Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/est

Empirical correlations to quantify the effect of metal foam on solidification T

process in constant thermal capacity and constant volume systems
⁎
K. Venkateshwar, S.H. Tasnim, H. Simha, S. Mahmud
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Metal foams have been extensively studied to enhance the performance of the Phase Change Materials (PCMs)
Metal foam based Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage (LHTES) systems. The studies in the literature are primarily focused
PCM on analyzing the effect of specific metal foam on the heat transfer augmentation and lacks comprehensive
Porosity analysis. The present study aims to understand the interdependent effect of thermophysical properties of PCM
Porous medium
and metal foam, system geometry, and operating condition on the potential of metal foams to enhance phase-
Solidification
Thermal energy storage
change processes. Besides, the studies are limited to analyze the effect of metal foam addition on phase change
processes inside predefined geometries, which fails to consider the reduction in the thermal capacity as the void
volume available for the PCM decreases upon the addition of low porosity metal foam. It is crucial to maintain
the constant thermal capacity of the LHTES system from both an application and a fundamental analysis per-
spective. Therefore, in the present study, the dimensions of the LHTES systems are altered to maintain the
thermal capacity of the systems, which changes when metal foams are added. Empirical correlations are de-
veloped to estimate the effect of embedding metal foam in PCM on the solidification process of PCM in both
constant volume and constant thermal capacity systems. These correlations are validated using numerical re-
sults, and the differences are limited to within 1% and 1.6% for the solidification time and average heat flux,
respectively. The correlations can be extended to unidirectional melting processes with minor modifications, and
it reduces reliance on experimental and numerical analysis.

1. Introduction explored various avenues to enhance the thermal conductivity of the

Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage (LHTES) system is a promising
technology for adiabatic compressed air energy storage (A-CAES), solar
thermal, thermal management of buildings, and waste heat recovery
applications [1]. The ability to store and release a large amount of
thermal energy within a small temperature range, along with its low
cost, longevity and low maintenance requirement make LHTES systems
an attractive option for energy storage. However, the lower thermal
conductivities of PCMs, used in the LHTES systems, limit the efficient
utilization of such systems. The lower thermal conductivity leads to
longer charging and discharging (melting and solidification) times and
typically requires a larger temperature gradient for heat transfer. The
large temperature gradient requirement implies a substantial difference
in temperatures of Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) and phase transition
temperature of PCM, thus broadening the operational temperature
range. The broader operating temperature range negates a significant
benefit associated with PCM, i.e., the ability to store and release a large
amount of energy in a small temperature range. Researchers have
PCM, such as the addition of metallic nanoparticles, incorporation of
metal fins, and impregnating PCM in metal foams [2].
Metal foam is an extensively studied heat transfer enhancement
technique. Feng et al. [3] experimentally and theoretically investigated
the solidification of water in the presence of copper metal foam. Yang
et al. [4] numerically, experimentally, and analytically studied the so-
lidification of water in the metal foam of three different porosities for
three different inner hollow ratios. Atal et al. [5] numerically and ex-
perimentally studied the effect of the addition of aluminum metal foam
of two different porosities on solidification and melting processes of
paraffin in shell and tube type heat exchanger for three different Rey-
nolds numbers (Re). Yang et al. [6] investigated the effect of graded
morphology of metal foam on the solidification of distilled water. They
analyzed the effect of the gradient of porosity, pore density (pore size),
and thermal conductivity on the solidification process. Siahpush et al.
[7] experimentally and analytically examined the melting and solidi-
fication of eicosane impregnated in 95% porosity copper metal foam
inside a vertical cylindrical geometry with the isothermal surface.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: smahmud@uoguelph.ca (S. Mahmud).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101482
Received 8 January 2020; Received in revised form 25 March 2020; Accepted 22 April 2020
Available online 06 May 2020
2352-152X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Venkateshwar, et al.
Nomenclature
A Parametric constant
Cp Specific heat capacity (J⋅kg−1⋅K−1)
Dx Mesh size (m)
fl Liquid fraction
ft, s(ɛ) Fraction of solidification time at ɛ porosity / Solidification
time fraction
fq(ɛ) Factor of heat flux at ɛ porosity / Heat transfer factor
H Enthalpy (J)
hf Latent heat capacity (J⋅kg−1)
k Thermal conductivity (W⋅m−1⋅K−1)
L Length of the LHTES system (m)
Ls Modified length of the LHTES system with metal foam (m)
m mth iteration
n Number of mesh
q Average heat flux (W⋅m−2)
T Temperature (K)
T̄ Mean temperature (K)
ts Solidification time (s)
Greek Symbols
ɛ Porosity
Rybar et al. [8] analyzed the melting of sodium acetate trihydrate in
heterogeneous copper metal foams. Mahdi and Nsofor [9] studied the
solidification of RT82 inside a triplex tube heat exchanger. Esapour
et al. [10] numerically studied the melting and solidification of RT35 in
the metal foam of two different porosities inside a shell and tube type
heat exchanger. Joshi and Rathod [11] analyzed the melting of paraffin
in copper metal foam filled up to different heights. Krishnan et al. [12]
numerically analyzed the effect of metal foam on phase-change pro-
cesses at different Rayleigh, Stefan, and Nusselt numbers. Yang et al.
[13] numerically analyzed solidification and melting of PCM in metal
foam with linearly varying porosity. Moussa and Karkri [14] numeri-
cally studied the effect of metal foam on phase change processes with
isoflux and temporal varying flux boundary conditions. Baby and Balaji
[15] experimentally analyzed the effect of copper metal foam and their
orientations on the performance of PCM based heat sink. Yang and
Garimella [16] numerically analyzed the melting of PCM in metal foam
considering shrinkage and thermal non-equilibrium. Chen et al. [17]
experimentally and numerically investigated the melting of paraffin
wax in aluminum metal foams.
The studies show that metal foams can significantly enhance heat
transfer during the melting and solidification processes. However, the
studies have been limited to the evaluation of the heat transfer en-
hancement when using metal foams of selected porosities under specific
operating conditions and LHTES configurations and size. The inter-
dependent effect of metal foam porosity, thermophysical properties of
metal foam and PCM, dimension and geometry of the LHTES system,
and boundary condition on the phase change processes has not been
extensively studied. Besides, the reported studies analyzed the effect of
the addition of metal foams in PCM on phase change processes inside a
predefined geometry. The addition of metal foam inside a constant
volume LHTES system reduces the void volume available for the PCM,
which in turn lowers the thermal capacity of the LHTES system. It is
essential to maintain the thermal capacity of LHTES systems to meet
energy storage demands. As well as the evaluation of the augmentation
of phase-change processes in terms of decrease in the solidification and
melting times upon either addition of metal foam or decreasing porosity
of metal foam, while keeping the total volume constant can be mis-
leading. Venkateshwar et al. [18] reported that decreasing porosity led
to lower melting time, while it had an insignificant effect on the heat
2
Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482
λ Enthalpy relaxation factor
ρ Density (kg⋅m−3)
Superscript
∘
Previous time step
Subscript
eff Effective PCM-metal foam composite property
l Liquid
mf Metal
m Melting
N Next node
n Present porosity
p Present node
pcm Phase change material
r Ratio of metal foam to PCM
s Solid
S Previous node
transfer rate. Since the melting/solidification time may decrease be-
cause of the reduction in thermal energy capacity of the system and not
enhancement in heat transfer, it may lead to the incorrect conclusion
that heat transfer is enhanced owing to the addition of metal foam.
Therefore, it is essential from both application and fundamental ana-
lysis perspectives to investigate the effect of the addition of metal foams
and decrease in porosity of metal foams on phase change processes
inside a constant thermal capacity system.
The present study examines the effect of thermophysical properties
of metal foam and PCM, the dimension of the LHTES system, isothermal
surface temperature, and porosity of metal foam on phase change
processes are analyzed to understand their interdependencies. The void
volume available for the PCM has been kept constant while reducing
the porosity to maintain the thermal capacity of the system. The volume
for the PCM is maintained constant by increasing the length of the
LHTES system, i.e., the distance from the isothermal surface, with de-
creasing porosity. The increase in the other dimensions will lead to an
increase in the contact surface area with the isothermal surface, hence
enhancement in the heat transfer leading to a decrease in the solidifi-
cation time. The enhancement in heat transfer due to an increase in
both the contact surface area and thermal conductivity will make it
difficult to ascertain the contribution of effective thermal conductivity
enhancement on heat transfer augmentation. Besides, any researcher/
engineer designing LHTES systems will attempt to maximize the contact
surface to enhance the heat transfer before utilizing any heat transfer
augmentation techniques. Therefore, the likelihood of availability of
the option to increase other dimensions rather than the length is
minimal. Hence, from both the fundamental understanding and appli-
cation perspectives, it is imperative to increase the length of the LHTES
system to maintain the thermal capacity while analyzing the effect of
the addition of metal foams on phase-change processes. In the later
stage of the study, empirical correlations have been developed to
quantify the effect of metal foam addition on the phase change duration
and average heat flux in both constant thermal capacity and constant
volume systems.
2. Numerical modeling and validation
A numerical model to study solidification of PCM in metal foam
K. Venkateshwar, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482

