Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Solidification enhancement of PCM in a triplex-tube thermal energy storage T

system with nanoparticles and fins
⁎
Jasim M. Mahdia,b, Emmanuel C. Nsofora,
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Energy Processes, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
b
Department of Energy Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad 10071, Iraq

H I G H L I G H T S

• Solidification enhancement of PCM was modeled, validated, and investigated.

• Nanoparticles-in-PCM, fins and combined fins with nanoparticles were applied.
• Natural convection and Brownian motion of nanoparticles in PCM were also studied.
• Fin/nanoparticle volume fractions were used to make the volume usage comparable.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study is on the application of nanoparticles and fins for improved phase change material (PCM) solidifi-
Thermal energy storage cation in a heat exchanger. A major challenge in using PCMs is their poor thermal conductivities which con-
Phase change material sequently prolongs phase change processes giving rise to very slow charging/discharging rates. This seriously
Triplex-tube affects energy storage and recovery times, signifying the need for heat transfer enhancement in these systems. A
Solidification
model that considers heat conduction in the fins, natural convection in the liquid PCM, and Brownian motion of
Nanoparticles
nanoparticles in the PCM was developed and validated with experimental data in this study. The influence of
Fins
different dimensions of fins and volume concentrations of nanoparticles on PCM solidification evolution was
studied. The effect of using fins alone, nanoparticles alone and combination of both on the solidification was
investigated. Because of the extra added volume which limits available volume for PCM storage, the fin, na-
noparticle and total volume fractions were used to evaluate volume usage associated with each technique.
Results from the study show remarkable findings including substantial reduction in the PCM solidification time.
It was also found that the application of fins alone shows better enhancement than using either nanoparticles
alone or combination of fins and nanoparticles.

1. Introduction broader usage of the aforementioned sources. TES is basically a tem-

The need for developing effective storage technologies to bridge the
gap between the existing energy supply and energy demand is of a
growing concern worldwide. Environmental impact and limited energy
supply of present-day fossil-fuel sources have been and still are chal-
lenges for researchers in the field of energy. The move to more sus-
tainable, environmental-friendly sources of energy like solar, wind, etc.
has become very crucial. However, issues of the intermittent avail-
ability and relatively high cost of installation and maintenance have
made these sources less competitive in today’s energy markets. Thermal
energy storage (TES) is considered an attractive solution for correcting
the intermittency, facilitating more efficient use, and promoting
porary storing of energy in thermal form for later use [1]. The three
options available are: sensible heat method that raises or lowers the
temperature of the storage material, latent heat method that stimulates
the storage material to change phase from liquid to solid (solidification)
or from solid to liquid (melting), and thermochemical method that
employs reversible chemical reactions for thermal storage. Thermo-
chemical TES is still some way off as more research and development
are required before commercial implementation can be subsidized [2].
The latent storage method based on phase change materials (PCMs) is
characterized by relatively high energy storage density (i.e. smaller
storage volume), and nearly isothermal storage process compared to the
sensible storage method. For decades, PCMs have received considerable

