] Ming Liu et al. “Review on storage materials and thermal performance enhance-
ment techniques for high temperature phase change thermal storage systems”. In:
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16.4 (2012), pp. 2118–2132.
[4] Saeid Seddegh et al. “Numerical investigation of heat transfer mechanism in a
vertical shell and tube latent heat energy storage system”. In: Applied Thermal
Engineering 87 (2015), pp. 698–706.
[5] William R. Humphries et al. “A Design Handbook for Phase Change Thermal
Control and Energy Storage Devices”. In: NASA Technical Paper 1074 1074 (1977).
[6] Zhipei Hu et al. “Enhanced heat transfer for PCM melting in the frustum-shaped
unit with multiple PCMs”. In: Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 120.2
(2015), pp. 1407–1416.
[7] Francis Agyenim et al. “A review of materials, heat transfer and phase change
problem formulation for latent heat thermal energy storage systems (LHTESS)”.
In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14.2 (2010), pp. 615–628.
[8] Younes Pahamli et al. “Analysis of the effect of eccentricity and operational pa-
rameters in PCM-filled single-pass shell and tube heat exchangers”. In: Renew-
able Energy 97 (2016), pp. 344–357.
[9] Justin W. Raade and David Padowitz. “Development of Molten Salt Heat Transfer
Fluid With Low Melting Point and High Thermal Stability”. In: Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering 133.3 (2011).
[10] Nikola Lorenzin and Alberto Abanades. “ A review on the application of liquid
metals as heat transfer fluid in Concentrated Solar Power technologies”. In: In-
ternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41.17 (2016), pp. 6990–6995.
[11] M.J. Hosseini et al. “Experimental and computational evolution of a shell and
tube heat exchanger as a PCM thermal storage system”. In: International Com-
mun. of Heat Mass Transfer 50 (2014), pp. 128–136.

A
[12] Kamal A.R. Ismail. “Experimentally validated two dimensional numerical model
for the solidification of PCM along a horizontal long tube”. In: International Jour-
nal of Thermal Sciences 75 (2014), pp. 184–193.
[13] M. Esapour et al. “Phase change in multi-tube heat exchangers”. In: Renewable
Energy 85 (2016), pp. 1017–1025.
[14] Atul Sharma et al. “Numerical heat transfer studies of the fatty acids for different
heat exchanger materials on the performance of a latent heat storage system”. In:
Renewable Energy 30.14 (2005), pp. 2179–2187.
[15] Francis Agyenim et al. “A comparison of heat transfer enhancement in a medium
temperature thermal energy storage heat exchanger using fins”. In: Solar Energy
83.9 (2009), pp. 1509–1520.
[16] Seeniraj et al. “Thermal analysis of a finned-tube LHTS module for a solar dy-
namic power system”. In: Heat and Mass Transfer 38.4 (2002), pp. 409–417.
[17] Manish K. Rathod and Jyotirmay Banerjee. “Thermal performance enhancement
of shell and tube Latent Heat Storage Unit using longitudinal fins”. In: Applied
Thermal Engineering 75 (2015), pp. 1084–1092.
[18] Yuwen Zhang and Amir Faghri. “Heat Transfer Enhancement in Latent Heat
Thermal Energy Storage System by Using an External Radial Finned Tube”. In:
Journal of Enhanced Heat Transfer 3.2 (1996), pp. 119–127.
[19] Zhongliang Liu et al. “Experimental investigations on the characteristics of melt-
ing processes of stearic acid in an annulus and its thermal conductivity enhance-
ment by fins”. In: Energy Conversion and Management 46.6 (2005), pp. 959–969.
[20] http://www.ansys.com/Products/Fluids/ANSYS-Fluent. 2017.