with isothermal boundary condition is developed in MATLAB based on and solved using TDMA. The discretized equations for temperature and
the finite volume approach and validated using experimental results enthalpy update are given by Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively, are ob-
reported by Feng et al. [3]. Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of the tained upon discretizing Eq. (8) using the finite volume method.
LHTES system, filled with PCM-metal foam composite, with an iso-
ApTp = aNTN + aSTS + ap∘Tp∘ − Ap (Hp) + Ap∘ (Hp∘) − Bp (Hp)(Tp − Tm)
thermal boundary at the bottom.
+ Bp∘ (Hp∘)(Tp∘ − Tm) (9)
2.1. Numerical modeling
(Hp)m + 1 = [(Hp)m {Ap + (Bp)m (Tp − Tm)m} + λ ap (Tp − Tm)m]/Ap (10)
The effective thermophysical properties of PCM impregnated in the ∘
The expression for the coefficients ap, ap , aE, and aW are obtained
metal foams of different porosities are modeled. The effective density,
using the harmonic mean of thermal conductivity of adjacent control
specific heat capacity in the solid and liquid states, and latent heat
volumes, as suggested by Patankar [27]. The coefficients Ap, Ap∘, Bp,
capacity are modeled using the correlation given in Eqs. (1 - 4), re-
and Bp∘ are obtained using the forward difference approach. The su-
spectively [19]:
perscript ∘ denotes term related to the previous time step, subscript m
ρeff = ερpcm + (1 − ε ) ρmf , (1) and m + 1 represent current and next iterations, respectively.
A MATLAB program is developed to study the variation in solidifi-
Cpseff = [ερpcm Cps,pcm + (1 − ε ) ρmf Cps,mf ]/ ρeff , (2) cation time and average heat flux upon varying the metal foam por-
osity. The porosity of the metal foam is varied from 1 to 0.9009 in the
Cpleff = [ερPCM Cpl,pcm + (1 − ε ) ρmf Cps,mf ]/ ρeff , (3) present study. The study is limited to the porosity of higher than 0.9, as
hf,pcm = ερpcm hf,pcm / ρeff . the analytical correlations used in the present study for calculating the
(4)
effective thermal conductivity of the metal foam and PCM composites
The thermophysical properties of pure PCM and metals used as are valid for porosity greater than 0.9. Although it is intuitive to vary
metal foams in the present study are given in Table 1. The PCMs are the porosity at an interval of 0.01 to analyze the effect of porosity.
assumed to melt and solidify at a single temperature, denoted by Tm. However, the numerical analysis becomes tedious as these results in a
Several researchers have studied the effective thermal con- non-terminating value of the modified LHTES system length, required
ductivities of metal foams and developed correlations for its quantifi- to maintain the system's thermal capacity, as discussed in the
cation [20–23]. The studies are primarily based on the analysis of the Introduction section. Therefore, it is optimal to vary the dimension of
structure of the metal ligaments and their intersection in metal foam, the LHTES system and subsequently calculate the porosity of the metal
particularly aluminum and copper foams. The structure of the metal foam to keep the void volume constant. The modified dimension of the
foams varies with the porosity and fabrication techniques, which are LHTES system is calculated using Eqs. (11) and (12). The value of i is
chosen based on the metal's physical properties. Therefore, a simple varied in Eq. (11) from 0 to 11 at an interval of 1. The value of n is
empirical correlation given by Bhattacharya et al. [24] is used in the rounded off to the nearest integer. The porosity of the metal foam is
present study, as the primary objective is to understand the effect of found using Eq. (13).
thermophysical properties rather than manufacturing techniques. The
n ≈ L (1 + i/100)/dx (11)
effective thermal conductivities of PCM-metal foam composites in li-
quid and solid states are calculated using L s = n × dx (12)
kl,eff = A [ε kl,pcm + (1 − ε )kmf ] + (1 − A)/[ε /kl,pcm + (1 − ε )/kmf ], (5) ε = L/L s (13)
k s,eff = A [ε k s,pcm + (1 − ε )kmf ] + (1 − A)/[ε /k s,pcm + (1 − ε )/kmf ]. The different porosities analyzed, and the corresponding effective
(6) thermal conductivity obtained using correlation given in Eq. (6) is
The addition of porous media may result in a wide range of effective
thermal conductivities based on its structure. The bounds on thermal
conductivities owing to the metal foam are defined by the heat con-
duction through porous media and PCM in parallel or series combina-
tions. The parametric constant (A) in Eqs. (5) and (6) denotes the
contribution of series and parallel combination. The constant (A) in
Eqs. (5) and (6) was calculated by Bhattacharya et al. [24] by means of
curve fitting using experimental data for effective thermal conductivity
of aluminum and RVC foam embedded in air and water. The regression
coefficient is a statistical tool to analyze the ability of regression models
to predict the value of the dependent variable upon changing the in-
dependent variable. With A = 0.35, the empirical correlation matched
the experimental data with a regression coefficient of 0.97. The effec-
tive thermal conductivity in the mushy zone is calculated assuming that
the effect of thermal conductivity in the solid and liquid states is di-
rectly proportional to the solid and liquid fractions, respectively, as:
k eff = flkl,eff + (1 − fl)k s,eff . (7)
The phase change process is modeled using the enthalpy-porosity
technique [25,26], and is given as:
∂ (ρeff Cps,eff T) ∂ (flρeff hf,eff )
= ∇·(k eff ∇T) −
∂t ∂t
∂ [flρeff (Cpl,eff − C ps,eff )(T − Tm)]
−
∂t (8)
The governing equation is discretized based on the implicit scheme Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the LHTES system with metal foam.