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nsofor@siu.edu (E.C. Nsofor).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.082
Received 25 May 2017; Received in revised form 9 November 2017; Accepted 18 November 2017
0306-2619/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor
Nomenclature
A area
B Boltzmann constant (J/K)
C mushy zone constant
b fin thickness (mm)
Cp specific heat (J/kg K)
g gravity acceleration (m/s2)
h sensible enthalpy (J/kg K)
ΔH latent heat (J/kg K)
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
Γ latent heat of fusion (J/kg K)
L triplex-tube length (m)
P pressure (Pa)
r tube radius (m)
t time (s)
T temperature (K)
Tl liquidus temperature of the PCM (K)
Ts solidus temperature of the PCM (K)
u velocity component in r-direction (m/s)
v velocity component in θ-direction (m/s)
V volume
w fin length (mm)
HTF heat transfer fluid
PCM phase change material
attention because they find applications in various fields such as solar
energy storage [3], energy-efficient buildings [4], waste heat recovery
[5], and cooling of electronic equipment [6].
The major challenge in using PCMs as TES media is their poor
thermal conductivities inherently prolong the phase change process and
impose too slow charging/discharging rates. This seriously affects the
energy storage and recovery, and thus the heat transfer enhancement is
required. It is noted that in order to solve this problem, the materials
that have been used for heat transfer enhancement in PCMs-related
applications can be categorized as: (i) fixed, solid inserts like graphite/
metal matrices [7–9], honeycombs [10], fins [11], heat pipes [12], and
(ii) free, dispersed-in particles like carbon nanotubes [13], carbon na-
nofiber [14] and metallic nanoparticles [15]. The materials in category
(i) enhance the PCM phase change rate by increasing the heat exchange
area between the PCM and the heat transfer fluid (HTF), whereas, those
in category (ii) enhance the phase change rate through improving the
thermophysical properties e.g. density, thermal conductivity, and latent
heat of the PCM itself. A combination of these two approaches as was
done in this study is to utilize their advantages for further heat transfer
improvement.
Another challenge associated with utilizing PCMs is that many of
these materials exhibit significant density difference between the solid
and liquid phase [16]. This issue, in most cases, especially with en-
capsulated PCMs leads to undesirable expansion and contraction of the
materials during melting and solidification. As a result, extra stresses
are exerted on the walls of the containment vessel. The issue is usually
controlled by leaving a small air gap within the containment vessel to
allow the PCM to expand freely without pushing against the inner walls
of the vessel [17,18]. However, with the repeated heating and cooling,
it is observed that in many PCMs air moves in leading to the formation
of air voids on solidification. These voids negatively affect the homo-
geneity and the heat transfer characteristics of PCMs which should be
preserved for long operation cycles [19–23]. The scope of the present
study is limited to understanding the effect of using fins/nanoparticles
as PCM solidification enhancements additives. Therefore, the impact of
void formation during the solidification mode was not considered in
this study.
Application of fins as a heat transfer enhancement method is quite
976
Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986
TES thermal energy storage
Greek letters
ρ fluid density (kg/m3)
φt total volume fraction
φf fin volume fraction
φn nanoparticle volume fraction
λ liquid fraction
β thermal expansion coefficient (K−1)
μ dynamic viscosity (kg/m s)
ζ correction factor
Subscripts
f fin
int initial
i inner tube
l liquid phase
o outer tube
np nanoparticle
npcm nanoPCM
ref reference
s solid phase
w wall
desirable due to the relative ease of installation and the low cost of
fabrication. Common fin configurations are longitudinal, annular, plate,
and pin. Longitudinal fins are considered the best performing type
especially for cylindrical PCM containers [24]. A study on enhanced
thermal performance in longitudinal-finned annulus heat exchangers
was reported in [25–31]. Common fin configurations used in PCM-
based storage systems along with the geometric and design parameters
were summarized by Abdulateef et al. [24]. One common drawback
regarding the incorporation of solid inserts like fins and porous foams
into PCM-based storage systems is their extra added volume and weight
which affect the overall storage capacity and mobility of these systems.
The inclusion of highly-conductive nanoparticles to form nanocompo-
site PCMs (nanoPCMs) has been proposed as an alternative solution.
Attempt on this was initiated by Khodadadi and Hosseinizadeh [15] in
2007. Since then, considerable efforts have been made via numerical
and experimental studies on thermal and physical characterization of
these nanocomposites. It has been reported that successful dispersion of
nanoparticles leads to enhanced thermal conductivity, increased heat
transfer rate, and consequently shortening of time for the PCM melting
and solidification [32–39]. However, issues related to agglomeration of
nanoparticles and dramatic increases in the viscosity of the PCM have
been reported [40,41].
This study proposes the use of nanoparticles with fins as a com-
pound heat transfer enhancement approach. The term “compound”
refers to the nature of heat transfer enhancement process which is a
combination of the enlarged heat-exchange area due to the incorpora-
tion of fins into the heating walls and the improved thermophysical
properties e.g. thermal conductivity and latent heat of the PCM by the
nanoparticle dispersion. This approach would be favorable since each
technique, i.e. application of fins or dispersion of nanoparticles, each
has its own benefits. For example, fins are effective in providing good
thermal penetration as they provide direct heat transfer pathways into
the PCM. However, fins put too much flow-resistant forces that inhibit
the positive role of natural convection in the liquid PCM which is sig-
nificant during the melting phase. Nanoparticle dispersion looks like a
good enhancement method since nanoparticles can move with the PCM
particles due to their tiny masses during the PCM phase transition
leading to good convection contribution in the heat transfer process.
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986

