Energy 138 (2017) 739e751

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance optimization of slab

LHTES system with multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array
Huiru Wang, Zhenyu Liu, Huiying Wu*
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A two-dimensional (2D) model for slab latent heat thermal energy storage (LHTES) system was devel-
Received 7 February 2017 oped to predict the melting of multiple phase change materials (PCMs). The performance of the slab
Received in revised form LHTES system with multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array was optimized based on the entransy theory, in
29 June 2017
which the transient heat conduction in the PCM slab was considered. The formula of the entransy
Accepted 13 July 2017
dissipation-based thermal resistance of the slab LHTES system was deduced. A novel optimization cri-
Available online 19 July 2017
terion was proposed based on the minimum entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance principle,
with which the melting temperatures of multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array were optimized. Ac-
Keywords:
Heat transfer enhancement
cording to the optimization analysis, the appropriate PCMs from literature were selected and the melting
Multiple PCMs arrangement processes of the optimized multiple PCMs were investigated. Furthermore, the effect of the PCM thermal
Thermal performance conductivity on multiple PCMs arrangement was studied. The results show that the thermal performance
Optimization criterion of the slab LHTES system is significantly improved using the optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D
Thermal conductivity array compared to that using single PCM. And the multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array is preferred
when PCM slab conduction thermal resistance and hot fluid convection thermal resistance are at the
same level.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The continuous and rapid increase in worldwide economic
development is accompanied by a strong demand for an uninter-
rupted supply of energy. The conventional fossil fuel are limited
supply and responsible for environment pollution. The energy crisis
and environmental pollution issues have been the major challenge
for the sustainable development in the world [1]. With the devel-
opment of the renewable energy utilization and industrial waste
heat recovery technologies, the thermal energy storage (TES) be-
comes more and more important because it can save fossil fuels and
reduce the energy wastage. An effective TES system has become a
key factor in the efficiency improvement of different energy sys-
tems due to its good capability in correcting the mismatch between
the energy demand and supply, which contributes to the devel-
opment and implementation of renewable energies [2].
In general, the thermal energy can be stored in the form of
sensible heat, latent heat and chemical heat [3]. The latent heat
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: whysrj@sjtu.edu.cn (H. Wu).
thermal energy storage (LHTES) using phase change material (PCM)
has received considerable attention due to its high heat storage
capacity and small temperature fluctuation [4]. The LHTES system
can be widely utilized in industrial applications, such as solar
cooling [5,6], thermal management of electronics [7], cooling/
heating of buildings [8,9] and waste heat recovery [10]. However,
the melting/solidification process of the LHTES system is generally
slow because most of the conventional PCMs are characterized by
the low thermal conductivity ranging from 0.1 W/m K to 1.0 W/m K
[11]. Thus, the heat transfer enhancement technique is crucial to
improve the heat storage efficiency of the LHTES system. Improving
thermal conductivity (such as high conductivity additives [12],
metal foam [13,14], heat pipes [15], etc.) as one effectively heat
transfer enhancement technique can be considered to improve the
thermal performance of the LHTES system, which is from the
thermophysical point of view. The utilization of multiple PCMs (two
or more PCMs with different melting temperatures) as another
effectively heat transfer enhancement technique has attracted
more and more attention in recent years [16,17]. This technique is
considered from the viewpoint of configuration management to
improve the thermal performance of the LHTES system.
Farid et al. [18,19] first proposed the utilization of multiple PCMs

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.089
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
740 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751

Nomenclature Rsystem,conv entransy dissipation-based convection thermal

resistance of the slab LHTES system (K/W)
b gap between two PCM slabs (m) Rsystem,min minimum entransy dissipation-based thermal
c specific heat (J/kg K) resistance of the slab LHTES system (K/W)
C 0, C1 relaxation factor t time (s)
D hydraulic diameter (m) tm melting time (s)
f liquid fraction T temperature (
C)
G entransy (J K) Th,in hot fluid inlet temperature (
C)
Gdis entransy dissipation (J K) Th,out hot fluid outlet temperature (
C)
Gdis,cond entransy dissipation caused by heat conduction in the Tm melting temperature (
C)
PCM slab (J K) Tm,ij melting temperature of the PCM slab unit in ith row
Gdis,conv entransy dissipation caused by heat convection in the and jth column (
C)
hot fluid (J K) Tm average melting temperature (
C)
G_ dis entransy dissipation rate (W K) u velocity (m/s)
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) U internal energy (J)
H total enthalpy per unit volume (J/m3) W width of the PCM slab (m)
Ht height of the slab LHTES system (m) x, y, z Cartesian coordinate (m)
L length of the PCM slab (m)
Lhf latent heat of fusion (J/kg) Greek symbols
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s) d thickness of the PCM slab (m)
N number of the PCM slabs εd uniformity coefficient of q_ P , Eq. (26)
Nu Nusselt number εv uniformity coefficient of q_ h , Eq. (22)
q average heat storage rate (W) l thermal conductivity (W/m K)
qsystem average heat storage rate of the slab LHTES system (W) r density (kg/m3)
q_ h heat flux at the PCM slab wall (W/m2)
q_ h average heat flux at the PCM slab wall (W/m2) Subscripts
q_ P heat storage rate per unit volume (W/m3) cond conduction
conv convection
q_ P average heat storage rate per unit volume (W/m3)
h hot fluid
q_ P;ij average heat storage rate of the PCM slab unit in ith in inlet
row and jth column (W/m3) ini initial state
Q heat storage capacity (J) min minimum
Q_ heat transfer rate (W) out outlet
R entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance (K/W) P PCM slab
Rsystem entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance of the w PCM slab wall
slab LHTES system (K/W)
Rsystem,cond entransy dissipation-based conduction thermal
resistance of the slab LHTES system (K/W)

