Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Thermal modelling of a flat plate solar collector with latent heat storage T
validated with experimental data in outdoor conditions
⁎
Mauricio Carmonaa, , Mario Palaciob
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Montería, Colombia

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

Keywords: This paper presents a thermal modelling strategy to evaluate the performance of latent heat storage technique in
Flat plate solar collector a flat plate solar collector (FPSC) with integrated phase change material (PCM). A thermal dynamic model is
Thermal model developed based in simplified semi empirical correlations and includes heat transfer by conduction, convection
Experimental validation and radiation in each part of the device. Melting process of the PCM is described with energy balances for a set of
Thermal energy storage
discrete spatial layers to calculate temperature and liquid fraction. The model is validated with experimental
PCM
data gathered under outdoor conditions from a real flat plate solar collector prototype modified to incorporate
PCM containers between the absorber plate and the insulation. As result of the validation process, the model
shows the capability to estimate the global thermal performance of the device with good accuracy compared
with the experimental measurements and using minimal computational resources. Comparisons between esti-
mations of the model and test data are presented for 20 days, real conditions include days with both high and
low incident radiation and two different PCMs. Predicted temperature of glass cover, absorber plate, water outlet
and PCM are obtained with a maximum error of 4.62%. The model was employed to analyze the collector
thermal performance. Temperatures, heat transfer, stored energy of collector main components and liquid
fraction of PCM are estimated and analyzed in two cases: under clear sky condition without strong changes of
solar radiation and under scattered weather with solar radiation variation. Two PCMs with different melting
points (45 °C and 60 °C) are analyzed and compared with results without PCM by using the model to evaluate
their performance.

1. Introduction Chaurasiya, 2017; Souayfane et al., 2016).

For solar thermal conversion, specifically solar water heating sys-
tems, there are two main strategies of energy storage clearly identified:
sensible heat storage and latent heat storage (Abhat, 1983; Chandel and
Agarwal, 2017; Farid et al., 2004; Gil et al., 2010; Kuravi et al., 2013;
Pelay et al., 2017; Siva Reddy et al., 2013; Tian and Zhao, 2013). In
sensible heat storage, the total energy accumulated is proportional to
the mass of accumulation material, the specific heat and its tempera-
ture. This direct relationship with the mass makes the systems of ac-
cumulation by sensible heat large, especially if the storage material is
the work fluid (Fazilati and Alemrajabi, 2013; Gil et al., 2010). On the
other hand, in the storage by latent heat energy is accumulated through
phase change materials. The main advantage over sensible heat storage
is that latent heat systems accumulates more energy per unit mass and
can store or transfer heat with small changes in temperature (Islam and
Morimoto, 2018; Nkwetta and Haghighat, 2014; Pandey and
In terms of studies with PCM the scientific references are abundant,
Abhat (1983), Zalba et al. (2003), Sharma et al., (2009) Liu, Saman, &
Bruno, (2012), Cárdenas & León, (2013) and Nkwetta & Haghighat,
(2014) reviewed the available materials, modeling strategies and
technological applications of PCMs. Farid, Khudhair, Razack, & Al-
Hallaj, (2004) and Jurkowska & Szczygieł,(2016) have studied the
scientific works of microencapsulated phase change materials, their
applications, thermal properties and available methods of micro-
encapsulation. Other authors have analyzed the applications of these
materials. For instance, Kuravi et al.(2013); Pelay et al. (2017); Prieto
et al. (2018) have reported different efficiency analyzes of thermal and
exergy behavior of PCMs applied to concentrated solar power. On the
other hand, Kenisarin & Mahkamov, (2007) included methods of heat
transfer improvement in solar heating systems with thermal storage by
latent heat. Pandey & Chaurasiya, (2017) and Khan et al. (2018) ana-
lyzed the current strategies of design and analysis of FPSC with PCMs.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mycarmona@uninorte.edu.co (M. Carmona).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.11.056
Received 8 August 2018; Received in revised form 1 October 2018; Accepted 21 November 2018
Available online 29 November 2018
0038-092X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

Nomenclature σ stefan-Boltzmann constant (W/m K4)

τ transmittance (–)
A area (m2)
CP specific heat capacity (J/kg K) Subscripts
E internal energy (J)
g GRAVITY (m/s2) A ambient
G solar radiation (W) air air gap
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C) C glass cover
k conductivity (W/m°C) conv convection
LH latent heat (J/kg) I water inlet
Lair thickness of the air gap (m) ins insulation
m mass (kg) lam laminar flow
mdot mass flow (kg/s) M melting point
Nu Nusselt number (–) O water outlet
Pr Prandalt number (–) P absorber plate
Q̇ heat flux (W) PCM phase change material
q solar radiation (W/m2) rad radiation
Re Reynolds number (–) ref reflected solar radiation
T temperature (°C) S solar radiation
t time (h) T global radiation
V velocity (m/s) tra transmitted solar radiation
W uncertainty turb turbulent flow
U useful heat
Greek symbols w work fluid (water)
wind external air
α absorptance (–)
α' thermal diffusivity (m2/s) Acronyms
β volumetric expansion coefficient (–)
ε emissivity (–) FPSC flat plat solar collector
η accumulated Efficiency (%) PCM phase change material
λ liquid fraction of PCM (–)
ν cinematic viscosity (m2/s)