3
K. Venkateshwar, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482

Table 1
Thermophysical Properties of PCM and Metal foam.
Properties Water n-octadecane Cu Al Ni SS
Solid Liquid Solid Liquid

ρ (kg⋅m−3) 1000 770 8960 2700 8906 8027.2

k (W⋅m−1⋅K−1) 2.26 0.556 0.358 0.148 401 218 99 16.26
Cp (J⋅kg−1⋅K−1) 2116 4186 1934 2196 380 902 440 502.1
Tm (K) 273.16 301.16 – – – –
hf (J⋅kg−1) 335,000 243,500 – – – –

provided in Table 2.

2.2. Validation

Results of the numerical model are compared with experimental

findings reported by Feng et al. [3], and the comparison results are
plotted in Fig. 2. An enclosure of height 5 cm, filled with water, having
an initial temperature of 12.4 °C, and a boundary temperature of
−8.4 °C is analyzed. The thermophysical properties of water and water-
Cu metal foam composite reported by Feng et al. [3] are utilized for
validation. The difference in the solidification height between numer-
ical analysis and experiment conducted by Feng et al. [3] is limited to
1.5 mm. The faster solidification is observed in numerical analysis at
the initial stage. The isothermal surface temperature of −8.4 °C is
imposed instantaneously in numerical analysis, while the steady-state
−8.4 °C temperature was obtained after 30 min of starting the ex-
periment, as reported by Feng et al. [3]. The difference in the solidifi-
cation height between the numerical analysis and experiment con-
ducted by Feng et al. [3] reduces to an insignificant difference after
30 min of the onset of the solidification process. The other source of
discrepancy is due to heat transfer thought the sidewalls during the
experiments, which are assumed to be adiabatic in numerical analysis.
Feng et al. [3] estimated the thermal energy transfer through the side
and top walls to be within 5.6% of the thermal energy transferred from
PCM-metal foam composite to the isothermal surface. The numerical
Fig. 2. Comparison of solidification height obtained using the numerical model
model closely represents the solidification of PCM with isothermal with the experimental results of Feng et al. [3].
boundary condition on one surface and other surfaces with adiabatic
boundary condition.
3. Results and discussion

2.3. Initial and Boundary conditions
The entire PCM-metal foam composite is assumed to be at an initial
temperature of Ti (= Tm + 1). This initial temperature is selected to
ensure all PCM is at the liquid state with limited superheating. The
bottom surface has an isothermal boundary condition, and three re-
maining walls have adiabatic boundary conditions. The three iso-
thermal boundary temperatures selected are 5 °C, 10 °C, and 25 °C
below the solidification temperature.
The numerical analysis is conducted for two different PCMs (i.e.,
water and n-octadecane), four different metal foams (i.e., Copper (Cu),
Aluminum (Al), Nickel (Ni), and Stainless Steel (SS)), three different
LHTES system lengths (i.e., 1 cm, 5 cm, and 10 cm), and three different
isothermal boundary temperatures (i.e., Tm-5 °C, Tm-10 °C, and Tm-
25 °C). Water and n-octadecane are selected as they have a multifold
difference in their thermal conductivities in solid phase and volumetric
energy storage capacities. As well as, water and n-octadecane have been

Table 2
Calculated Effective Thermal Conductivity of PCM-metal foam composites.
PCM Water n-octadecane
Porosity Cu Al Ni SS Cu Al Ni SS

1 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.26 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358

0.9901 3.6564 3.0222 2.6096 2.3211 1.7487 1.1145 0.7021 0.4154
0.9804 5.0257 3.7696 2.9526 2.3813 3.1122 1.8563 1.0396 0.4717
0.9709 6.3686 4.5029 3.2892 2.4405 4.4492 2.5836 1.3705 0.5269
0.9615 7.6861 5.2223 3.6196 2.4988 5.7606 3.3971 1.6951 0.5812
0.9524 8.9787 5.9283 3.944 2.5561 7.047 3.997 2.0136 0.6344
0.9434 10.2472 6.6213 4.2626 2.6126 8.3092 4.6837 2.3261 0.6867
0.9346 11.4922 7.3015 4.5754 2.6682 9.5479 5.3577 2.6329 0.738
0.9259 12.7145 7.9695 4.8827 2.723 10.7636 6.0192 2.9339 0.7884
0.9174 13.9146 8.6254 5.1846 2.777 11.9571 6.6686 3.2295 0.838
0.9091 15.0931 9.2697 5.4813 2.8302 13.1289 7.3062 3.5198 0.8867
0.9009 16.2508 9.9026 5.7729 2.8826 14.2797 7.9324 3.8049 0.9345