in LHTES system to improve the thermal performance. Three PCMs
(paraffins with different melting temperatures) were arranged
along the length direction in a packed bed heat storage unit using
cylindrical PCM capsules. The results show that there is an increase
of around 10% in the heat transfer rate during both melting and
solidification processes compared to that of single PCM, and the
outlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid is more stable. Liu et al.
[20] reviewed the heat transfer enhancement techniques including
the utilization of multiple PCMs in high temperature LHTES sys-
tems. It proves the superiority of multiple PCMs over single PCM in
the high temperature LHTES systems. Yang et al. [21] investigated
the thermal performance of a spherical capsules packed bed LHTES
system with three PCMs. The results show that the new type
packed bed with multiple PCMs has higher energy transfer effi-
ciency than the traditional packed bed with single PCM during the
melting process. Peiro
et al. [22] performed an experimental eval-
uation of the thermal performance of two PCMs configuration in
comparison with single PCM configuration for LHTES system at
pilot plant. The results show that two PCMs configuration has much
higher effectiveness than single PCM configuration. Shamsi et al.
[23] performed a numerical evaluation of a packed bed LHTES
system using three encapsulated PCMs. It is found that multiple
PCMs increases the heat transfer between the fluid and the PCMs
than single PCM. Moreover, the effects of melting temperature and
arrangement of multiple PCMs on the thermal performance were
preliminarily studied in the previous work. Fang and Chen [24]
numerically studied the effect of melting temperature on the
thermal performance of a shell-and-tube LHTES unit filled with
multiple PCMs. Three PCMs with different melting temperatures
under the constraint of the same average melting temperature
were investigated. The results show that the melting temperatures
of multiple PCMs have influence on the PCM melting rate and fluid
outlet temperature of the LHTES unit. Shaikh and Lafdi [25]
numerically investigated the effect of multiple PCMs configura-
tion on the melting process in a vertical heated square cavity. It is
found that the magnitude of enhancement is relevant with the
composite slab arrangements, and the thermal performance with
series arrangement is proved to be better than that with parallel
arrangement. The results indicate that the melting temperature
and arrangement of multiple PCMs are very important and should
be optimized to realize high efficiency for the LHTES system.
Verma et al. [26] reviewed the mathematical modeling for
different LHTES systems, which includes square, rectangular and
cylindrical containers, spherical capsule, slab and shell-and-tube
 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751
LHTES systems, etc. For slab LHTES system, Vakilaltojjar and Saman
[27,28] developed a semi-analytical model that used the Neumann
solution in solving the melting of PCM, in which the sensible heat
was ignored. El Qarnia [29] established a mathematical model
neglecting the longitudinal and transversal conduction in the PCM.
Halawa et al. [30,31] presented a one-dimensional (1D) model
which used a phase change processor (PCP) algorithm. The results
show that this model is capable of simulating the slab LHTES sys-
tem with a thin PCM slab. Liu et al. [32] developed a 1D liquid-based
model employing the PCP algorithm to iteratively calculate the
liquid fraction and temperature of each PCM node. The results show
a reasonable agreement between the numerical predictions and the
experimental data. Mosaffa et al. [33] established a 2D model using
the effective heat capacity method to evaluate the performance of a
slab LHTES system with multiple PCMs. Aceves et al. [34] presented
a 1D model under the assumption that the sensible heat was
negligible and the latent heat was large enough. Also, the optimal
melting temperatures of multiple PCMs with infinite number of
PCMs during the melting process and the melting-solidification
process were theoretically solved based on the numerical model.
Guo et al. [35] introduced a new physical quantity termed
entransy to characterize the heat transfer capacity, which repre-
sents the thermal potential energy. Entransy is defined as G ¼ UT/2,
in which U and T represent internal energy and absolute temper-
ature in an object, respectively. The internal energy should be
conserved during an irreversible heat transfer process, but the
entransy will be partially dissipated. The entransy dissipation is
considered as a measure of heat transfer irreversibility. And the
entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance (R) is defined as
entransy dissipation rate (G_ ) divided by heat transfer rate (Q_ )
dis
2
squared, R ¼ G_ dis =Q_ . Then, the minimum entransy dissipation-
based thermal resistance principle (i.e., the entransy dissipation
extremum principle) can be adopted to optimize different heat
transfer modes and heat transfer devices/systems, such as heat
conduction [36], heat convection [37,38], thermal radiation [39],
heat exchanger [40,41], one-steam hybrid thermal network [42],
finless evaporator [43], evaporative cooling system [44,45], HVAC
systems [46], etc. So far, the minimum entransy dissipation-based
thermal resistance principle has been developed as an innovative
optimization method for different heat transfer processes.
Although the entransy concept was challenged [47], the optimiza-
tion results based on the entransy theory cannot be refuted. Chen
et al. [48] reviewed the entransy theory for the optimization of heat
transfer, and reported the differences between the entransy theory
and the entropy theory for optimization of volume-point heat
conduction, convection heat transfer in a square cavity and thermal
radiation between parallel plates. The results show that the opti-
mization objective of the entransy dissipation extremum principle
is the maximum heat transfer coefficient, while the optimization
objective of the minimum entropy generation is the maximum
heat-work conversion efficiency. That is, the entransy theory is
more suitable for the heat transfer (i.e., heat or cooling) optimiza-
tion without heat-work conversion. Xu et al. [41] investigated the
optimization of heat exchanger networks. The results show that the
entransy dissipation-based method has advantages in the optimi-
zation of heat exchanger networks compared with entropy or
exergy methods.
Recently, the minimum entransy dissipation-based thermal
resistance principle has been employed in the performance opti-
mization of LHTES system with multiple PCMs. Tao et al. [49]
derived a theoretical formula of the optimal melting temperature
for a two-stage LHTES system based on the minimum entransy
dissipation-based thermal resistance principle, with which the two
PCMs can be selected and matched to enhance the thermal
741
performance. Xu and Zhao [50] obtained a general formula of the
optimal melting temperature for a multi-stage LHTES system using
an arbitrary number of PCMs based on the same principle. How-
ever, the phase change heat transfer was assumed to be a steady-
state process, the conduction heat transfer within the PCMs was
neglected and the multiple PCMs were all arranged in one
dimension (along the fluid flow direction) in these studies. In fact,
the melting process is a transient process and the heat conduction
in the PCM slab should be considered for most of the conventional
PCMs characterized by a low thermal conductivity. The multiple
PCMs arrangement in one dimension is only suitable for the specific
operating condition and different arrangements should be adopted
to realize a high efficiency heat storage.
In this work, a 2D model for multiple PCMs in slab LHTES system
is developed. The performance of slab LHTES system with multiple
PCMs arranged in a 2D array is optimized based on the entransy
theory, in which the transient heat conduction in the PCM slab is
considered. The formula of the entransy dissipation-based thermal
resistance of the slab LHTES system is developed and an optimi-
zation criterion is proposed based on the minimum entransy
dissipation-based thermal resistance principle. According to the
optimization analysis of the multiple PCMs melting temperatures,
the appropriate PCMs from literature are selected and the melting
processes of the optimized multiple PCMs are investigated.
Furthermore, the effect of the PCM thermal conductivity on mul-
tiple PCMs arrangement is studied.
2. Model and method
2.1. Physical model
The schematic diagram of the slab LHTES system studied in this
work is shown in Fig. 1(a), which consists of ten PCM slabs parallel
to each other. The hot fluid flows in the channel between two slabs
for the purpose of releasing heat into the PCM slabs. In order to
simplify the physical model, a unit cell framed by red dotted lines in
Fig. 1(b) is adopted to represent the slab LHTES system due to its
geometrical and thermal symmetry. The unit cell 3D model can be
simplified to a 2D one (in xy plane) under the assumption that the
heat conduction in the width direction is neglected compared to
that in the thickness direction [29]. Fig. 2(a) and (b) show the 2D
computational domain of the slab LHTES unit with single PCM and
multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array, respectively.
The size of the slab LHTES system is 1.2 m (L)1 m (W)  1 m
(Ht). The thickness of the PCM slab (d) is 0.095 m and the gap be-
tween two PCM slabs (b) is 0.005 m. The inlet temperature and flow
rate of the hot fluid (air) are 90
C and 150 L/s, respectively. The
initial temperature of the slab LHTES system is 20
C. The melting
process of the slab LHTES system with paraffin RT55 [16], which
melting temperature is 55
C, is numerically simulated as single
PCM case. The thermophysical properties of multiple PCMs are
treated as the same with that of paraffin RT55 except for the
melting temperature. The melting temperatures of multiple PCMs
arranged in a 2D arrays are optimized under the constraint condi-
tion that the average melting temperature of multiple PCMs is the
same with the melting temperature of single PCM. The thermo-
physical properties of the hot fluid and PCM are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Mathematical model
To simplify the mathematical model, the following assumptions
are employed:
742 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of (a) the slab LHTES system and (b) a unit cell.