Numerical modelling of FPSCs with PCM as thermal energy storage
has been an important approach in current research. Haillot et al.
presented separately the selection (Haillot et al. 2011) and numerical
evaluation (Haillot et al. 2012) of an integrated solar collector in-
cluding a compressed expanded natural graphite and a PCM. The pro-
posed model was validated with experimental data under summer and
winter meteorological conditions. Results obtained allow to estimate
the potential of compressed expanded natural graphite and different
PCMs, to increase the efficiency of a FPSC. Padovan and Manzan (2014)
employed a multi-objective genetic optimization of an external storage
tank. The main result obtained was that the PCM does not have the
major impact for this application. From this result, it can be considered
that employing PCM external to the collector is not a practical method
to improve the performance of the system. Furthermore, novel storage
strategies with PCM has been reported, Serale et al. (2014, 2016)
conducted numerical studies on the effectiveness of incorporating mi-
croencapsulated PCM as heat transfer fluid in a FPSC. Teamah et al
(2018, 2017) presented an different approach for evaluate the ad-
vantages of PCMs in solar domestic hot water systems. A hybrid PCM/
water tank is analyzed. The solar fraction of a hybrid PCM/water tank
was compared with an identical tank with only water as thermal sto-
rage. It was concluded that the size of the storage tank must be set
properly in order to ensure the PCM performance. They found that
higher storage volume reduces the PCM effect and eventually reach the
same performance as a conventional storage tank. Shirinbakhsh et al.
(2018) analyzed simultaneously the supply demand, the solar heater
configuration, and the integration of PCMs on a FPSC. Allouhi et al.
(2018) developed a numerical optimization of a FPSC with a PCM layer
under the plate. The liquid fraction of the PCM was analyzed for dif-
ferent mass flow conditions and for various thickness of the PCM layer.
Despite the numerous numerical works, the modeling of a flat plate
solar collector with PCM is still difficult by several aspects. First of all,
in order to make an accurate evaluation of these devices it is necessary
to analyze several days of operation. This results in long times of
computational demand. Secondly, it must be considered that, during all
the analysis, the collector is exposed to dynamic operating conditions
with high variability. These include incident solar radiation, ambient
temperature, wind speed and possible disturbances in the inlet tem-
perature. Therefore, it is necessary that the phenomenon be analyzed in
a transitory regime, since modeling in a stable state is incompatible
with the conditions to which the collector is exposed (Hamed et al.,
2017). On the other hand, reduced models of FPSC represent a novel
research topic due to its low computational cost and ease to analyze
different case studies (Raul et al., 2018). In terms of solar air heating
Deng et al. (2016) reported a dynamic model of a FPSCs without energy
storage. The model was developed in order to predict the behavior of a
FPSC in different scenarios. Abuşka and Şevik (2017) presented an
energy, exergy, economic and environmental analysis of the experi-
mental results of flat-plate and V-groove solar air collectors. A reduced
model was developed to achieve the analysis, however, energy storage
was not included. In terms of water heating Dagdougui et al. (2011)
presented a FPSC heat transfer modeling to analyze the performance of
different design of FPSC without PCM. Nikolić and Lukić (2015) pre-
sented a reduced model to evaluated the thermal performance of a
double exposure flat-plate solar collector without latent heat storage.
Despite works above, few works can be referenced as direct background
of reduced models that include latent heat storage and experimental
validation. Carmona et al. (2015) presented a reduced thermal model
for a FPSC with latent heat storage, their model was used to identify
significant influence variables in the process. This work was limited to
compare their obtained results with the conventional FPSC achieved by
Dagdougui et al. (2011), however, the model was not validated with

621
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

experimental data or with an adequate reference of similar technology. • Heat transfer is considered as one dimensional and the collector
Similarly, Hamed & Brahim (2015) reported a theoretical thermal main parts are considered as lumped systems.
model of a FPSC with PCM without experimental validation, or com-
parison with scientific references. Bouadila, et al. (2014,2013) ad- 3.2. Model
dressed an energy analysis model to evaluate their experimental results
of a solar air heater (2013) and a FPSC (2014) with PCM under the The model is based in the heat transfer analysis of each main
absorber plate, nevertheless, the model does not estimate the tem- component: glass cover, absorber plate, and PCM containers. The heat
peratures of the main components of the system and was not validated transfer terms involved in the thermal model are shown in Fig. 4.
under dynamic operating conditions. The energy balance in the glass cover is given by:
It is possible to observe that the previous works presented as direct ∂TC
background, the thermal behavior of the system, interactions of the QṠ , C + Q̇ P, rad + Q̇P, conv − QĊ , rad − QĊ , conv = mC CP, C
∂t (1)
main components, experimental validation with real outdoor condi-
tions, estimation of the liquid fraction of the PCM in time and an where
analysis of the charge-discharge cycles of the PCM have not been in- QṠ , C = αC AC qṠ (2)
cluded in a comprehensive thermal model on a FPSC for domestic hot
water systems (DHWS) application. In the present paper, a reduced QĊ , conv = AC hC , conv (TC − TA) (3)
thermal model is developed to analyze the performance of FPSC with an
integrated latent heat unit. The model was experimentally validated QĊ , rad = AC hC, rad (TC − TA) (4)
and subsequently employed to address a heat transfer analysis of the
QṖ , conv = AC hP, conv (TP − TC ) (5)
collector. The solar radiation, wind velocity, ambient temperature and
initial conditions are considered time-dependent input variables. The QṖ , rad = AC hP, rad (TP − TC ) (6)
model estimates the temperatures of water outlet, glass cover, absorber
plate and PCM containers. Furthermore, the model has the capacity to where TA , TC and TP are the ambient, cover and absorber plate
estimate parameters and variables that are difficult or impossible to temperature respectively. The heat transfer coefficients are given by:
determine experimentally, such as the energy stored or supplied by the (Duffie and Beckman, 2013; Hamed et al., 2014; Incropera and DeWitt,
PCM, heat fluxes between components, liquid fraction of the PCM. In 1990):
addition, a heat transfer analysis has been accomplished to estimate the The heat transfer coefficient due to convection at the top of cover
thermal behavior of each main part of the collector and PCM. In order due to wind is given by (Bouadila et al, 2013):
to demonstrate the potentialities of the developed model, a comparative hC , conv = 5.7 + 3.8Vwind (7)
study of the estimated yield of the device under two different radiation
conditions, with two different PCM and without PCM was carried out. The radiation heat transfer coefficient
hC, rad = σε (TC + Tsky )[(TC )2 + (Tsky )2] (8)
2. Experimental set up
where ε is emissivity, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and Vwind is the
For this work we used the solar collector with integrated thermal wind velocity.
storage proposed by Carmona et al (2015) and tested by Palacio and The radiation heat transfer coefficient between the absorber and the
Carmona (2018). The device consists of a traditional flat plate collector glasses can be calculated from the equation (Duffie and Beckman,
modified to house microencapsulated PCM under its absorber plate. A 2013):
schematic representation of the collector can be seen in Fig. 1. The
⎡ T +T ⎤
collector prototype was designed to operate in real outdoor conditions hP, rad = σ ((TC )2 + (TP )2) ⎢ 1 C 1 P ⎥
and is built with commercial components. The components of the col- ⎢ + ε − 1⎥
⎣ εC P ⎦ (9)
lector can be observed Fig. 2 and its dimensions and materials will be
presented below in Table 1. The convection heat transfer coefficient between the absorber and
The solar collector was designed to store 4 PCM containers under the glass cover can be calculated by the Nusselt number given by
the absorber plate. The amount of PCM poured in each (Incropera et al., 2011):
400 × 400 × 30 mm container was 3.35 kg. kair Nuair
hP, conv =
The collector was integrated into an experimental set-up as shown Lair (10)
in Fig. 3. For the validation process of the model, type K temperature
+
sensors were installed in the main components of the collector. The [1 − 1708(sen1.8φ)1.6] ⎡ 1708 ⎤
Nuair = 1 + 1.44 1−
operating conditions were monitored by a weather station, equipped Racosφ ⎢
⎣ Racosφ ⎥
⎦
with global radiation pyranometer, ambient temperature sensor and an 1 +
anemometer. Water flow was fixed in 0.2 L/min trough a bypass rota- ⎡ Racosφ ⎞ 3 ⎤
+ ⎢⎛ − 1⎥
meter. ⎝ 5830 ⎠ (11)
⎣ ⎦
where φ = 0° is the inclination angle of the solar collector. The su-
3. Thermal model
perscript “+” indicates that if the quantity in the bracket is negative, it
should set equal zero.
3.1. Assumptions