4
K. Venkateshwar, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482

extensively studied in the literature as PCM. The four metal foams are thermal capacity, remains the same. Therefore, the effect of decreasing
selected to cover a wide range of thermal conductivities of metal foam, metal foam porosity on solidification time is smaller at lower porosity.
and these metal foams have been extensively studied to enhance the Hence, it is pertinent that beyond a specific porosity, the decrease in the
performance of the LHTES system. The different lengths of the system solidification time with a decrease in porosity of metal foam tends to
are studied to analyze the effect of length on the heat transfer aug- cease. The further reduction in the porosity of metal foam will lead to
mentation upon the addition of metal foams. The average heat flux (q) the dominance of the effect of an increase in thermal resistance due to
is calculated based on the following equation: an increase in the length. Therefore, it is evident that the solidification
time will begin to increase with a decrease in porosity of metal foam
q = L s ρeff [hf,eff + C pl,eff (Ti − Tm) + Cps,eff (Tm − T̄)]/t s (14)
after a critical porosity.
where ts denotes the solidification time and T̄ denotes the average Fig. 3 also shows that the solidification time is reduced by ap-
temperature of the PCM-metal foam composite upon completion of the proximately 1750 s (i.e., approximately from 8744 to 6967 s) upon
solidification process. The solidification time of PCM inside an LHTES reducing the porosity of Cu foam approximately from 0.98 to 0.97. In
system varies with boundary and initial conditions, dimensions, ther- contrast, the solidification time is reduced by approximately 1800 s
mophysical properties of PCM. Therefore, the quantitative change in (i.e., approximately from 11,662 to 9857 s) upon reducing the porosity
the solidification time upon addition of metal foams will vary with of Al foam approximately from 0.98 to 0.97. The solidification time is
these parameters, making it difficult to compare the effect of the ad- lower in the presence of Cu foam compared to the Al foam of the same
dition of metal foam on solidification time in different LHTES systems. porosity. However, the change in the solidification time upon reducing
Thus, the effect of metal foam addition on solidification time is re- the porosity is smaller for Cu foam. Similarly, the change in the soli-
presented in dimensionless form. The solidification time fraction (ft, s dification time is greater in Ni foam than Cu foam below 0.96 porosity.
(ɛ)) is defined as the ratio of solidification times of PCM upon addition Therefore, it is evident that the effect of change in the porosity of metal
metal foam of porosity (ɛ) to that of pure PCM, given as: foam on the solidification process is reduced at a higher rate in higher
thermal conductivity metal foam. However, the change in the solidifi-
ft,s (ε ) = t s, ε /t s, ε = 1. (15)
cation time with porosity is remained higher in Cu foam than in SS
Similarly, the heat transfer factor (fq(ɛ)) is defined as the ratio of foam irrespective of porosity, due to multifold higher thermal con-
average heat flux during solidification of PCM upon addition metal ductivity.
foam of porosity (ɛ) to the average heat flux during solidification of
pure PCM, given as: 3.2. Effect of PCM
f q (ε ) = q ε /q ε = 1. (16)
Fig. 5 shows the solidification time of n-octadecane impregnated in
the metal foam of different porosities. The solidification time for n-
3.1. Effect of Metal foam octadecane is approximately 2.5 times higher than that of water, al-
though the volumetric thermal energy capacity of water is approxi-
Figs. 3 and 4 show the effect of porosity of metal foams on the so- mately 0.8 times higher than that of n-octadecane. Figs. 6 and 4 show
lidification time and average heat flux, respectively. The increase in that the average heat flux of water is approximately 5.2 times higher
effective thermal conductivity leads to a decrease in the thermal re- than that of n-octadecane, which correlates with the relationship be-
sistance, whereas an increase in the length of the system leads to an tween their thermal conductivities in solid-state. The thermal con-
increase in the thermal resistance. The addition of metal foams en- ductivity of water is 5.3 times higher than that of n-octadecane. The
hances the effective thermal conductivity, as well as, leads to an in- addition of 0.99 porosity Cu foam reduces the solidification time of n-
crease in the length inside a constant thermal capacity system. The octadecane by approximately 80%, whereas it reduces the solidification
variation in the solidification time and average heat flux with metal
foam porosity depends on the dominance of either effect of increase or
decrease in thermal resistance with a change in metal foam porosity.
Figs. 3 and 4 show that the reduction in the thermal resistance dom-
inates for all four metal foams; however, the extent of the effect of
dominance varies.
The addition of 0.99 porosity Cu foam reduces solidification time by
approximately 40%, whereas the addition of 0.99 porosity SS foam
reduces solidification time by less than 2%, as observed in Fig. 3. A
similar observation can be made from Fig. 4, the average heat flux in-
creased by approximately 60% upon addition of Cu foam in contrast to
less than 2% for SS foam. Therefore, the effect of the addition of metal
foam on the solidification process is more dominant for higher thermal
conductivity metal foam due to the higher enhancement in the effective
thermal conductivity.
Fig. 3 shows that the solidification time is reduced by approximately
3000 s upon reducing the Cu foam porosity approximately from 0.99 to
0.98, whereas the solidification time is reduced by approximately 200 s
upon reducing the porosity approximately from 0.91 to 0.90. Similarly,
the average heat flux is increased by approximately 500 W/m2 upon
reducing the Cu foam porosity from 0.99 to 0.98, whereas the change is
less than 400 W/m2 upon reducing the porosity approximately from
0.91 to 0.9, as observed in Fig. 4. The effect of change in the porosity of
metal foam on the solidification process is less at lower porosity. The
change in effective thermal conductivity with porosity is less at lower
porosity, as observed in Table 2. However, the increase in the length of Fig. 3. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on solidification time of
the LHTES system upon reducing metal foam porosity, to maintain the water.