Fig. 2. 2D computational domain of the slab LHTES unit with (a) single PCM and (b) multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array.

Table 1 (1) The transient heat conduction is considered in the heat

Thermophysical properties of the hot fluid and PCM. transfer model of the PCM slab, while the heat convection is
Hot fluid (air) PCM (paraffin RT55 [16]) neglected [33].
(2) The PCM is homogeneous and isotropic, which is assumed to
Density (kg/m3) 1.205 770
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 0.0259 0.2 melt at a constant temperature [30].
Specific heat (J/kg K) 1005 2000 (3) The thermophysical properties of the PCM are assumed to be
Kinetic viscosity (m2/s) 15.05  106 e temperature independent [28].
Prandtl number 0.703 e
(4) The hot fluid flow between the two PCM slabs is treated as
Latent heat of fusion (J/kg) 172000
the 1D fully developed flow, and the heat conduction and
e
Melting temperature (
C) e 55
viscous dissipation within hot fluid are not considered [32].
(5) The thermal resistance of the PCM slab wall is negligible due
to its thin thickness [30].
 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751 743

Based on the above assumptions, the energy equations for the

PCM slab and hot fluid can be obtained.
For PCM slab, the energy equation is

vHP
¼ V,ðlP VTP Þ; (1)
vt

where l and T are the thermal conductivity and temperature,

respectively, subscript P represents the PCM slab, H ¼ rc(TTm)þ
rLhff is the total enthalpy, in which r, c, Tm and Lhf are the density,
specific heat, melting temperature and latent heat of fusion,
respectively, and f is the liquid fraction defined as
8
< f ¼ 0; TP < Tm
0 < f < 1; TP ¼ Tm : (2)
:
f ¼ 1; TP > Tm

For hot fluid, the energy equation is

  Fig. 3. Liquid fraction variations of the slab LHTES system for different grid numbers.
vTh vT 2h
rh ch þ uh h ¼ ðTw  Th Þ; (3)
vt vx b
numbers with a time step of 10 s are shown in Fig. 3. The relative
where u is the velocity, b is the gap between two PCM slabs, and deviation of the liquid fraction between the grid numbers of
subscripts h and w represent the hot fluid and PCM slab wall, 100(x)  20(y) and 125(x)  25(y) is 0.59%. Thus, the grid size of
respectively. The heat transfer coefficient (h) can be calculated by 100(x)  20(y) can be considered grid independent. For the time
h ¼ Nul/D, in which D is the hydraulic diameter of the hot fluid step validation, it is found that the maximum relative deviation of
channel and the Nusselt number (Nu) is evaluated at 7.54 due to the the liquid fraction between the time steps of 10 s and 5 s is 0.10%.
fully developed laminar flow in the parallel channels [51]. Considering both the accuracy requirement and the computational
The boundary and initial conditions for Eqs. (1) and (3) are cost, the grid number of 100(x)  20(y) and the time step of 10 s are
adopted in the present numerical simulation.
vTP ð0; y; tÞ vTP ðL; y; tÞ To validate the numerical model established in this work, the
¼ ¼ 0; (4)
vx vx melting process of the slab LHTES system was numerically simu-
lated, which is consisted of 28 pieces of PCM slabs filled with
vTP ðx; 0; tÞ CaCl2$6H2O and each PCM slab has dimensions of
lP ¼ hðTh  Tw Þ; (5)
vy 0.126 m (L)  0.2 m (W)  0.005 m (d). The gap between two PCM
slabs is 0.005 m. The air flow rate is 96 L/s and the PCM initial
vTP ðx; d=2; tÞ temperature is 25
C. The Nusselt number (Nu) is calculated with
lP ¼ 0; (6) the same method used in Vakilaltojjar and Saman model [28]. Fig. 4
vy
shows the comparison of the present results with the data in the
literature [28,30,33]. It shows that the present heat transfer model
Th ð0; tÞ ¼ Th;in ; (7)
is in a good agreement with those in the previous work. The outlet
temperature at the final stage of melting process in the literature
TP ðx; y; 0Þ ¼ Th ðx; 0Þ ¼ Tini ; (8) [28,30] is a little higher than that in the present work due to the
utilization of 1D model and the neglected sensible heat. A good
where L and d are the length and thickness of the PCM slab, agreement during the whole melting process is found between the
respectively, subscripts in and ini represent the inlet and initial prediction using present 2D model and that with a 2D model using
state, respectively.
The implicit finite difference method (FDM) is employed to
discretize the energy equations described above. At each time step,
the liquid fraction is updated by