Model is based in the following assumptions:

• Model invokes the quasi-equilibrium statement for the non-sta-

tionary state.
• Melting process is considered mainly by conduction due to the
heating from the top to the bottom
• Heat losses through the collector walls are negligible compared with Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the Solar Collector.
other terms in energy equation

622
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

Fig. 2. Detailed view of the Flat Plate Solar Collector.

Table 1 be set equal to zero.

Design specifications and thermophysical properties used in the model. The Rayleight number Ra is defined by this equation:
Collector components Specifications gβ [TP − Tc ] Lair 3
Ra =
υα' (12)
Glass cover
Specific heat capacity 837 (J/kg K) where Lair is the thickness of the air gap between the glass cover and
Density 2490 (kg/m3)
absorber plate. The energy balance in the absorber plate is:
Emisivity 0.89
Absorptance 0.06 ∂TP
Dimensions 0.98 × 0.98 × 0.004 (m) QṠ , P − Q̇P, rad − Q̇P, conv − QU̇ − Q̇PCM = mP CP, P
∂t (13)
Absorber plate (Copper black painted)
Specific heat capacity 385 (J/kg K)
where QU̇ is the useful heat transfer to the work fluid, Q̇PCM is the
Density 8960 (kg/m3) charge or discharge heat transfer of the PCM. The absorbed solar ra-
Emissivity 0.05 diation QṠ , P is defined as:
Effective Transmittance-absorptance 0.55
Dimensions 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.001 (m) QṠ , P = AP (τα ) qṠ (14)
Cover air gap 0.05 (m)
Number of tubes 9 The useful heat is calculated as follows:
Tubes diameter 0.0127 (m)
QU̇ = Aw h w (TP − Tw ) (15)
Work Fluid (Water)
Specific heat capacity 4183 (J/kg K) where Aw is the total contact area between the pipes and water. The
Density 996.7 (kg/m3) convection heat transfer coefficient in the tubes is:
Thermal Conductivity 0.58 (W/m °C)
Cinematic viscosity 5.48E−7 (m2/s) Nu w
hw = kw
Thermal diffusivity 1.39E−7 (m2/s) Dch (16)
PCM Containers (Paraffin wax)
where Dch is the is the hydraulic diameter. The Nusselt correlation
Contact thermal conductance 12 (W/m2 °C)
Melting point 60 (°C) for laminar and turbulent flow is defined as (Incropera and DeWitt,
Latent heat of fusion 210 000 (J/kg) 1990):
Density 934 (kg/m3)
Thermal Conductivity 3.30 (W/m °C)
Nu w, lam = 3.66 (17)
Container dimensions 0.4 × 0.4 × 0.03 (m) 4
Number of containers 4 Nu w, turb = 0.023Re5 Prw 0.4 (18)
Thermal insulation (Poliurethane) Dch is the hydraulic diameter and Nuw is the Nusselt number for fluids in
Conductivity 0.028 (W/m °C)
pipes. For low values of Reynolds (Re < 100 ) the heat transfer is as-
Thickness 0.05 (m)
sumed as conduction (Nu w = 1)
The outlet water temperature can be calculated through the fol-
lowing expression:

Fig. 3. Experimental set-up.

623
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

Fig. 4. Heat transfer terms involved in the thermal model.

QU̇ = mC
̇ P (TO − TI ) (19) To model the heat transfer of the PCM it is discretized in nPCM
layers. The energy balance for the upper layer of PCM (layer PCM, 1) is
The heat transfer between the absorber plate and the PCM con- given by:
tainers is defined as follows:
̇
QPCM ̇
− QPCM ̇
,1:2 = EPCM ,1 (21)
̇
QPCM = APCM hPCM (TP − TPCM ) (20)
The energy balance for an intermediate layer of PCM (layer PCM , j )
where hPCM is the thermal contact conductance between the absorber is calculated by:
plate and the upper layer of PCM. This parameter was obtained by using ̇
QPCM ̇ ̇
, j − 1: j − QPCM , j : j + 1 = EPCM , j (22)
experimental data in real outdoor conditions to solve the energy bal-
ance equation in a complete day of test. Since the contact conductance The energy balance for the lower layer of PCM (layer PCM , nPCM ) is
depends on the nature of the surfaces, the obtained value can be used to given by:
evaluate the collector while the absorber plate and the PCM containers
Q̇PCM , nPCM − 1: nPCM − Qbot
̇ = EPCM
̇ , nPCM (23)
do not change.