5
K. Venkateshwar, et al.
Fig. 4. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on average heat flux during
solidification of water.
Fig. 5. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on the solidification time of n-
octadecane.
time of the water by less than 40%. The lower thermal conductivity of
n-octadecane implies that the addition of metal foam has a higher effect
on effective thermal conductivity. Therefore, the effect of adding metal
foam on the solidification process is significantly higher for n-octade-
cane than water. Hence, it is concluded that the effect of the addition of
metal foams is higher in PCMs with lower thermal conductivity.
The effect of the change in the porosity of metal foam on the soli-
dification process of n-octadecane is less at lower porosity, as observed
for water. As well as the effect of change in the porosity of metal foam
on the solidification process is reduced at a higher rate in higher
thermal conductivity metal foam. However, the decline is higher in n-
octadecane, specifically in higher thermal conductivity metal foam. The
6
Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482
Fig. 6. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on average heat flux during
solidification of n-octadecane.
change in the solidification time of n-octadecane upon reducing por-
osity is greater in Al and Ni foam compared to Cu foam below 0.99
porosity, compared to 0.98 and 0.96 porosities, respectively, as ob-
served for water. As well as, the change in the solidification time of n-
octadecane is greater in SS compared to Cu foam below 0.98 porosity,
while for water, it is not observed. Approximately 15% enhancement is
achieved in average heat flux upon addition of 0.99 porosity SS foam in
n-octadecane, compared to the use of 0.90 porosity SS foam to achieve
15% enhancement for water. Overall, the qualitative response of metal
foams in water and n-octadecane are identical.
3.3. Effect of Size of LHTES System
Figs. 7 and 8 show the solidification time and average heat flux,
respectively, inside the LHTES system with lengths of 5 cm and 10 cm,
with an isothermal surface temperature of (Tm − 10) . The increase in the
length of the LHTES system increases the mean distance between PCM
and isothermal boundary, thus reducing heat transfer. Therefore, the
heat transfer rate is inversely proportional to the length, as observed in
Fig. 8. The energy storage capacity of the LHTES system increases lin-
early with the length as the volume of the LHTES system increases.
Therefore, the solidification time will increase linearly with length if
the heat transfer rate is constant. However, as discussed above and
observed in Fig. 8, the heat transfer rate reduces linearly with the in-
crease in the length. Therefore, the solidification time is directly pro-
portional to the square of the length of the LHTES system, as observed
in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 further shows that the quantitative change in the solidifica-
tion time upon the addition of metal foam is significantly higher in the
longer LHTES system. The solidification time of water inside a 10 cm
long Cu foam enhanced LHTES system is reduced to less than the so-
lidification time of water inside a 5 cm long SS foam enhanced LHTES
system at lower porosity, as observed in Fig. 7. However, incorporation
of lower porosity Cu foam inside a 10 cm long system exhibits a higher
heat transfer rate when compared to a 5 cm long system with low
porosity Ni and SS foams, as observed in Fig. 8.
The quantitative enhancement in the average heat flux and the
decrease in the solidification time upon the addition of metal foams are
higher in the smaller and larger systems, respectively. The solidification
K. Venkateshwar, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482

on the solidification process is nearly independent of the length of the

LHTES system.
The thermal resistance is higher in the longer system due to the
larger mean distance between PCM and isothermal boundary.
Therefore, the quantitative change in the thermal resistance due to
thermal conductivity enhancement upon the addition of metal foam is
higher in the longer system. The increase in the length of the LHTES to
maintain the void volume available for PCM is higher in the longer
LHTES system than in the LHTES system. Therefore, the increase in
thermal resistance is also higher in the longer LHTES system. Thus, the
quantitative change in solidification time and average heat flux upon
the addition of metal foam is higher in the longer LHTES system.
However, the addition of metal foams enhances the effective thermal
conductivity by the same factor irrespective of the length of the LHTES
system. The change in the length expressed as a fraction of the original
length is also independent of the length of LHTES systems. Therefore,
the ratio of change in thermal resistance upon the addition of metal
foam to the thermal resistance of pure PCM is the same irrespective of
the length of LHTES systems. Hence, the effect of the addition of metal
foams on solidification time fraction and heat transfer factor is the same
irrespective of the length of the LHTES system.

3.4. Effect of Isothermal Boundary Temperature

Fig. 7. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on solidification time of water
inside LHTES systems of different lengths. Figs. 11 and 12 show the solidification time and average heat flux
during solidification of n-octadecane impregnated in different metal
foams, when different values of temperatures are imposed at the iso-
thermal boundary. The heat flux is directly proportional to the tem-
perature gradient, therefore increases with the difference in the soli-
dification temperature and isothermal boundary temperature, as
observed in Fig. 12. The solidification time is inversely proportional to
the heat transfer rate. Therefore, the solidification time is reduced with
the increase in the difference between solidification temperature and
isothermal boundary temperature.
Quantitatively the reduction in solidification time is higher upon the
addition of metal foam when the difference between the solidification
and isothermal boundary is smaller. The effect of the addition of metal
foam on average heat flux is higher when the difference between the

Fig. 8. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on average heat flux during
solidification of water inside LHTES systems of different lengths.

time of pure water is higher in the longer LHTES system, and the
average heat flux during solidification of pure water is higher in the
shorter LHTES system. Therefore, the quantitative change in the soli-
dification time and average heat flux upon addition of the metal foam
will be higher in longer and shorter LHTES system, respectively.
Therefore, it is significant to study the dimensionless change in solidi-
fication time and average heat flux upon the addition of metal foams in
LHTES systems of different lengths. Figs. 9 and 10 show the solidifi-
cation time fraction (ft,s) and heat transfer factor (fq), respectively,
calculated using Eqs. (15) and (16), respectively, during solidification
of water inside LHTES systems of different lengths. It is observed from Fig. 9. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on solidification time fraction
Figs. 9 and 10 the dimensionless effect of the addition of the metal foam during solidification of water inside LHTES systems of different lengths.

7
K. Venkateshwar, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482

Fig. 12. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on average heat flux during
Fig. 10. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on heat transfer factor solidification of n-octadecane at different boundary temperatures.
during solidification of water inside LHTES systems of different lengths.

addition of metal foams.

3.5. Effect of constant LHTES System volume

Fig. 15 shows the solidification time of n-octadecane in different

metal foams while keeping the volume of the PCM and total system
constant at different porosities. The solidification time of n-octadecane
is approximately 23% lower in the constant total volume system com-
pared to the constant thermal capacity system at 0.90 porosity. The
average heat flux is approximately 11% higher in the constant total
volume system compared to the constant thermal capacity system, as

Fig. 11. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on the solidification time of
n-octadecane at different boundary temperatures.

solidification and isothermal boundary is larger. The solidification time

of pure PCM is higher at smaller temperature difference, while heat flux
is higher at larger temperature difference. Therefore, a similar change
in the effective thermal conductivity yields a significant difference in
solidification time and average heat flux at smaller and larger tem-
perature differences, respectively. Figs. 13 and 14 show the solidifica-
tion time fraction (ft, s) and heat transfer factor (fq) during solidification
of n-octadecane impregnated in different metal foams with isothermal
boundary temperature of (Tm − 5) and (Tm − 25) . The isothermal
boundary temperature has a limited effect on the decrease in the soli- Fig. 13. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on solidification time frac-
dification time fraction and the increase in heat transfer factor upon the tion inside LHTES systems exposed to different boundary temperatures.