However, the relatively high existing cost of nanoparticles in manu- PCM solidification with the aforementioned techniques for TES in the
facturing and application to the PCMs in addition to their high potential triplex-tube heat exchanger. The natural convection of liquid PCM, the
to agglomeration and sedimentation remain obvious disadvantages. Brownian motion of nanoparticles, and the temperature-dependent
Moreover, unlike fins, nanoparticles are not able to provide mechanical physical properties of nano-PCM were considered in the study.
strength which is sometimes required for the overall system stability
[42].
2. Problem statement and formulation
The main objective of this study is to investigate the heat transfer
enhancement applying longitudinal fins with nanoparticles with a view
A two-dimensional schematic of the problem under consideration is
to achieving better energy recovery process in the triplex-tube TES
illustrated in Fig. 1. It is a cross-section of a horizontal longitudinally-
system. With this combination, it is expected that nanoparticles will
finned triplex-tube heat exchanger with (a) the physical model and (b)
contribute to better convection compared to the use of fins alone.
the computational domain. Due to symmetry in the θ-direction, only
Meanwhile, the presence of fins would promote better heat penetration
one half was considered for computation. This heat exchanger was used
to the PCM during the solidification. To the best of authors’ knowledge,
by Al-Abidi et al. [28] as PCM-based TES unit for a solar-powered li-
solidification enhancement of PCM using fins-nanoparticles combina-
quid-desiccant air-conditioning system. It consists of three concentric
tion in the triplex-tube heat exchanger has not been reported on yet.
copper tubes having lengths of 500 mm. The inner, middle and outer
The secondary objective of this study was to present a new approach for
tubes have diameters of 50.8, 150 and 200 mm respectively. The middle
PCM latent heat energy storage in the heat exchanger. Performance
and outer tubes have a wall-thickness of 2 mm while that of the inner
enhancement was based on the application of nanoparticles alone, fins
tube is 1.2 mm. The space between the inner and middle tubes was
alone, and nanoparticles-fins combination in the triplex tube heat ex-
assumed to be filled with nanoPCM while the HTF circulates inside both
changer keeping in view, the implied storage volume reduction. The fin
the inner tube and the annulus between the middle and outer tubes.
volume fraction (φf) and nanoparticle volume fraction (φn) were used
Eight equal longitudinal fins made of copper having the length (w) and
in the analysis. This strategy for evaluating performance enhancement
thicknesses (b) are fixed externally to the inner tube and internally to
was reported in our previous study on the melting of the phase change
the middle tube. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the fins are symmetrically
material during the energy storage cycle [43]. In this present research,
mounted along the tubes in such a way that two fins are horizontal and
solidification of the PCM in the energy recovery cycle has been studied.
two are vertical on the middle tube. The four fins on the inner tube are
The analysis was also elaborated on to include a wider range of fin and
tilted at 45° with the horizontal.
nanoparticle volume fractions to evaluate better, the solidification en-
Fins’ dimensions were left to be freely varied to give the required fin
hancement potential. It should be noted that, the heat transfer rate
volume fraction. RT82 was used as a PCM, alumina (Al2O3) as the
during solidification of the PCM is much slower than that during the
material for the nanoparticles and water as the HTF. RT82 was selected
solidification because natural convection is less effective during
because it could provide a phase-change process without supercooling.
melting. This is because, the heat transfer is mostly by conduction in the
It also exhibits relatively stable performance during the multiple
solid PCM [44,45]. Thus, the use of higher volume fraction of the en-
thermal cycling [46].
hancement materials: fins, nanoparticles, and nanoparticles-fins com-
The computational domain is longitudinally-finned annulus housing
bination for improving the solidification behavior of the PCM, is justi-
the nanoPCM with ro and ri being the radii of the middle and inner
fied.
tubes respectively. It was assumed that initially (at t = 0) the nanoPCM
The triplex-tube configuration was selected due to the both-sides
was at a uniform temperature of 366 K, which is sufficiently higher than
heating approach that is applied on the annulus housing the PCM. This
the liquidus temperature (Tl) to ensure that the PCM was at the liquid
approach enables the PCM to have a larger heat-exchange area com-
phase. Thus, the initial conditions are defined as
pared to using the common double-pipe heat exchanger [28]. Thus, a
higher heat absorption/release rate could arise resulting in shorter at t= 0,T = Tint = 366 K
phase-change duration. A two-dimensional model based on the com-
putational fluid dynamics software ANSYS FLUENT 17.0 using the fi- For time t > 0, both the inner and outer surfaces of the annulus are
nite-volume discretization was developed to numerically investigate the exposed to the HTF that is set to fixed temperatures of (Tw = 343 K)
which are all lower than the solidification temperature of the PCM

HTF Upper symmetry line

ro
NanoPCM
ri r
ș
HTF
Tw = THTF

Tw = THTF
Lower symmetry line

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Triplex-tube storage system configuration (a) physical domain and (b) computational domain.