Fig. 5. Model structure in Simulink.

624
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

kins
hins =
Lins (30)
The accumulated efficiency ηof the collector from t = a to t = b can
be calculated as:
b
∑a QU̇ Δt
η= b
× 100%
∑a AC qṠ Δt (31)

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Model implementation

(A)
42.2
The model was evaluated in MATLAB/Simulink and the general
structure is shown in Fig. 5.
42.0 The Input variables for the model are:
Temperature at t=19h (°C)

41.8
● Solar radiation
41.6 ● Wind Velocity
41.4
● Ambient temperature
● Water inlet temperature
41.2 ● Water inlet volumetric flow rate
41.0
Output variables are:
40.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
● Temperatures: Glass cover, Absorber plate, Water outlet, PCM
Number of layers
● Heat fluxes: Radiation and convection losses from the plate to the
(B)
glass cover and from the glass cover to the ambient, useful heat,
Fig. 6. Independence analysis of PCM layers (A) Simulations for different PCM-stored heat
number of PCM Layers (B) Temperature at 19:00 h for different number of ● Liquid fraction for the PCM
layers.
Initial conditions are the temperatures of glass cover, absorber
In equations above, QPCM ̇ , j − 1: j is the heat transfer from a superior plate, water outlet and PCM. In order to take the same conditions for
layer and Q̇PCM , j : j + 1 is the heat transferred to a lower layer. Qbot ̇ is the the validation process, these values are taken from experimental values.
heat transfer from the PCM to the ambient. In order to select the number of PCM layers an analysis of the spatial
The total energy stored in the PCM is given by: independence was carried out. The PCM temperature was simulated
nPCM with different number of layer under typical operating conditions.
̇ ,T =
EPCM ∑ ̇ ,j
EPCM Results of this analysis are presented in Fig. 6. After 80 layers, the
j=1 (24) difference of the estimated temperature is less than 0.1 °C, at this point
the estimations could be considered converged.
The energy stored in each PCM layer is distributed in sensible and
latent heat as it is shown in:
4.2. Model validation
̇ , j = EPCM
EPCM ̇ , j, sen + EPCM
̇ , j, lat (25)
The model was validated using a 20-days test campaign. In Fig. 7
where the cumulative solar radiation is shown along with a comparison of the
∂TPCM , j cumulative useful heat obtained experimentally and the estimated by
̇ , j, sen = mPCM , j CP, PCM
EPCM the model. Fig. 8 shows the efficiencies calculated from both experi-
∂t (26)
mental and model data. According to these results the model estimated
∂λj the efficiency of the collector with mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.12%
̇ , j, lat = mPCM , j LHPCM
EPCM
∂t (27)
7
Solar radiation
where λj is the liquid fraction of the layer j of PCM, defined as: Useful heat (Exp)
Accumulated Heat (kWh/day)

6 Useful heat (Mod)

mPCM , j, liquid mPCM , j − mPCM , j, solid
λj = = 5
mPCM , j mPCM , j (28)
4
If the temperature of PCM is not equal to the phase change tem-
̇ , j, lat does not appear in
perature (TPCM , j ≠ TM ), the latent heat term EPCM 3
∂λj
the energy stored in the layer (Eq. (25)), in this case ∂t = 0 . 2
In contrast, if the temperature of PCM is equal to the phase change
1
̇ , j, sen does not
temperature (TPCM , j = TM ), the sensible heat term EPCM
∂TPCM , j 0
appear in the energy stored in Eq. (25), for this case ∂t = 0 .
0 5 10 15 20
Finally, the heat transfer from the insulation to the environment is:
Day
̇ = APCM hins (TPCM , nPCM − TA)
Qins (29) Fig. 7. Accumulated solar radiation and Accumulated useful heat
where hins is the conductance through the insulation: (Experimental and Model).

625
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

40 70
Efficiency (Exp)
Efficiency (Model)

30
60
Efficiency (%)

Predicted Temperature (°C)

20

50
10

40
0
0 5 10 15 20
Day Water outlet
30 Glass cover
Fig. 8. Efficiency model vs experimental. Absorber plate
PCM 1st layer

and the cumulative useful heat with a MAE of 0.11 kWh/day. 20

Beside day-to-day comparison, the model was validated minute-by- 20 30 40 50 60 70
minute for the temperatures of each main component of the solar col- Observed Temperature (°C)
lector. The plots in Fig. 9 show both measured and estimated tem-
peratures for the glass cover, the absorber plate, the water outlet and Fig. 10. Observed vs. predicted temperatures.
the first layer of the PCM, for the 20 days of the experimental campaign.
The good adjustment between the model and experimental data can be 2 2 2
WRi = ⎛ ∂Ri w1 ⎞ + ⎛ ∂Ri w2 ⎞ +⋯+⎛ ∂Ri wn ⎞
appreciated in Fig. 10, where observed vs. predicted results by the ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ ∂x1 ⎠ ⎝ ∂x2 ⎠ ⎝ ∂x n ⎠ (32)

model are compared. The temperatures for the main components of the
collector are estimated with a MAE of 1.7 °C and a MAPE of 4.62%
4.3. Uncertainty analysis
Since the model has input variables taken from experimental mea-
surements it is necessary to analyze the uncertainty in outlet variables
generated by the instrumentation devices. The uncertainties are cal-
culated according to (Hollman, 2012):
where WRi are the uncertainties of outlet variables Ri and w1, w2, ⋯, wn
are the individual uncertainties in the input variables x1, x2 , ⋯, x n . The
input variables considered were the ambient temperature, solar radia-
tion, water flow and inlet temperature. Individual uncertainities of
input variables are shown in Table 2. Outlet variables considered and
its uncertainty results are presented in Table 3.
4.4. Using the model to assess the performance of the solar collector
The collector performance was valuated using two scenarios: Case1:

Temp (°C) Experimental Model

60
Glass Cover

50
40
30
20
70
Absorber plate

60
50
40
30
55
50
Water outlet

45
40
35
30
25
60
PCM 1st Layer

50
40
30
20
0 5 10 15 20
Day
Fig. 9. Validation of estimated temperatures.