8
K. Venkateshwar, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482

4. Empirical Correlation

The solidification time of the PCM reduces upon the addition of

metal foam. The reduction in the solidification time of PCM depends on
the thermophysical properties of PCM and metal foam, length of the
LHTES system, metal foam porosity, and isothermal surface tempera-
ture, as discussed. The solidification time is observed to be inversely
proportional to the effective thermal conductivity and difference in the
solidification and isothermal boundary temperatures. The solidification
time is directly proportional to the thermal capacity and thermal re-
sistance. The addition of the metal foam has no effect on the isothermal
boundary temperature and solidification temperature, as well as on the
thermal capacity inside the constant thermal capacity system.
Therefore, the solidification time fraction depends only upon the ef-
fective thermal conductivity and change in the thermal resistance due
to the increase in the length, and can be estimated using the following
correlation:
t s, ε L
ft,s (ε ) = = ⎡ ⎛ ⎞/L⎤ [k s,pcm/k s,eff ].
t s, ε = 1 ⎣⎝ ε ⎠ ⎦ (17)
Substituting the correlation for effective thermal conductivity given
by Bhattacharya et al. [24], into Eq. (17) and simplifying yields
1−ε
ft,s (ε ) = ⎡kr + ⎤/[kr + Aε (1 − ε )(kr − 1)2].
⎣ ε ⎦ (18)
Fig. 14. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on heat transfer factor inside
LHTES systems exposed to different boundary temperatures. In Eq. (18), the parameter kr is defined as the ratio of thermal
conductivity of metal to the thermal conductivity of PCM, given by:
kr = kmf /k s,pcm. (19)
The thermal conductivity of the PCM in the solid-state is only
considered as the thermal energy transfer from the moving solid-liquid
interface to isothermal boundary takes place through the solid region,
thus having a significant contribution. The studies involving sig-
nificantly higher initial temperature will need to incorporate the effect
of thermal conductivity of PCM in both states, as the superheat sensible
heat will be transferred through the liquid state. The correlation for
effective thermal conductivity given by Bhattacharya et al. [24] may
not apply to all different porous mediums. Therefore, a suitable

Fig. 15. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on solidification time of n-

octadecane inside constant total volume and constant thermal capacity systems.

observed in Fig. 16. The increase in the thermal resistance of the con-
stant thermal capacity system due to an increase in length limits the
effect of thermal conductivity enhancement on heat transfer augmen-
tation. The thermal capacity of the constant total volume system re-
duces with an increase in the porosity of metal foam, while it remains
constant in the constant thermal capacity system. The reduction in
thermal capacity reduces the solidification time. Therefore, the differ-
ence in the effect of metal foam in constant total volume and the con-
stant thermal capacity systems is higher on solidification time than the Fig. 16. Effect of porosity of different metal foams on average heat flux during
average heat flux. solidification time of n-octadecane inside constant total volume and constant
thermal capacity systems.