C0 cP ðTP  Tm Þ
fnew ¼ fold þ ; (9)
Lhf

where C0 is the relaxation factor, which is set at 0.8. The conver-

gence criterion of iteration is set as
 
HP; new  HP;   105 : (10)
old

2.3. Mesh independency and model validation

Four different grid numbers are numerically tested to validate

the mesh independency, which are 50(x)  5(y), 80(x)  10(y),
100(x)  20(y) and 125(x)  25(y), respectively. The liquid fraction
variations of the slab LHTES system for the four different grid Fig. 4. Comparison of the present results with the data in the literature [28,30,33].
744 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751

the effective heat capacity method in the literature [33]. The The second term on the right side of Eq. (16) can be rewritten as
maximum error of the outlet temperature between the present Z d=2 Z L Z d=2 Z L
study and the literature [33] is less than 0.50%. Therefore, the V$ðlP WTP VTP Þdxdy  lP WðVTP Þ2 dxdy, in which
0 0 0 0
proposed model is able to precisely predict the melting of multiple Z L
PCMs in slab LHTES system. the first term is equal to hWTw ðTh  Tw Þdx. Integrating the
0
entransy dissipation rate of Eq. (16) over the melting time, the total
2.4. The entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance entransy dissipation of the slab LHTES unit (including PCM slab and
hot fluid) can be obtained as
For transient melting process, the entransy dissipation-based
thermal resistance of the slab LHTES unit can be expressed as
Ztm ZL Ztm Zd=2 ZL
tm Gdis Gdis ¼ hWðTh  Tw Þ2 dxdt þ lP WðVTP Þ2 dxdydt:
R¼ ; (11)
Q2 0 0 0 0 0
(17)
where Gdis and Q are the total entransy dissipation and heat storage
capacity of the slab LHTES unit, respectively, tm is the melting time. From Eq. (17), the total entransy dissipation consists of two
From Eq. (3), the total heat storage capacity of the slab LHTES terms. The first term is the entransy dissipation caused by heat
unit during the melting process can be calculated by convection in the hot fluid, which is given as

Ztm ZL Ztm ZL
Q¼ hWðTh  Tw Þdxdt; (12) Gdis;conv ¼ hWðTh  Tw Þ2 dxdt: (18)
0 0 0 0

where W is the width of the PCM slab. The second term is the entransy dissipation caused by heat
In order to obtain the total entransy dissipation Gdis, entransy conduction in the PCM slab, which is given as
balance equation should be derived by multiplying both sides of
energy equation with local instantaneous temperature [35]. Ztm Zd=2 ZL
Multiplying both sides of Eqs. (1) and (3) by TP and Th, respectively, Gdis;cond ¼ lP WðVTP Þ2 dxdydt: (19)
and integrating both equations over the computational domain, the
0 0 0
entransy balance equations of the PCM slab and hot fluid are given
as Thus, the entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance R
should consist of entransy dissipation-based convection thermal
Zd=2 ZL Zd=2 ZL resistance Rconv (convection thermal resistance for short) of the hot
vH
WTP P dxdy ¼ TP V,ðlP WVTP Þdxdy; (13) fluid and entransy dissipation-based conduction thermal resistance
vt
0 0 0 0 Rcond (conduction thermal resistance for short) of the PCM slab
accordingly.
  Substituting Eqs. (12) and (18) into Eq. (11), the convection
ZL ZL
bW rh ch Th vTh vT thermal resistance of the hot fluid is obtained as
þ uh h dx ¼ hWTh ðTw  Th Þdx: (14)
2 vt vx
0 0 Z tm Z L
Then, the total entransy balance equation is given as tm hWðTh  Tw Þ2 dxdt
tm Gdis;conv 0 0
Rconv ¼ ¼2 32 : (20)
Q2 Z Z
ZL Zd=2 ZL tm L
bW rh ch Th vTh vHP 4 hWðTh  Tw Þdxdt 5
dx þ WTP dxdy
2 vt vt 0 0
0 0 0

  ZL With further mathematical transformation, Eq. (20) can be

1
¼ ch m_ h Th;in
2 2
 Th;out þ hWTh ðTw  Th Þdx reformulated as
2
0
1  
Zd=2 ZL Rconv ¼ 1 þ ε2v ; (21)
hLW
þ TP V,ðlP WVTP Þdxdy; (15)
0 0 where

where m_ ¼ bW rh uh =2 is the mass flow rate of the hot fluid in the vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u Ztm ZL
unit cell, subscript out represents the outlet. In Eq. (15), the terms u
1 u 1
on the left side represent the entransy variation rate, the first term εv ¼ t ðq_ h  q_ h Þ2 dxdt ; (22)
q_ h tm L
on the right side represents the variation of entransy flux rate. Thus, 0 0
the entransy dissipation rate can be obtained as

ZL Zd=2 ZL in which q_ h ¼ hðTh  Tw Þ is the heat flux at the slab wall, and q_ h ¼
G_ dis ¼  hWTh ðTw  Th Þdx  TP V,ðlP WVTP Þdxdy: Z tm Z L
1
tm L q_ h dxdt is the average value of q_ h .
0 0 0 0 0
(16) Substituting Eqs. (12) and (19) into Eq. (11), the conduction
thermal resistance of the PCM slab is obtained as
 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751 745

thermal resistance of a given size slab LHTES system during the

Z tm Z d=2 Z L melting process depends not only on the heat transfer coefficient of
2
tm Gdis;cond
tm lP WðVTP Þ dxdydt the hot fluid (h) and thermal conductivity of the PCM (lP), but also
0 0 0
Rcond ¼ ¼ 2 32 : (23) on the values of εv and εd, which represent the uniformity of q_ h and
Q2 Z Z
tm L q_ P , respectively. It is noted that improving thermal conductivity of
4 hWðTh  Tw Þdxdt 5
0 0
the PCM can directly reduce the conduction thermal resistance of
the PCM slab. However, the utilization of multiple PCMs can
In order to theoretically analyze the PCM slab conduction improve the uniformity of q_ h and q_ P to decrease εv and εd,, resulting
thermal resistance, vTP =vx, which is much smaller than vTP =vy, can in reducing both PCM slab conduction thermal resistance and hot
be neglected for the slab LHTES system. Thus, it can be obtained fluid convection thermal resistance at the same time. The formula
of the entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance developed in
Zd=2
this paper reveals the heat transfer enhancement mechanism of
that lP vT
vy ¼
P
q_ P dy. With further mathematical transformation,
multiple PCMs.
y
Eq. (23) can be reformulated as

8 2 392
Ztm Zd=2 ZL >
< Zd=2 >
=
_P þ 6 _ P dy  ð0:5d  yÞq_ P 7
1
Rcond ¼ ð0:5 d  yÞ q 4 q 5 dxdydt; (24)
tm lP L2 W q_ h 0 0 0 > >
2
: ;
y