626
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

Table 2 Charge and discharge periods can also be identified from Fig. 15,
Uncertainty of input variables. which present plots for the temperatures of the absorber plate and each
Input variables Uncertainty Units layer of the discretization of the PCM. The charge of the PCM occurs
when the temperature of the plate is higher than the temperature of the
Solar radiation ± 5% (W/m2) first layer of the PCM while the discharge takes place once the tem-
Wind velocity ± 5% (m/s)
perature of the plate is lower than the temperature of the first layer of
Water inlet temperature ±1 (°C)
Ambient temperature ± 0.3 (°C)
the PCM. It is also shown in this figure, the instants in which the layers
Water flow 3% (L/min) of PCM reach their fusion point of 60 °C, for case 1 the first layer of PCM
reach its fusion temperature of 60 °C at 12:15 h and hold that tem-
perature for 4 h. For the case 2, charge process was interrupted by the
Table 3 diminishing radiation at 12:30 h, so the first layer of PCM reached the
Uncertainty analysis results. fusion temperature at 13:05 h. For both cases, the inferior layers of the
Outlet variables Notation Uncertainty Units PCM do not to store energy as latent heat.
The distinction between heat storage by sensible or latent heat can
Temperature of glass cover WTC 1.34 °C be easily observed in Fig. 16, which shows a plot for the liquid fraction
Temperature of absorber plate WTP 2.89 °C of the first layer of the PCM over time. For case 1, the latent heat sto-
Temperature of water outlet WTO 1.26 °C
rage starts in the first layer at 12:15 h reaching a maximum value of
Temperature of PCM WTPCM 2.65 °C
liquid fraction of 0.15, at 14:15 h. For case 2, fluctuations in solar ra-
Accumulated Efficiency Wη 0.282 %
diations and the subsequent interruption of charge at 12:30 h, caused
the PCM to store latent heat only for a few minutes in the first layer.
In both cases, the liquid fraction value diminishes before the dis-
clear-sky condition with few disturbances on solar radiation: Case 2:
charge period of the PCM. This suggest, that the energy stored in the
cloudy condition with variable solar radiation. Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 show
first layer as latent heat, is transferred to the inferior layers of PCM
the experimental conditions for both scenarios. Measured values for
instead of being transferred to the absorber plate. This assumption can
temperature, wind velocity and solar radiation are shown, on the left-
be verified from Fig. 17, which shows the heat fluxes between the layers
side for the clear-sky condition while on the right-side for the cloudy
of PCM. Positive heat fluxes indicate the path toward the inferior layers
condition. The first scenario has a soft radiation curve with wind ve-
of the PCM, while negative values indicate that the heat flux ascends in
locities under 4.5 m/s. On the second case, wind velocities are higher,
the direction of the absorber plate. For both cases it is observed that
reaching 6.3 m/s, and the radiation varies strongly, decreasing even
before discharge, the heat flux from the first layer to the second layer of
60% of its maximum value in a few minutes at 12:30 h. For both cases,
the PCM is higher than the transferred from the absorber plate to the
ambient- and water inlet temperature are very similar among them.
first layer. This explains the diminishing of liquid fraction before dis-
Fig. 13 show the temperatures and estimated by the model and the
charge. In Fig. 17 it is also shown, that during the first hour of discharge
experimental data for the absorber plate, the glass cover and the water
in case 1, the heat flux between the absorber plate and the first layer of
outlet in the two cases of study. Note that the temperatures measured
PCM is negative, while it remains positive in inferior layers. Which
and predicted are in good agreement and correspond to the changes in
means that during the first hour of discharge the first layer is supplying
solar radiation for each scenario.
energy to the absorber plate while still charging the remaining layers of
In addition to accurately estimate the temperatures for different
PCM. The same analysis is valid for the small discharge period of case 2
components of the collector, the main benefit of the model is its ca-
at 12:30 h.
pacity to estimate parameters which are difficult to obtain by experi-
In both cases a great part of the energy transferred to the first layer
ments, such as the heat fluxes among components and the internal
of the PCM is destined to the remaining layers which do not reach the
behavior of the PCM. Fig. 14 shows the heat fluxes in the absorber
melting point. This issue prevents the PCM to achieve high values of
plate. From case 1, it is observed that the heat flux between the plate
liquid fraction. Thus, the system does not have enough latent energy
and the PCM is positive until 15:00 h, this indicates the moment in
during discharge which drives the temperature below the fusion tem-
which the PCM stops the heat storage and begins to supply heat to the
perature too early. As a result, the heat transfer between the PCM and
absorber plate. In case 2, the discharge process also starts around
the absorber plate decreases due to the small temperature difference
15:00 h, nonetheless, at 12:30 h the PCM begins a small discharge
between them. Based on these results, it can be interpreted that fusion
period to compensate the effect of the strong decrease in solar radiation
temperature of PCM is too high to be reached by the absorber plate.
at that time. In fact, it is observed that despite the reduction of almost
60% in solar radiation, the useful heat was reduced only by 25% ap-
proximately.

1000 1000
Case 1 Case 2
Solar Radiation (W/m2)

Solar Radiation (W/m2)

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time [H] Time [H]
Solar radiation

Fig. 11. Solar radiation, cases 1 and 2.

627
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
40 40
35 Case 1 35 Case 2

30 30
25 25
7 7
6 6
Vwind (m/s)

Vwind (m/s)
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time [H] Time [H]

Wind Velocity Water Inlet Temp Ambient Temp

Fig. 12. Wind velocity, Ambient temperature and Water inlet temperature, cases 1 and 2.

70 70
Case 1 Case 2
60 60
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time [H] Time [H]
Glass cover (Exp) Absorber plate (Exp) Water outlet (Exp)
Glass cover (Model) Absorber plate (Model) Water outlet (Model)
Fig. 13. Estimated and experimental temperatures for the Glass cover, Absorber plate and Water outlet, cases 1 and 2.

- Charge - -Discharge - - Charge - - Discharge - - Charge - -Discharge -

250 250
Case 1 Case 2
200 200
Heat rate (W)

Heat rate (W)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0

í50 í50
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time [H] Time [H]
Radiation to glass cover Stored in PCM
Convection to glass cover Useful heat

Fig. 14. Heat fluxes in absorber plate.