9
K. Venkateshwar, et al.
correlation would be required to be substituted into Eq. (17) to obtain
the enhancement in solidification time.
The addition of metal foam inside a constant total volume system
has no effect on the length of the system, whereas it reduces the thermal
capacity of the system. Thus, in the constant total volume system, the
enhancement in the solidification time upon addition of metal foam
depends on effective thermal conductivity enhancement and reduction
in thermal capacity. Therefore, the correlation for solidification time
fraction inside a constant total volume system can be given by
t s, ε
ft,s (ε ) = = ε (k s,pcm/k s,eff ),
t s, ε = 1
ft,s (ε ) = [ε 2kr + ε (1 − ε )]/[kr + Aε (1 − ε )(kr − 1)2].
The discussion on the limitation of Eq. (18) is applicable to Eq. (21)
as well, while Eqs. (17) and (20) are general and can be applied to
different porous media. The heat transfer factor inside a constant
thermal capacity system can be approximated by the inverse of the
solidification time fraction. The correlation between the heat transfer
factor and solidification time fraction can be deduced by two ap-
proaches. First, the total amount of the thermal energy transferred is
the same, given that the sensible energy released in the metal foam is
insignificant compared to total thermal energy released by PCM.
Therefore, the solidification time fraction is reciprocal of the heat
transfer factor. Second, the conductive heat transfer rate is directly
proportional to the thermal conductivity and inversely proportional to
the length. The length of the system is required to be increased to
compensate for the lost void volume due to a decrease in porosity.
Therefore, the heat transfer factor in constant thermal capacity system
is given by:
qε
1 L
f q (ε ) = = = ⎡L/ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤ (k s,eff /k s,pcm).
q ε=1 ft,s (ε ) ⎣ ⎝ ε ⎠⎦
The effective thermal conductivity of the metal foam given by
Bhattacharya et al. [24] is substituted into Eq. (22) and simplified to
obtain
1−ε
f q (ε ) = [kr + Aε (1 − ε )(kr − 1)2]/ ⎡kr + ⎤.
⎣ ε ⎦
The heat transfer factor inside a constant total volume system is
directly proportional to the ratio of thermal conductivities of metal
foam to PCM (kr) and is given by Eqs. (24) and (25). Eq. (24) is in-
dependent of porosity, unlike Eq. (22) as the thermal resistance due to
the length of the system remains constant, and the heat transfer factor is
independent of thermal energy storage capacity.
qε
f q (ε ) = = k s,eff /k s,pcm
q ε=1
qε
f q (ε ) = = A [ε + (1 − ε )kr] + (1 − A)kr/[ε kr + (1 − ε )]
q ε=1
The correlations developed in the present study are validated using
numerical analysis for a wide range of thermal conductivity ratios (i.e.,
kr = 1 - 1000) at different Stefan numbers varying from 0.005 to 0.5.
The effect of metal foam porosity on the average heat flux and solidi-
fication time calculated using the empirical correlations and numerical
analysis are shown in Figs. 17–20. The difference is limited to be within
1% for the effect of metal foam on solidification time, while the dis-
crepancy is limited to 1.6% for the heat transfer enhancement. There-
fore, it can be stated that the correlations closely quantify the change in
the solidification time and average heat flux upon the addition of metal
foams for both constant total volume and constant PCM volume LHTES
system. Hence, the empirical correlations can be effectively used to
directly compute the enhancement upon the addition of metal foam,
eliminating the need for numerical or experimental analysis. The cor-
relations can also be used for solidification with vertical isothermal
Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482
with an initial temperature of PCM close to the solidification tem-
perature. The smaller higher initial temperature limits the convection,
and the heat transfer is predominantly through conduction.
The empirical correlations also provide valuable insight into the
effect of metal foam porosity on the solidification process. The corre-
lation for the solidification time fraction in the LHTES system with
constant PCM volume, given by Eq. (18), shows that the solidification
time approaches infinity as porosity approaches zero. As the porosity
approaches zero, the length of the LHTES system approaches infinity to
maintain constant volume for the PCM. Therefore, the thermal re-
sistance approaches infinity, and hence the solidification time. There-
(20)
fore, it is evident that the solidification time begins to increase after a
(21) critical porosity and approaches infinity. However, the solidification
time approaches zero as the porosity approaches zero inside a constant
total volume system, according to Eq. (21). As the porosity approaches
zero, it implies the volume of the PCM approaches to zero, and hence
the time required for solidification approaches to zero.
Eqs. (18) and (23) show that the solidification time increases and
the average heat transfer rate reduces as porosity decreases when kr is
1.0 inside the constant thermal capacity system, as observed in Figs. 17
and 19, respectively. On the contrary, the solidification time fraction
decreases, and the average heat transfer rate remains constant inside a
constant total volume system, as seen in Figs. 18 and 20, respectively.
The thermal conductivity ratio of metal foam to PCM (kr) of 1.0
signifies the thermal conductivity of metal foam and PCM is the same.
Therefore, the addition of metal foam has no effect on effective thermal
conductivity. The length of the LHTES system increases for the constant
thermal capacity system, thus increasing thermal resistance, leading to
an increase in the solidification time and reduction in the average heat
transfer rate. However, inside a constant total volume system, the vo-
lume of the PCM is reduced as porosity decreases, which reduces the
thermal capacity. The decrease in thermal capacity results in a reduc-
(22)
tion in the solidification time with a decrease in the porosity, even with
no enhancement in the effective thermal conductivity. The average heat
transfer rate inside the constant total volume system remains in-
dependent of porosity when kr is 1.0 because the thermal resistance
remains constant. The thermal resistance remains constant as both ef-
fective thermal conductivity and the mean distance between PCM and
(23)
(24)
(25)
Fig. 17. Comparison of empirical correlation and numerical results for solidi-
fication time fraction inside a constant thermal capacity system.
10
K. Venkateshwar, et al.
Fig. 18. Comparison of empirical correlation and numerical results for solidi-
fication time fraction inside a constant total volume system.
Fig. 19. Comparison of empirical correlation and numerical results for heat
transfer factor inside a constant thermal capacity system.
isothermal boundary remains constant. The above observations high-
light the necessity to maintain the thermal capacity of the LHTES
system while analyzing the effect of the addition of metal foam on
phase-change processes. The phase change duration can be reduced
without enhancement in the heat transfer, by reducing the volume of
the PCM, upon addition of metal foam. The increase in the solidification
time upon addition of metal foam with kr = 1 inside constant thermal
energy capacity system shows that a minimum kr is required to achieve
a reduction in solidification time. Hence, there is a critical porosity
beyond which the solidification time begins to increase, and this critical
porosity is a function of the thermal conductivity ratio of metal foam to
11
Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482
Fig. 20. Comparison of empirical correlation and numerical results for heat
transfer factor inside a constant total volume system.
PCM. The decrease in the average heat transfer rate upon addition of
metal foam with kr = 1 inside constant thermal energy capacity system
shows there is a critical thermal conductivity ratio to achieve an en-
hancement in the average heat transfer rate.
The above correlations for solidification time and average heat flux
during the solidification process can be employed to analyze unidirec-
tional melting processes by replacing the thermal conductivities in
solid-state with that in the liquid-state. As the heat transfer from the
isothermal boundary to the solid-liquid interface takes place through
the PCM in the liquid-state, the effect of the thermal conductivity in
solid-state is limited, expect when the sensible supercooled heat is
significant compared to total thermal energy capacity.
Conclusion
The solidification of metal foam-PCM composites is numerically
analyzed for two different PCMs (i.e., water and n-octadecane), in four
different metal foams (i.e., Copper, Aluminum, Nickel, and Stainless
Steel), with three different isothermal boundary temperatures (i.e., Tm-
5 °C, Tm-10 °C, and Tm-25 °C) inside the LHTES systems of three dif-
ferent lengths (1 cm, 5 cm, and 10 cm). The porosity is varied from 1 to
0.9 while maintaining the constant volume of PCM by increasing the
length of the LHTES system.
The enhancement in the average heat flux and decrease in the so-
lidification time is higher upon employing higher thermal conductivity
metal foam. The effect of change in porosity on the solidification time
and average heat flux reduces at lower porosity. The effect of the de-
creasing porosity of metal foam approaches saturation early in higher
thermal conductivity metal foam. Therefore, after specific porosity, the
change in the solidification time and average heat flux upon reducing
porosity is greater for lower thermal conductivity metal foam.
However, the overall enhancement in average heat flux and reduction
in solidification time upon employing metal foam is always more for