2.5. Optimization criterion and procedure

where q_ P ¼ vHP =vt is the heat storage rate of the PCM slab, and q_ P ¼ For the minimum entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance
Z tm Z d=2 Z L principle, the heat transfer process can be optimized by taking the
2
tm Ld
q_ P dxdydt is the average value of q_ P . It can be entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance minimization [48].
0 0 0
deduced that Based on Eq. (28), it is deduced that the entransy dissipation-based
thermal resistance of the slab LHTES system can reach the mini-
Z Z d=2 Z Zd=2
tm L mum value as εv ¼ 0 and εd ¼ 0. Thus, the minimum entransy
ð0:5d  yÞ½ q_ P dy  ð0:5d  yÞq_ P dxdydt ¼ 0 when
0 0 0 dissipation-based thermal resistance of the slab LHTES system can
y
be expressed as
the solid PCM is melted completely and the sensible heat storage is
much less than latent heat storage, and q_ h ¼ q_ P d=2. Therefore, Eq. 1 d
(24) can be reformulated as Rsystem;min ¼ þ : (29)
2NhLW 12N lP LW
  Based on Eq. (26), the following equation should be satisfied to
d 1
Rcond ¼ þ ε2d ; (25) realize εd ¼ 0:
2lP LW 3

where Zd=2
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi q_ P dy  ð0:5d  yÞq_ P ¼ 0: (30)
u 82 392
u Ztm Zd=2 ZL < > Zd=2 > y
2 u =
u 2 6 7
εd ¼ t 4 q_ P dy  ð0:5d  yÞq_ P 5 dxdydt : Hence,
dq_ P tm Ld >
: >
;
0 0 0 y
q_ P ¼ const; (31)
(26)
Based on Eqs. (21) and (25), the entransy dissipation-based which means that the heat storage rate of the PCM slab is uniform
thermal resistance of the slab LHTES unit during the melting pro- in temporal and spatial distribution. Then, q_ h ¼ const is obtained
cess is obtained as because q_ h is the integral of q_ P over the slab thickness
Z d=2
  (q_ h ¼ q_ P dy), and εv ¼ 0 can be realized at the same time. Thus,
1   d 1
R ¼ Rconv þ Rcond ¼ 1 þ ε2v þ þ ε2d : (27) 0
hLW 2lP LW 3 the uniformity of heat storage rate can be considered as one opti-
mization criterion for the LHTES system, which is proposed based
Then, the entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance of the
on the entransy theory. In previous work, several other optimiza-
slab LHTES system during the melting process is obtained as
tion criterions for different heat transfer modes or systems have
been proposed based on the entransy theory. Table 2 summarizes
Rsystem ¼ Rsystem;conv þ Rsystem;cond the current available optimization criterions based on the entransy
   
1 d 1 theory.
¼ 1 þ ε2v þ þ ε2d ; (28)
2NhLW 4N lP LW 3 Based on the optimization criterion proposed in the present
study, the melting temperatures of multiple PCMs arranged in a
where N is the number of the PCM slabs. I  J array (as shown in Fig. 2(b)) can be optimized by maintaining
It is noted from Eq. (28) that the entransy dissipation-based the average heat storage rate of the PCM slab units uniform. With
746 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751

Table 2
Optimization criterions based on the entransy theory.

Heat transfer modes or systems Optimization criterion Reference

Heat conduction Uniformity of temperature gradient [36]

Heat convection Field synergy degree of velocity and temperature gradient field [37]
Thermal radiation Uniform radiative thermal potential [39]
Two-fluid heat exchanger Uniformity of temperature difference field [40]
LHTES system Uniformity of heat storage rate Present study

array, and C1 is the relaxation factor. Fig. 5 shows the flow chat of
the optimization procedure.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Optimization analysis of multiple PCMs and thermal

performance

Table 3 presents the optimal melting temperatures of multiple

Fig. 5. Flow chart of the optimization procedure.
the constraint condition of the same average melting temperature
(T m ¼ const), the optimal melting temperature of the PCM slab unit
in ith row and jth column can be updated by
C1  
Tm;ij;new ¼ Tm;ij;old þ q_ P;ij  q_ P Th;in  T m ;
q_ P
where q_ P;ij is the average heat storage rate of the PCM slab unit in
P P
ith row and jth column, q_ P ¼ IJ1 Jj¼1 Ii¼1 q_ P;ij is the average heat
storage rate of the PCM slab with multiple PCMs arranged in a I  J
PCMs arranged in 2  2 and 3  3 arrays. According to the opti-
mization results, the appropriate PCMs which melting tempera-
tures are close to the optimal melting temperatures are selected
from open literature. It is shown that the melting time of the slab
LHTES system using the optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D
array can be reduced as compared to that using single PCM (1  1).
The melting time is reduced by 18.7% using the optimized multiple
PCMs arranged in a 2  2 array, and it is reduced by 23.9% using the
optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a 3  3 array. It is obvious that
the melting time can be further reduced using the optimized
multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array with more rows and columns,
which can reach the maximum of 38.2% using the optimized mul-
tiple PCMs arranged in a ∞  ∞ array. Fig. 6 shows the optimal
melting temperature distribution of multiple PCMs arranged in a
∞  ∞ array, which is optimized by maintaining the average heat
storage rate of the PCM slab in each grid cell uniform. However, the
multiple PCMs arranged in a ∞  ∞ array are difficult to be realized
in the practical application. The utilization of a limited number of
PCMs is one preferred option to improve the thermal performance
of the slab LHTES system. And the production cost should be
considered to determine the array size. The number of PCMs
adopted for multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array should be a
tradeoff between production cost and thermal performance.
Fig. 7 shows the entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance
and average heat storage rate of the slab LHTES system with the
optimized multiple PCMs arranged in different arrays. It is found
that both the hot fluid convection thermal resistance and PCM slab
conduction thermal resistance can be reduced using the optimized
multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array. It is confirmed that the
utilization of multiple PCMs can actually improve the uniformity of
both q_ h and q_ P to decrease εv and εd,. The entransy dissipation-
based thermal resistance is reduced by 12.6% using the optimized
multiple PCMs arranged in a 2  2 array, and it is reduced by 15.8%
using the optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a 3  3 array
compared to that using single PCM (1  1). And the reduction in-
creases as the array size increases, which is consistent with the
variation of the average heat storage rate of the slab LHTES system.
The temporal variations of the PCM liquid fraction and hot fluid
outlet temperature of the slab LHTES system with the optimized
multiple PCMs arranged in different arrays are shown in Figs. 8 and
(32) 9, respectively, and the single PCM case is shown for comparison. It
can be found that the melting time using single PCM (1  1) is
20.75 h, and the hot fluid outlet temperature gradually increases
from 39.8
C to 84.0
C during the melting process. While the
melting time using the optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a
∞  ∞ array is 12.82 h, the hot fluid outlet temperature can remain
 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751 747

Table 3
Optimal melting temperatures, multiple PCMs selection and thermal performance.