4.5. Using the model to compare the performance of two PCM
In order to validate the model under different conditions, a second
PCM with a lower fusion temperature was used on the experimental rig.
This inclusion has the potential to increase the heat storage capacity for
the present location due to the reduction of the melting point. Thermal
properties for the second PCM are compared with the former in Table 4.
Fig. 18 shows the experimental solar radiation used in each case, while
Fig. 19 shows the comparison between experimental and model esti-
mated temperatures for each main component both PCMs.
As can be seen in Fig. 19 temperatures estimated by the model and
experimental data are in good agreement for both PCM. This shows that
the model can predict temperatures regardless of the thermal properties
of PCM under different operational conditions.
Once the model was validated for PCM60 and PCM45, a comparison
of the collector performance using both PCMs and operating without
PCM under the same operating conditions using the thermal model was
carried out. Solar radiation, ambient temperature, wind velocity and
inlet temperature used for the comparison are presented in Fig. 20.
Figs. 21–24 shows the comparison of the estimation of the thermal
behavior of the collector for PCM45, PCM60 and without PCM under
this same conditions.
Results in Fig. 21 indicate that when PCM is present, the main
components of the collector reach higher temperatures during the day
and lower during the night. The model estimates that the PCM is able to
operate as heat source during night time. While useful heat without

628
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

- Charge - -Discharge - - Charge - - Discharge - - Charge - -Discharge -

70 70
Case 1 Case 2
60 60
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
50 50

40 40

30 30

8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time [H] Time [H]
Absorber plate PCM Layer 20 PCM Layer 60
PCM Layer 1 PCM Layer 40 PCM Layer 80

Fig. 15. Temperature of PCM Layers and Absorber plate.

- Charge - -Discharge - - Charge - - Discharge - - Charge - -Discharge -

0.20 0.003
Case 1 Case 2
PCM Liquid fraction

PCM Liquid fraction

0.15
0.002

0.10

0.001
0.05

0.00 0
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time [H] Time [H]

Liquid fraction 1st Layer

Fig. 16. Liquid fraction in first layer of PCM.

- Charge - -Discharge - - Charge - - Discharge - - Charge - -Discharge -

100 100
75 Case 1 75 Case 2

50 50
Heat rate (W)

Heat rate (W)

25 25
0 0
í25 í25
í50 í50
í75 í75
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time [H] Time [H]
Absorber plate - PCM Layer 1 PCM Layer 40 - PCM Layer 41
PCM Layer 1 - PCM Layer 2 PCM Layer 60 - PCM Layer 61
PCM Layer 20 - PCM Layer 21 PCM Layer 80 - Insulation

Fig. 17. Heat fluxes in PCM.

Table 4 PCM drops after sunset, useful heat with PCM remains positive over-
Properties of PCMs. night. It can be seen that the temperatures of PCM45 decay faster than
Properties PCM60 PCM45 Units
those of PCM60 a few hours after sunset. However, PCM45 hold better
the temperature during late night hours.
Melting point 60 41–46 °C Fig. 22 show the temperature of the first layer of PCM, the heat
Latent heat of fusion 210 160 kJ/kg stored or released by the PCM and the useful heat for both PCMs. As
Specific heat capacity 2500 2000 J/kg °C
expected, PCM45 reach its melting point earlier and during longer time.
Thermal conductivity 0.9 0.2 W/m K
Density 934 880 kg/m3 Temperature of the first layer of PCM was over the melting point from
9 h until to 20 h for PCM45 and from 11 h until 18 h for PCM60. It can
be seen that the useful heat presents a similar trend to that obtained in
temperatures. While PCM60 shows high values during few hours after
sunset, this decreases to zero at dawn. On the other hand, PCM45

629
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

1000 1000
PCM60 PCM45

Solar Radiation (W/m2)

Solar Radiation (W/m2)

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [H] Time [H]
Solar radiation

Fig. 18. Solar radiation for PCM 60 °C and PCM 45 °C.

80 90
PCM60 80 PCM45
70
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30 30
20 20
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [H] Time [H]
Glass cover (Model) Absorber plate (Model) Water outlet (Model) PCM (Model)
Glass cover (Exp) Absorber plate (Exp) Water outlet (Exp) PCM (Exp)

Fig. 19. Estimated and measured temperatures for PCM 60 °C and PCM 45 °C.
Temperature (°C)

1000 40
35
Solar Radiation (W/m2)

800
30
600
25
6
400 5
Vwind (m/s)

4
200 3
2
1
0 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [H] Time [H]
Solar radiation
Vwind TI TA

Fig. 20. Operating conditions for comparison between PCM45 and PCM 60.

remains an almost constant value throughout the night and early the
next day. This result is explained through the heat discharged by the
PCM. While the PCM45 has a constant discharge process, PCM60 dis-
charge faster in the first hours and then decreases to almost zero in the
early morning of the next day.
The difference of the liquid fraction between the PCMs can be seen
in Fig. 23. PCM60 stores energy as sensible heat most of the time since
it reached the melting point for less time. PCM45 reaches maximum
liquid fraction over 0.9. For the PCM45, the discharge process and the
liquid fraction decrement occurs simultaneously. This indicates that the
PCM is supplying energy stored as latent heat during the discharge
process. Contrary, liquid fraction of PCM60 is zero during the major
part of discharge process indicating that the energy is supplied by
sensible heat.
The accumulated efficiency for each PCM and without PCM are
shown in Fig. 24. Even though the efficiency is higher with collector
with PCM (any), there is no significant difference between the perfor-
mance of the PCMs.
Results indicate that the inclusion of PCM allows FPSC to operate at
night without significantly affecting thermal performance. Therefore,
with an adequate sizing of the system, the technology has the potential
to provide a permanent supply of hot water for domestic use. However,
the results showed that the nocturnal supply of thermal energy implies
a decrease in day water temperature. It is identified as key factors for a
successful operation of these devices, the correct selection of the PCM,
and the characterization of the operation and demand conditions of the
system. Finally, the results of this work show that the proposed model
can be a very useful tool for the evaluation of the performance of FPSC
with PCM, assisting on the prototype design processes of this tech-
nology as the selection of PCMs based on their thermal properties,

630
M. Carmona, M. Palacio Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633

70
Glass Cover 100 Absorber Plate

Temperarature (°C)

Temperarature (°C)
60
80
50

40 60

30 40

20 20
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Time (H) Time (H)

60 300
Water Outlet Useful Heat
Temperarature (°C)

55 250

Heat rate (W)

50
200
45
150
40
35 100
30 50
25 0
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Time (H) Time (H)

PCM45 PCM60 Without PCM

Fig. 21. Temperature comparison between PCM 45, PCM 60 and without PCM.