977
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986

(TW < Ts). So, the boundary conditions are defined as ∂ (ρCu Cp,Cu TCu)
= ∇ ·(k Cu∇TCu)
∂t (5)
(1) at r = ri, T = Tw = 366 K
The subscript “Cu” above refers to the fin material (copper) and ρCu,
(2) at r = ro, T = Tw = 366 K
Cp,Cu, kCu are its density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity re-
spectively.
Since Tw is lower than the solidus temperature Ts, this will enable
heat to move out through both the inner and outer surfaces to initiate
solidification that starts to appear as a solidified layer adjacent to each 2.1. Fin dimensions calculations
surface. Selection of this discharge temperature was based on minimum
operation temperature requirements (Tw ≥ 70 °C) to power the solar- The, fins’ dimensions i.e. fin length (w) and fin thickness (b), were
powered liquid-desiccant air conditioning systems [28]. left to be freely changed to give the required fin volume fraction. To
During solidification, the heat transfer occurs by only conduction in develop an expression that can relate the fin dimensions to the required
the solid PCM and by both conduction and convection in the liquid fin volume fraction (φf), the volume occupied by the fins (Vf) was
PCM. This, in turns, creates a buoyancy-driven flow in the liquid part of calculated as
the PCM. In order to develop a mathematical model for the solidifica- Vf = N× ( w× b) × L (6)
tion, the following assumptions were made to simplify the problem: (1)
PCM is in the liquid phase and its flow is transient and incompressible, where N is number of fins and L is the triplex-tube annulus length.
(2) temperature variation of the HTF is negligible (Tw is constant), (3) The fin volume fraction (φf) is defined as
Viscous dissipations are negligible, (4) No-slip conditions for fluid ve- Vf N× w× b×L
φf = =
locities at the boundaries, (5) All thermo-physical properties of the PCM Vt π(r 2o−r 2i )×L (7)
are temperature-independent except density in the momentum equa-
tions, (6) Density variation in the momentum equations was accounted Here Vt denotes to the total volume of the annulus containing the PCM
for using Boussinesq approximation, (7) There is no contact resistance and fins.
between the tube and fins, and (8) There is no heat transfer with the Therefore, the fin length was formulated as
surroundings. π(r 2o−r 2i )φf
With these assumptions, the equations governing the fluid motion w=
(8)
N× b
and temperature distribution in the PCM were expressed by the Navier-
Stokes and energy equations as follows: Other design parameters of fins were pre-assigned as: b = 1, or
2 mm, N = 8 mm, and φt ≤ 0.03. Based on these parameters, ten cases
∇ . v= 0 (1)
of different fin and nanoparticle volume fractions as tabulated in
∂u 1 (1−λ)2 Table 1 were obtained and used in the present numerical simulation. It
+ v. ∇ u= (−∇ P+ μ npcm∇2 u) + Cu 3
∂t ρnpcm λ +ε should be noted here that there are three enhancement techniques of
(2)
interest in this study: fins alone, nanoparticles alone, and nanoparticle-
∂u 1 (1−λ)2 fin combination. The volume usage in each technique was realized
+ v. ∇ u= (−∇ P+ μ npcm∇2 v+ (ρβ )npcm g(T−Tref )) + Cv 3 using nanoparticle volume fraction (φn), fin volume fraction (φf), and
∂t ρnpcm λ +ε
total volume fraction (φt), where:
(3)

∂u ∂ (ΔH) knpcm (φt = φn) is the volume fraction for the cases of nanoparticles alone,
+ + ∇ ·(vh) = ∇ ·⎜⎛ ∇H⎞⎟ (φt = φf) is the volume fraction for the cases of fins alone, and
∂t ∂t ⎝ (ρC p ) npcm ⎠ (4) (φt = φf + φn) is the volume fraction for the cases of nanoparticle-
In these equations, u is the velocity component in the r – direction, v is fin combination.
the velocity component in the θ-direction, μ is dynamic viscosity, P is
pressure and C is the mushy zone constant which is used to control The scenario in this study is that, the simulation runs were con-
damping as velocity approaches zero when the PCM solidifies. It is ducted with reference to the ten cases listed in Table 1. Case 1 was the
usually set at around 105–106 in most numerical studies [47]. In this base case for which other cases were compared to it. The total volume
present study, it was found that a value of C = 106 provides the best fraction in all the cases was fixed at (φt ≤ 0.03). Higher volume frac-
match to the experimental results by Al-Abidi et al. [28]. ɛ is a small tions were not considered to avoid affecting much of the system storage
number (0.001) to prevent division by zero, h is sensible enthalpy, and capacity by further loss in the available (volume/mass) of the storage
ΔH is latent heat. The sensible enthalpy was represented by the ex- space for the PCM. Moreover, the average volume fraction of up to (φt
pression: = 0.03) was selected taking into account that such a ratio gave good
results in a number of nanoparticles-in-PCMs suspension previous stu-
T
h= href + ∫Tref
Cp dT dies [33,34,48].