IJ Optimal Multiple PCMs selection tm (h) Reduction

Tm (
C) (%)
PCM Tm (
C)

Single PCM 11 e Paraffin RT55 [16] 55 20.75 e

Multiple PCMs 22 Tm,11 ¼ 63.71 Glycerol tristearate [52] 62.83 16.87 18.7
Tm,12 ¼ 54.35 Hexadecyl octadecanoate (cetyl stearate) [53] 54.63
Tm,21 ¼ 55.55 P2 (77 wt%)/HDPE (23 wt%) [54] 55.7
Tm,22 ¼ 46.39 Elaidic [55] 47
33 Tm,11 ¼ 68.20 Steatric acid [56] 67.8 15.78 23.9
Tm,12 ¼ 61.37 1,4 Butanediol palmitic acid [55] 61
Tm,13 ¼ 55.12 Paraffin RT55 [16] 55
Tm,21 ¼ 60.48 Palmitic acid [56] 60.42
Tm,22 ¼ 53.35 P2 (50 wt%)/HPPE (50 wt%) [54] 53.8
Tm,23 ¼ 47.38 Elaidic [55] 47
Tm,31 ¼ 56.36 Octadecyl hexadecanoate (stearyl palmitate) [57] 57.34
Tm,32 ¼ 49.22 Hexadecyl tetradecanoate (cetyl myristate) [53] 49.44
Tm,33 ¼ 43.52 Lauric acid [56] 43.55
∞∞ e e e 12.82 38.2

completely stable at 66.6
C, and its melting rate is uniform because liquid interfaces for different arrays. The white color represents
the PCM liquid fraction varies linearly with time during the whole the liquid phase (f ¼ 1) and the blue color represents the solid
melting process. For the slab LHTES system using the optimized phase (f ¼ 0). The solid-liquid interface (red solid line) of single PCM
multiple PCMs arranged in 2  2 and 3  3 arrays, the PCM liquid
fraction and hot fluid outlet temperature are between those of
single PCM (1  1) and optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a
∞  ∞ array. The results indicate the fact that a more uniform PCM
melting rate, which means a more uniform heat storage rate, leads
to a shorter PCM melting time and a more stable hot fluid outlet
temperature.
Fig. 10 shows solid-liquid interface evolutions of PCM solid-

Fig. 6. Optimal melting temperature distribution of multiple PCMs arranged in a

∞  ∞ array. Fig. 8. PCM liquid fraction variation of the slab LHTES system with the optimized
multiple PCMs arranged in different arrays.

Fig. 7. Entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance and average heat storage rate
of the slab LHTES system with the optimized multiple PCMs arranged in different Fig. 9. Hot fluid outlet temperature variation of the slab LHTES system with the
arrays. optimized multiple PCMs arranged in different arrays.
748 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751

4h

6h

8h

10 h

12 h

(a) (b)

4h

6h

8h

10 h

12 h

(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Evolution of PCM solid-liquid interfaces for different arrays (a) 1  1, (b) 2  2, (c) 3  3 and (d) ∞  ∞.

(1  1) is clearly observed in Fig. 10(a). It shows that the melting
process starts from the PCM slab wall and gradually moves towards
the interior. The melting rate at the inlet is much faster than that at
the outlet because the hot fluid temperature decreases along the
length direction, which results in that the heat flux at the PCM slab
wall decreases accordingly as the PCM melting temperature is
constant. For the optimized multiple PCMs arranged in 2  2 and
3  3 arrays as shown in Fig. 10(b) and (c), it is seen that different
PCM slab units can melt simultaneously, and the solid-liquid
interface evolution in each PCM slab unit is similar to that of sin-
gle PCM (1  1). For the optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a
∞  ∞ array as shown in Fig. 10(d), the PCMs can melt homoge-
nously with no obvious solid-liquid interface during the whole
melting process. It is indicated that the utilization of the optimized
multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array with more rows and columns
can make the melting rate more uniform. The utilization of the
optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a ∞  ∞ array can theoret-
ically realize the homogenous melting process.
3.2. Effect of PCM thermal conductivity on multiple PCMs
arrangement
Fig. 11 shows the optimal melting temperature distribution of
multiple PCMs arranged in ∞  ∞ arrays for different PCM thermal
conductivities. It is seen that the isotherms are nearly parallel to the
x axis as the thermal conductivity is 0.1 W/m K, which would
become nearly vertical as the thermal conductivity increases to
10.0 W/m K. The results indicate that the multiple PCMs arrange-
ment along the slab length direction or thickness direction is
directly influenced by the PCM thermal conductivity. Fig. 12 shows
the entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance variation with
PCM thermal conductivity for the slab LHTES system with the
optimized multiple PCMs arranged in ∞  ∞ arrays. It is seen that
the PCM slab conduction thermal resistance, which is dominant
when the PCM thermal conductivity is at a low value, is signifi-
cantly reduced as the PCM thermal conductivity increases. While
the hot fluid convection thermal resistance remains almost the
 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751
(a)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 11. The optimal melting temperature distribution of multiple PCMs arranged in ∞  ∞ arrays for (a) lP ¼ 0.1 W/m K, (b) lP ¼ 0.4 W/m K, (c) lP ¼ 1.0 W/m K, (d) lP ¼ 2.0 W/m K,
(e) lP ¼ 5.0 W/m K and (f) lP ¼ 10.0 W/m K.
Fig. 12. Entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance variation with PCM thermal
conductivity.
same and gradually become dominant as the PCM thermal con-
ductivity increases. It can be concluded that the multiple PCMs
arrangement, which is influenced by the PCM thermal conductivity,
essentially depends on the dominant effect of the PCM slab con-
duction thermal resistance and the hot fluid convection thermal
resistance in the slab LHTES system. Therefore, it is suggested that
the multiple PCMs arranged in a 1D array along the thickness di-
rection should be adopted when the PCM slab conduction thermal
resistance is dominant, and the multiple PCMs arranged in a 1D
array along the length direction should be adopted when the hot
fluid convection thermal resistance becomes dominant. Otherwise,
the utilization of multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array is more
suitable to improve the thermal performance of the slab LHTES
system.
For most of the conventional PCMs with low thermal conduc-
tivity ranging from 0.1 W/m K to 1.0 W/m K, the thermal perfor-
mance of the present slab LHTES system using the same number of
PCMs with optimal melting temperatures arranged in different
749
(b)
(d)
(f)
Fig. 13. Entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance of the slab LHTES system with
the optimized nine PCMs arranged in different arrays.
arrays is further investigated. Fig. 13 shows the entransy
dissipation-based thermal resistances of the slab LHTES system
with the optimized nine PCMs arranged in 1  9, 9  1 and 3  3
arrays, which represent 1D array along the length direction, 1D
array along the thickness direction and 2D array, respectively. It is
obvious that the entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance of
the slab LHTES system with the optimized nine PCMs arranged in a
3  3 array is below that in 1  9 and 9  1 arrays when the PCM
thermal conductivity is ranged from 0.1 W/m K to 1.0 W/m K. It is
indicated that the multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array is preferred
for the present slab LHTES system to improve the thermal perfor-
mance when the PCMs are characterized by low thermal
conductivity.
4. Conclusions
A 2D model is developed to predict the melting of multiple
750 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751
PCMs in slab LHTES system. The entransy theory is employed to
optimize the performance of the slab LHTES system with multiple
PCMs arranged in a 2D array considering the transient heat con-
duction in the PCMs slab. The formula of the entransy dissipation-
based thermal resistance of the slab LHTES system is theoretically
developed to reveal the heat transfer enhancement mechanism of
multiple PCMs, which includes the PCM slab conduction thermal
resistance and the hot fluid convection thermal resistance. A novel
optimization criterion is proposed for the LHTES system based on
the minimum entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance prin-
ciple, which states that the entransy dissipation-based thermal
resistance can be reduced as the uniformity of the PCM slab heat
storage rate in temporal and spatial distribution increases. An
optimization procedure under the constraint of the same average
melting temperature is developed for optimizing the melting
temperatures of multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array.
The melting temperatures of multiple PCMs arranged in
different 2D arrays for the slab LHTES system are optimized based
on the optimization criterion proposed in the present work. The
appropriate PCMs from literature are selected according to the
optimization results and the melting processes of the optimized
multiple PCMs are investigated. It is found that the utilization of the
optimized multiple PCMs arranged in a 2D array can uniform the
heat storage rate of PCM slab to reduce the PCM melting time and
stabilize the hot fluid outlet temperature. The utilization of the
optimized multiple PCMs arranged in an infinite 2D array can
theoretically achieve the peak performance for the slab LHTES
system, in which the homogenous melting process is realized to
minimize the entransy dissipation-based thermal resistance.
Multiple PCMs arrangement depends on the dominant effect of
the PCM slab conduction thermal resistance and the hot fluid
convection thermal resistance. It is suggested that the multiple
PCMs should be arranged in one dimension along the length di-
rection when the hot fluid convection thermal resistance is domi-
nant, while thickness direction arrangement is suggested when the
PCM slab conduction thermal resistance is dominant. Otherwise,
the multiple PCMs should be arranged in two dimension when the
PCM slab conduction thermal resistance and hot fluid convection
thermal resistance are at the same level. For the present slab LHTES
system using conventional PCMs, the utilization of multiple PCMs
arranged in a 2D array is preferred to achieve a high efficiency.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China through grant nos. 51536005 & 51376130.
References
[1] Dhaidan NS, Khodadadi JM. Melting and convection of phase change materials
in different shape containers: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;43:
449e77.