- Charge - - Discharge - - Charge - -Discharge - - Charge - - Discharge - - Charge - -Discharge -

70 70
PCM60 PCM45
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)

60 60
Melting point
50 50

40 40

Melting point
30 30
250 250
200 200
Heat rate (W)

Heat rate (W)

150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
í50 í50
í100 í100
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [H] Time [H]

Stored in PCM Temperature of 1st Layer of PCM

Useful heat
Fig. 22. Temperature of first layer of PCM, Useful heat and charge/discharge heat of PCM for CM45 and PCM60.

sizing, or evaluation under scenarios with different operating condi- internal behavior of the PCM. General performance of the model was in
tions. good agreement with experimental results under clear sky and with
noisy solar radiation conditions.
5. Conclusion Additional benefits of the model were presented, this shows the
capacity to estimate parameters difficult or even impossible to obtain
In this paper a reduced model is employed to analyze the perfor- by experimental techniques, or very expensive to obtain in computa-
mance of a flat plate solar collector with an integrated thermal storage tional terms with numerical approaches.
unit with PCM. The model was validated with a real prototype under
outdoor conditions. The capability of prediction was verified with Acknowledgements
several operational conditions and two different PCMs.
It was possible to predict the temperatures of the collector main This investigation has been partially funded by the Colombian
components, as well as estimate the heat transfer between them and the Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation-