where href is the reference enthalpy at reference temperature Table 1

(Tref = 273 K) and Cp is the specific heat at constant pressure. The la- Volume fractions of fins and nanoparticles with fin dimensions.
tent heat can be written in terms of the latent heat of fusion, Γ, as:
Case # φf φn φt b (mm) w (mm)
Δ H= λΓ
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.0
where λ is the liquid fraction during the phase change in the tem- 2 0.02 0.00 0.02 2 19.3
perature interval Ts < T < Tl. It may vary from zero (solid) to 1 (li- 3 0.01 0.01 0.02 2 9.7
4 0.00 0.02 0.02 0 0.0
quid) and can be defined as:
5 0.01 0.01 0.02 1 19.3
6 0.02 0.00 0.02 1 38.6
⎧ 0, T⩽Ts
7 0.03 0.00 0.03 2 29.0
λ = (T−Ts)/(T1−Ts) Ts < T< T1 8 0.02 0.01 0.03 2 19.3
⎨
⎩1, T⩾T1 9 0.01 0.02 0.03 2 9.7
10 0.00 0.03 0.03 0 0.0
Regarding fins, the related energy equation was written as:

978
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor
2.2. Thermo-physical properties
Thermo-physical properties of the PCM (RT82) as provided by the
manufacturer [46] are listed in Table 2. The nominal thermo-physical
properties of alumina (Al2O3), and copper (Cu) are listed in the same
table as well.
The density, specific heat capacity, latent heat, and thermal ex-
pansion coefficient of the nanoPCM were evaluated based on the the-
oretical model of mixing as:
ρnpcm = φn ρnp + (1−φn )ρpcm (9)
(ρCp)npcm = φn (ρCp)np + (1−φn )(ρCp)pcm (10)
(ρΓ)npcm = (1−φn )(ρΓ)pcm (11)
(ρβ)npcm = φn (ρβ)np + (1−φn )(ρβ)pcm (12)
In Eqs. (6)–(9), Cp is the specific heat, ρ is density, Γ is latent heat of
fusion and the subscripts np, npcm, and pcm refer to nanoparticle,
nanoPCM, and base PCM, respectively. The dynamic viscosity and the
thermal conductivity of the nanoPCM were written using the model
developed by Vajjha, Das [49]:
μ npcm = 0.983 e(12.959φn) μ pcm (13)
knp + 2kpcm−2(kpcm−knp) φn
knpcm = kpcm
knp + 2kpcm + (kpcm−knp) φn
BT
+ 5 × 10 4βk ζφn ρpcm Cp,pcm f(T,φn )
ρnp dnp (14)
where k is thermal conductivity, B is Boltzmann constant,
1.381 × 10−23 J/K, βk = 8.4407(100φn )−1.07304 , and f(T,φn ) is a function
defined as:
1 the cold HTF close to the cooling walls starts to absorb heat from the
f(T,φn) = (2.8217 × 10−2φn + 3.917 × 10−3)
Tref
+ (−3.0669 × 10−2φn−3.9112 × 10−3)
It is to be noted here that the second term in Eq. (14) represents the
thermal conductivity due to Brownian motion of nanoparticles, and ζ is
a correction factor that exists due to Brownian motion. Since there is no
Brownian motion while the PCM is in the solid phase, the value of ζ is
defined as the same for the liquid fraction λ [50].
3. Numerical procedure and validation
The set of partial differential equations described above with the
corresponding initial and boundary conditions were solved by the
computational-fluid-dynamics code ANSYS FLUENT 17.0. Solution
methodology was based on discretizing the computational model over a
fixed grid. The governing equations were such that they are valid for
both phases using the enthalpy-porosity technique. In this technique,
the mushy zone where both phases coexist was modeled as a “pseudo”
porous medium with porosity equal to the liquid fraction. The porosity
decreases from 1 (liquid) to 0 (solid) as the PCM solidifies. The
PRESSURE BASED method, which is recommended in incompressible
flows [51], was used for solving the governing equations (Eqs. (1)–(5))
after discretizing by the finite-volume method with (QUICK) scheme
given by Leonard [52]. The (SIMPLE) algorithm described by Patankar
[53] was used to solve the pressure-velocity coupling in the momentum
equations (Eqs. (2) and (3)) along with the pressure staggering option
(PRESTO) for pressure correction.
A set of user-defined functions (UDFs) were developed using C++
language to account for the variation of the PCM thermophysical
properties due to the dispersion of alumina nanoparticles (Eqs.