L, Cabeza LF. Review on system and materials requirements for
[2] Gasia J, Miro
high temperature thermal energy storage. Part 1: general requirements.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;75:1320e38.
[3] Xu J, Wang RZ, Li Y. A review of available technologies for seasonal thermal
energy storage. Sol Energy 2014;103:610e38.
[4] Sharma A, Tyagi VV, Chen CR, Buddhi D. Review on thermal energy storage
with phase change materials and applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2009;13:318e45.
[5] Khan MMA, Saidur R, Al-Sulaiman FA. A review for phase change materials
(PCMs) in solar absorption refrigeration systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2017;76:105e37.
[6] Brancato V, Frazzica A, Sapienza A, Freni A. Identification and characterization
of promising phase change materials for solar cooling applications. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2017;160:225e32.
[7] Sahoo SK, Rath P, Das MK. Numerical study of phase change material based
orthotropic heat sink for thermal management of electronics components. Int
J Heat Mass Transf 2016;103:855e67.
[8] de Gracia A, Cabeza LF. Phase change materials and thermal energy storage for
buildings. Energy Build 2015;103:414e9.
[9] Zhang YP, Zhou GB, Lin KP, Zhang QL, Di HF. Application of latent heat thermal
energy storage in buildings: state-of-the-art and outlook. Build Environ
2007;42(6):2197e209.
[10] Miro
L, Gasia J, Cabeza LF. Thermal energy storage (TES) for industrial waste
heat (IWH) recovery: a review. Appl Energy 2016;179:284e301.
[11] Agyenim F, Hewitt N, Eames P, Smyth M. A review of materials, heat transfer
and phase change problem formulation for latent heat thermal energy storage
systems (LHTESS). Renew Sust Energ Rev 2010;14:615e28.
[12] Li TX, Lee JH, Wang RZ, Kang YT. Enhancement of heat transfer for thermal
energy storage application using stearic acid nanocomposite with multi-
walled carbon nanotubes. Energy 2013;55:752e61.
[13] Liu ZY, Yao YP, Wu HY. Numerical modeling for solid-liquid phase change
phenomena in porous media: shell-and-tube type latent heat thermal energy
storage. Appl Energy 2013;112:1222e32.
[14] Yao YP, Wu HY, Liu ZY. A new prediction model for the effective thermal
conductivity of high porosity open-cell metal foams. Int J Therm Sci 2015;97:
56e67.
[15] Nithyanandam K, Pitchumani R. Analysis and optimization of a latent thermal
energy storage system with embedded heat pipes. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2011;54:4596e610.
[16] Khan Z, Khan Z, Ghafoor A. A review of performance enhancement of PCM
based latent heat storage system within the context of materials, thermal
stability and compatibility. Energy Conv Manag 2016;115:132e58.
[17] Ibrahim NI, Al-Sulaiman FA, Rahman S, Yilbas BS, Sahin AZ. Heat transfer
enhancement of phase change materials for thermal energy storage applica-
tions: a critical review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2017;74:26e50.
[18] Farid MM, Kanzawa A. Thermal performance of a heat storage module using
PCM's with different melting temperatures: mathematical modeling. J Sol
Energy Eng 1989;111:152e7.
[19] Farid MM, Kim Y, Kansawa A. Thermal performance of a heat storage module
using PCM's with different melting temperature: experimental. J Sol Energy
Eng 1990;112:125e31.
[20] Liu M, Saman W, Bruno F. Review on storage materials and thermal perfor-
mance enhancement techniques for high temperature phase change thermal
storage systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012;16(4):2118e32.
[21] Yang L, Zhang XS, Xu GY. Thermal performance of a solar storage packed bed
using spherical capsules filled with PCM having different melting points.
Energy Build 2014;68:639e46.
[22] Peiro
G, Gasia J, Miro