higher thermal conductivity metal foams.
The solidification time is observed to be proportional to the square
of the length of the LHTES system, and the average heat flux to be
inversely proportional to the length of the LHTES system. The quanti-
tative change in the heat transfer and solidification time upon the
K. Venkateshwar, et al.
addition of metal foam is greater in the smaller and larger LHTES
system, respectively. However, the solidification time fraction and heat
transfer factor are independent of the length of the LHTES system.
The solidification time is inversely proportional to the difference in
the solidification and boundary temperature, whereas the average heat
flux is directly proportional to the temperature difference. Although the
effect of the addition of metal foam on the change in solidification time
and the average heat transfer rate is more at lower and higher tem-
perature difference, respectively. The solidification time fraction and
heat transfer factor are independent of the difference in the boundary
and solidification temperature.
Correlations between the solidification time fraction and porosity
and thermal conductivity ratio of metal foam and PCM have been de-
rived. The correlations for both the cases, i.e., the constant total volume
and constant thermal capacity, have been developed. Similarly, the
correlations for heat transfer factor have been developed. The correla-
tions are validated with numerical results and found to be in good
agreement. The difference is limited within 1% and 1.6% for solidifi-
cation time fraction and heat transfer factor correlations, respectively.
The correlations developed can be used to analyze the solidification of
PCM in metal foam with a vertical isothermal wall if the heat transfer is
predominantly through conduction. The proposed correlations with
minor modifications discussed can also be used for analyzing the uni-
directional melting of PCM in metal foams.
Credit role
Kumar Venkateshwar: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Writing – Original Draft
Syeda Tasnim: Methodology, Instruction, Consultation, Review and
Editing
Hari Simha: Co-Supervision, Project Management, Review and
Editing
Shohel Mahmud: Supervision, Project Management, Funding
Acquisition, Formal Analysis, Writing- Review and Editing
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Funding
This work is partially supported by Globalink Graduate Fellowship
Program of MITACS (Mathematics of Information Technology and
Complex Systems) Canada (Funder ID: 10.13039/501100004489), and
Discovery Grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council (NSERC) Canada (Funder ID: 10.13039/501100000038).
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.est.2020.101482.
References
[1] B. Zalba, J.M. Marín, L.F. Cabeza, H. Mehling, Review on thermal energy storage
with phase change: materials, Heat Transf. Analy. Applic. (2003), https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1359-4311(02)00192-8.
[2] N.I. Ibrahim, F.A. Al-Sulaiman, S. Rahman, B.S. Yilbas, A.Z. Sahin, Heat transfer
enhancement of phase change materials for thermal energy storage applications: a
critical review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 74 (2017) 26–50, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2017.01.169.
[3] S. Feng, Y. Zhang, M. Shi, T. Wen, T.J. Lu, Unidirectional freezing of phase change
12
Journal of Energy Storage 30 (2020) 101482
materials saturated in open-cell metal foams, Appl. Therm. Eng 88 (2015) 315–321,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.09.055.
[4] X. Yang, S. Feng, Q. Zhang, Y. Chai, L. Jin, T.J. Lu, The role of porous metal foam on
the unidirectional solidification of saturating fluid for cold storage, Appl. Energy
194 (2017) 508–521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.050.
[5] A. Atal, Y. Wang, M. Harsha, S. Sengupta, Effect of porosity of conducting matrix on
a phase change energy storage device, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf 93 (2016) 9–16,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.09.033.
[6] X. Yang, W. Wang, C. Yang, L. Jin, T.J. Lu, Solidification of fluid saturated in open-
cell metallic foams with graded morphologies, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf 98 (2016)
60–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.03.023.
[7] A. Siahpush, J. O'Brien, J. Crepeau, Phase change heat transfer enhancement using
copper porous foam, J. Heat Transfer 130 (2008) 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.2928010.
[8] R. Rybár, M. Beer, M. Kaľavský, Development of heat accumulation unit based on
heterogeneous structure of MF/PCM for cogeneration units, J. Energy Storage 21
(2019) 72–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2018.11.004.
[9] J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor, Solidification enhancement in a triplex-tube latent heat
energy storage system using nanoparticles-metal foam combination, Energy 126
(2017) 501–512, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.060.
[10] M. Esapour, A. Hamzehnezhad, A.A. Rabienataj Darzi, M. Jourabian, Melting and
solidification of PCM embedded in porous metal foam in horizontal multi-tube heat
storage system, Energy Convers. Manag 171 (2018) 398–410, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2018.05.086.
[11] V. Joshi, M.K. Rathod, Thermal transport augmentation in latent heat thermal en-
ergy storage system by partially filled metal foam: a novel configuration, J. Energy
Storage 22 (2019) 270–282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.02.019.
[12] S. Krishnan, J.Y. Murthy, S.V. Garimella, A two-temperature model for solid-liquid
phase change in metal foams, J. Heat Transfer 127 (2005) 995–1004 https://
doi.org/10.1115/1.2010494.
[13] J. Yang, L. Yang, C. Xu, X. Du, Numerical analysis on thermal behavior of solid-
liquid phase change within copper foam with varying porosity, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf 84 (2015) 1008–1018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.
01.088.
[14] E.I. Mohamed Moussa, M. Karkri, A numerical investigation of the effects of metal
foam characteristics and heating/cooling conditions on the phase change kinetic of
phase change materials embedded in metal foam, J. Energy Storage 26 (2019)
100985, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.100985.
[15] R. Baby, C. Balaji, Experimental investigations on thermal performance enhance-
ment and effect of orientation on porous matrix filled PCM based heat sink, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transf 46 (2013) 27–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
icheatmasstransfer.2013.05.018.
[16] Z. Yang, S.V. Garimella, Melting of phase change materials with volume change in
metal foams, J. Heat Transfer 132 (2010) 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4000747.
[17] Z. Chen, D. Gao, J. Shi, Experimental and numerical study on melting of phase
change materials in metal foams at pore scale, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf 72 (2014)
646–655, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.01.003.
[18] K. Venkateshwar, S. Ebadi, H. Simha, S. Mahmud, Influence of pore density and
porosity on the melting process of bios-based nano-phase change materials inside
open-cell metal foam, J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 11 (2019) 1–12 https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.4043662.
[19] S.H. Tasnim, R. Hossain, S. Mahmud, A. Dutta, Convection effect on the melting
process of nano-PCM inside porous enclosure, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf 85 (2015)
206–220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.01.073.
[20] Z. Dai, K. Nawaz, Y.G. Park, J. Bock, A.M. Jacobi, Correcting and extending the
Boomsma-Poulikakos effective thermal conductivity model for three-dimensional,
fluid-saturated metal foams, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf 37 (2010) 575–580,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2010.01.015.
[21] Y. Yao, H. Wu, Z. Liu, Pore Scale Investigation of Heat Conduction of High Porosity
Open-Cell Metal Foam/Paraffin Composite, J. Heat Transfer 139 (2017) 1–11
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036526.
[22] X.H. Yang, J.J. Kuang, T.J. Lu, F.S. Han, T. Kim, A simplistic analytical unit cell
based model for the effective thermal conductivity of high porosity open-cell metal
foams, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys (2013) 46, https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/46/
25/255302.
[23] X.H. Yang, J.X. Bai, H. Bin Yan, J.J. Kuang, T.J. Lu, T. Kim, An Analytical Unit Cell
Model for the Effective Thermal Conductivity of High Porosity Open-Cell Metal
Foams, Transp. Porous Media 102 (2014) 403–426, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11242-014-0281-z.
[24] A. Bhattacharya, V.V. Calmidi, R.L. Mahajan, Thermophysical properties of high
porosity metal foams, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf 45 (2002) 1017–1031, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0017-9310(01)00220-4.
[25] V.R. Voller, M. Cross, N.C. Markatos, An enthalpy method for convection/diffusion
phase change, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng 24 (1987) 271–284 https://doi.org/
10.1002/nme.1620240119.
[26] P.R. Chakraborty, Enthalpy porosity model for melting and solidification of pure-
substances with large difference in phase specific heats, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf 81 (2017) 183–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2016.12.
023.
[27] S.V. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, CRC Press, 1980 https://
doi.org/10.13182/nse81-a20112.