631
M. Carmona, M. Palacio
- Charge - - Discharge -
1.00
PCM60
PCM Liquid fraction
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
10 15 20 25 30
Time [H]
Fig. 23. Total liquid fraction for PCM45 and PCM60.
30
25
Efficiency (%)
20
15
10
5 solener.2011.02.016.
0 storage composite for the enhancement of solar domestic hot water systems. Part 2:
Fig. 24. Efficiency comparison between PCM45, PCM60 and without PCM.
COLCIENCIAS, through the program “es tiempo de volver”. Authors
wish to express their acknowledgments to COLCIENCIAS and its ex-
cellent program.
References
Abhat, A., 1983. Low temperature latent heat thermal energy storage: heat storage ma-
terials. Sol. Energy 30, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(83)90186-X.
Abuşka, M., Şevik, S., 2017. Energy, exergy, economic and environmental (4E) analyses
of flat-plate and V-groove solar air collectors based on aluminium and copper. Sol.
Energy 158, 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.09.045.
Allouhi, A., Ait Msaad, A., Benzakour Amine, M., Saidur, R., Mahdaoui, M., Kousksou, T.,
Pandey, A.K., Jamil, A., Moujibi, N., Benbassou, A., 2018. Optimization of melting
and solidification processes of PCM: application to integrated collector storage solar
water heaters (ICSSWH). Sol. Energy 171, 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2018.06.096.
Bouadila, S., Fteïti, M., Oueslati, M.M., Guizani, A., Farhat, A., 2014. Enhancement of
latent heat storage in a rectangular cavity: solar water heater case study. Energy
Convers. Manage. 78, 904–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.094.
Bouadila, S., Kooli, S., Lazaar, M., Skouri, S., Farhat, A., 2013. Performance of a new solar
air heater with packed-bed latent storage energy for nocturnal use. Appl. Energy 110,
267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.062.
Cárdenas, B., León, N., 2013. High temperature latent heat thermal energy storage: phase
change materials, design considerations and performance enhancement techniques.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27, 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.07.
028.
Carmona, M., Caicedo, G., Gómez Vega, H., Bula, A., 2015. Reduced Model for a Thermal
Analysis of a Flat Plate Solar Collector With Thermal Energy Storage Using Phase
Change Material (PCM). pp. V06BT07A052. Volume 6B: Energy. ASME.
Chandel, S.S., Agarwal, T., 2017. Review of current state of research on energy storage,
toxicity, health hazards and commercialization of phase changing materials. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.070.
Dagdougui, H., Ouammi, A., Robba, M., Sacile, R., 2011. Thermal analysis and perfor-
mance optimization of a solar water heater flat plate collector: application to Tétouan
(Morocco). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 630–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2010.09.010.
Deng, J., Ma, R., Yuan, G., Chang, C., Yang, X., 2016. Dynamic thermal performance
prediction model for the flat-plate solar collectors based on the two-node lumped
heat capacitance method. Sol. Energy 135, 769–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2016.06.060.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 2013. Solar engineering of thermal processes. Solar
Engineering of Thermal Processes, fourth ed. Wiley, New York.
Farid, M.M., Khudhair, A.M., Razack, S.A.K., Al-Hallaj, S., 2004. A review on phase
change energy storage: materials and applications. Energy Convers. Manage. 45,
1597–1615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.09.015.
Fazilati, M.A., Alemrajabi, A.A., 2013. Phase change material for enhancing solar water
Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633
- Charge - -Discharge - - Charge - - Discharge - - Charge - -Discharge -
1.00
PCM45
PCM Liquid fraction
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time [H]
Total liquid fraction of PCM
heater, an experimental approach. Energy Convers. Manage. 71, 138–145. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.03.034.
Gil, A., Medrano, M., Martorell, I., Lázaro, A., Dolado, P., Zalba, B., Cabeza, L.F., 2010.
State of the art on high temperature thermal energy storage for power generation.
PCM60 Part 1 – Concepts, materials and modellization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14,
PCM45 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.035.
Without PCM Haillot, D., Goetz, V., Py, X., Benabdelkarim, M., 2011. High performance storage com-
posite for the enhancement of solar domestic hot water systems. Part 1: Storage
material investigation. Sol. Energy 85, 1021–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Haillot, D., Nepveu, F., Goetz, V., Py, X., Benabdelkarim, M., 2012. High performance
Numerical system analysis. Sol. Energy 86, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2011.09.006.
Hamed, M., Brahim, A.B., 2015. Theoretical Model of a Flat Plate Solar Collector
Integrated with Phase Change Material. J. Electr. Comput. Energ. Electron. Commun.
Eng. 9, 1479–1486.
Hamed, M., Fallah, A., Brahim, A. Ben, 2017. Numerical analysis of an integrated storage
solar heater. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 8721–8732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.07.116.
Hamed, M., Fellah, A., Ben Brahim, A., 2014. Parametric sensitivity studies on the per-
formance of a flat plate solar collector in transient behavior. Energy Convers.
Manage. 78, 938–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.09.044.
Hollman, J., 2012. Experimental Methods for Engineers, eighth ed. McGraw Hill, New
York.
Incropera, F.P., Bergman, T.L., Lavine, A.S., DeWitt, D.P., 2011. Fundamentals of Heat
and Mass Transfer, US Patent 5,328,671.
Incropera, F.P., DeWitt, D.P., 1990. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, fourth ed.
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Islam, M.P., Morimoto, T., 2018. Advances in low to medium temperature non-con-
centrating solar thermal technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 2066–2093.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.030.
Jurkowska, M., Szczygieł, I., 2016. Review on properties of microencapsulated phase
change materials slurries (mPCMS). Appl. Therm. Eng. 98, 365–373. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.12.051.
Kenisarin, M., Mahkamov, K., 2007. Solar energy storage using phase change materials.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11, 1913–1965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.
05.005.
Khan, M.M.A., Ibrahim, N.I., Mahbubul, I.M., Muhammad Ali, H., Saidur, R., Al-
Sulaiman, F.A., 2018. Evaluation of solar collector designs with integrated latent heat
thermal energy storage: a review. Sol. Energy 166, 334–350. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solener.2018.03.014.
Kuravi, S., Trahan, J., Goswami, D.Y., Rahman, M.M., Stefanakos, E.K., 2013. Thermal
energy storage technologies and systems for concentrating solar power plants. Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 39, 285–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2013.02.001.
Liu, M., Saman, W., Bruno, F., 2012. Review on storage materials and thermal perfor-
mance enhancement techniques for high temperature phase change thermal storage
systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 2118–2132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.01.020.
Nikolić, N., Lukić, N., 2015. Theoretical and experimental investigation of the thermal
performance of a double exposure flat-plate solar collector. Sol. Energy 119,
100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.06.038.
Nkwetta, D.N., Haghighat, F., 2014. Thermal energy storage with phase change material –
a state-of-the art review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 10, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2013.05.007.
Padovan, R., Manzan, M., 2014. Genetic optimization of a PCM enhanced storage tank for
Solar Domestic Hot Water Systems. Sol. Energy 103, 563–573. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solener.2013.12.034.
Palacio, M., Carmona, M., 2018. Experimental evaluation of a latent heat thermal storage
unit integrated into a flat plate solar collector as temperature stabilizer. In: 2018 2nd
International Conference on Green Energy and Applications (ICGEA), pp. 83–87.
Pandey, K.M., Chaurasiya, R., 2017. A review on analysis and development of solar flat
plate collector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 641–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
632
M. Carmona, M. Palacio
rser.2016.09.078.
Pelay, U., Luo, L., Fan, Y., Stitou, D., Rood, M., 2017. Thermal energy storage systems for
concentrated solar power plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 82–100. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.139.
Prieto, C., Rodríguez, A., Patiño, D., Cabeza, L.F., 2018. Thermal energy storage eva-
luation in direct steam generation solar plants. Sol. Energy 159, 501–509. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.006.
Raul, A., Jain, M., Gaikwad, S., Saha, S.K., 2018. Modelling and experimental study of
latent heat thermal energy storage with encapsulated PCMs for solar thermal appli-
cations. Appl. Therm. Eng. 143, 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2018.07.123.
Serale, G., Baronetto, S., Goia, F., Perino, M., 2014. Characterization and energy per-
formance of a slurry PCM-based solar thermal collector: a numerical analysis. Energy
Procedia 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.027.
Serale, G., Goia, F., Perino, M., 2016. Numerical model and simulation of a solar thermal
collector with slurry Phase Change Material (PCM) as the heat transfer fluid. Sol.
Energy 134, 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.04.030.
Sharma, A., Tyagi, V.V., Chen, C.R., Buddhi, D., 2009. Review on thermal energy storage
with phase change materials and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13,
318–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.10.005.
Shirinbakhsh, M., Mirkhani, N., Sajadi, B., 2018. A comprehensive study on the effect of
633
Solar Energy 177 (2019) 620–633
hot water demand and PCM integration on the performance of SDHW system. Sol.
Energy 159, 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.008.
Siva Reddy, V., Kaushik, S.C., Ranjan, K.R., Tyagi, S.K., 2013. State-of-the-art of solar
thermal power plants – a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27, 258–273. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.037.
Souayfane, F., Fardoun, F., Biwole, P.H., 2016. Phase change materials (PCM) for cooling
applications in buildings: a review. Energy Build. 129, 396–431. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.006.
Teamah, H.M., Lightstone, M.F., Cotton, J.S., 2018. Potential of cascaded phase change
materials in enhancing the performance of solar domestic hot water systems. Sol.
Energy 159, 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.034.
Teamah, H.M., Lightstone, M.F., Cotton, J.S., 2017. An alternative approach for assessing
the benefit of phase change materials in solar domestic hot water systems. Sol. Energy
158, 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.10.033.
Tian, Y., Zhao, C.Y., 2013. A review of solar collectors and thermal energy storage in solar
thermal applications. Appl. Energy 104, 538–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.11.051.
Zalba, B., Marín, J.M., Cabeza, L.F., Mehling, H., 2003. Review on thermal energy storage
with phase change: materials, heat transfer analysis and applications. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 23, 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-4311(02)00192-8.