L, Cabeza LF. Experimental evaluation at pilot plant scale
of multiple PCMs (cascaded) vs. single PCM configuration for thermal energy
storage. Renew Energy 2015;83:729e36.
[23] Shamsi H, Boroushaki M, Geraei H. Performance evaluation and optimization
of encapsulated cascade PCM thermal storage. J Energy Storage 2017;11:
64e75.
[24] Fang M, Chen GM. Effects of different multiple PCMs on the performance of a
latent thermal energy storage system. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27(5e6):
994e1000.
[25] Shaikh S, Lafdi K. Effect of multiple phase change materials (PCMs) slab
configurations on thermal energy storage. Energy Conv Manag
2006;47(15e16):2103e17.
[26] Verma P, Varun, Singal SK. Review of mathematical modeling on latent heat
thermal energy storage systems using phase-change material. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 2008;12(4):999e1031.
[27] Vakilaltojjar SM. Phase change thermal storage system for space heating and
cooling. PhD Thesis. Australia: University of South Australia; 2000.
[28] Vakilaltojjar SM, Saman W. Analysis and modelling of a phase change storage
system for air conditioning applications. Appl Therm Eng 2001;21(3):249e63.
[29] El Qarnia H. Theoretical study of transient response of a rectangular latent
heat thermal energy storage system with conjugate forced convection. Energy
Conv Manag 2004;45(9e10):1537e51.
[30] Halawa E, Saman W, Bruno F. A phase change processor method for solving a
one-dimensional phase change problem with convection boundary. Renew
Energy 2010;35(8):1688e95.
[31] Halawa E, Saman W. Thermal performance analysis of a phase change thermal
storage unit for space heating. Renew Energy 2011;36(1):259e64.
[32] Liu M, Saman W, Bruno F. Validation of a mathematical model for encapsu-
lated phase change material flat slabs for cooling applications. Appl Therm
Eng 2011;31(14e15):2340e7.
[33] Mosaffa AH, Infante Ferreira CA, Talati F, Rosen MA. Thermal performance of a
multiple PCM thermal storage unit for free cooling. Energy Conv Manag
2013;67:1e7.
[34] Aceves SM, Nakamura H, Reistad GM, Martinez-Frias J. Optimization of a class
of latent thermal energy storage systems with multiple phase-change mate-
rials. J Sol Energy Eng 1998;120:14e9.
[35] Guo ZY, Zhu HY, Liang XG. Entransyda physical quantity describing heat
transfer ability. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2007;50:2545e56.
[36] Chen Q, Zhu HY, Pan N, Guo ZY. An alternative criterion in heat transfer
optimization. Proc R Soc A 2011;467:1012e28.
[37] Chen Q, Ren JX, Meng JA. Field synergy equation for turbulent heat transfer
and its application. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2007;50(25e26):5334e9.
[38] Chen Q, Wang M, Pan N, Guo ZY. Optimization principles for convective heat
transfer. Energy 2009;34(9):1199e206.
[39] Cheng XT, Liang XG. Entransy flux of thermal radiation and its application to
enclosures with opaque surfaces. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2011;54(1e3):
 H. Wang et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 739e751
269e78.
[40] Cheng XT, Zhang QZ, Liang XG. Analyses of entransy dissipation, entropy
generation and entransyedissipation-based thermal resistance on heat
exchanger optimization. Appl Therm Eng 2012;38:31e9.
[41] Xu YC, Chen Q, Guo ZY. Entransy dissipation-based constraint for optimization
of heat exchanger networks in thermal systems. Energy 2015;86:696e708.
[42] Wang WH, Cheng XT, Liang XG. Entransy dissipation, entransy-dissipation-
based thermal resistance and optimization of one-stream hybrid thermal
network. Sci China-Technol Sci 2013;56(2):529e36.
[43] Huang ZW, Li ZN, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. Application of entransy dissi-
pation based thermal resistance to design optimization of a novel finless
evaporator. Sci China-Technol Sci 2016;59(10):1486e93.
[44] Chen Q, Yang KD, Wang M, Pan N, Guo ZY. A new approach to analysis and
optimization of evaporative cooling system I: theory. Energy 2010;35(6):
2448e54.
[45] Chen Q, Pan N, Guo ZY. A new approach to analysis and optimization of
evaporative cooling system II: applications. Energy 2011;36(5):2890e8.
[46] Zhang L, Liu XH, Jiang Y. Application of entransy in the analysis of HVAC
systems in buildings. Energy 2013;53:332e42.
[47] Sekulic DP, Sciubba E, Moran MJ. Entransy: a misleading concept for the
analysis and optimization of thermal systems. Energy 2015;80:251e3.
[48] Chen Q, Liang XG, Guo ZY. Entransy theory for the optimization of heat
transfer e a review and update. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2013;63:65e81.
[49] Tao YB, He YL, Liu YK, Tao WQ. Performance optimization of two-stage latent
heat storage unit based on entransy theory. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2014;77:
751
695e703.
[50] Xu HJ, Zhao CY. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of cascaded latent
heat storage system for energy efficient utilization. Energy 2015;90:1662e73.
[51] Shah RK, London AL. Laminar flow forced convection in ducts. New York:
Academic Press; 1978.
[52] Sarı A, Biçer A, Karaipekli A, Alkan C, Karadag A. Synthesis, thermal energy
storage properties and thermal reliability of some fatty acid esters with
glycerol as novel solideliquid phase change materials. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2010;94(10):1711e5.
[53] Aydın AA, Aydın A. High-chain fatty acid esters of 1-hexadecanol for low
temperature thermal energy storage with phase change materials. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2012;96:93e100.
[54] Sarı A. Form-stable paraffin/high density polyethylene composites as solid-
liquid phase change material for thermal energy storage: preparation and
thermal properties. Energy Conv Manag 2004;45(13e14):2033e42.
[55] Sharma RK, Ganesan P, Tyagi VV, Metselaar HSC, Sandaran SC. Developments
in organic solideliquid phase change materials and their applications in
thermal energy storage. Energy Conv Manag 2015;95:193e228.
[56] Yuan YP, Zhang N, Tao WQ, Cao XL, He YL. Fatty acids as phase change ma-
terials: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;29:482e98.
[57] Aydın AA. High-chain fatty acid esters of 1-octadecanol as novel organic phase
change materials and mathematical correlations for estimating the thermal
properties of higher fatty acid esters' homologous series. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2013;113:44e51.