(9)–(12)). These UDFs were incorporated in the FLUENT solver for the
solution of the momentum and energy equations (Eqs. (2)–(4)). Grid
independency was examined by testing three different grid
979
Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986
arrangements of (N = 11230, 14743, and 17426). A grid size of
N = 11230 cells was selected due to its short computational time. Using
a smaller grid size was found to not significantly improve the solution
accuracy as shown in Fig. 2. A time step of 0.05 s was set for the first
3000 iterations and then a time step of 0.1 s was used for the remaining
iterations. Such time steps were found able to keep the solution stable
in all the cases considered. The under-relaxation factors for velocity
components, pressure correction, and energy equations were selected as
0.5, 0.3 and 1 respectively. The convergence criteria to terminate
iterations were set as 10−4 for the continuity and momentum equa-
tions, and 10−6 for the energy equation.
3.1. Validation
The simulation results were compared to the experimental data by
Al-Abidi et al. [28]. The same initial conditions, boundary conditions
and physical properties in the experimental study were used to validate
the present study. Moderate HTF flowrates in the range 4–8 kg/min
were found to keep the flow in the laminar regime and give wall-tem-
peratures that were almost equal [28]. Fig. 3 shows a comparison of the
average temperature versus time for the two studies. As can be ob-
served, the results of both studies are reasonably agreeable.
4. Results and discussion
Results from study are presented and discussed with reference to the
ten cases listed in Table 1. The results are presented in the form of
isotherms, solid–liquid phase interface, and transient liquid fraction
profile. In all the cases, the simulation was assumed to begin when the
PCM is in fully-liquid state at an initial temperature (Tint = 366 K). The
HTF (water) is circulated at a constant temperature (THTF = 343 K)
which is below the PCM solidification temperature (Ts = 350 K). Thus
liquid PCM initiating the solidification in form of a solidified layer
adjacent to each wall. Over time, this layer gradually grows to invade
the whole PCM by releasing more heat to the cooling walls. In the
meantime, the presence of fins-nanoparticles combination for heat
transport enhancement significantly expedites the PCM solidification
process, as can be seen later in this section.
4.1. Evolution of solid-liquid interfaces and velocity field
Upon initiation of the solidification process, two solidified layers of
PCM, each having its own solid-liquid interface, starts to form adjacent
to the cooling walls. With time, they get larger in size indicating a
change in the position of the solid-liquid interfaces which reflects the
ratio of solidification. The liquid-fraction contours including the solid-
liquid interfaces (shown in light green) for the cases studied over time
periods (1, 3, and 5 h) of solidification are shown in Fig. 4. The cor-
responding velocity vectors are shown in Fig. 5. The solidification was
divided into three time stages (1, 3, and 5 h) to simplify discussion of
the results.
During the early stage (t ≤ 1 h), contours of the liquid fraction
Table 2
Thermo-physical properties of the PCM, nanoparticles and fins.
Property RT82 Al2O3 Cu
ρ [kg/m ]
3
770 3600 8920
Cp [kJ/kg K] 2 0.765 380
k [W/m K] 0.2 36 400
μ [N s/m2] 0.03499 – –
Γ [kJ/kg] 176 – –
Ts [K] 350 – –
Tl [K] 358 – –
β [1/K] 0.001 – –
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor
Fig. 2. Effects of grid size on the variation of liquid fraction versus time.
Fig. 3. Comparison of temperature profile vs. experimental data by Al-Abidi et al. [28].
regarding the cases without fins (1, 4 and 10) reveal two thin layers of
solidified PCM; the blue color area, approximately shows similar
thicknesses and is evenly distributed around the solid walls. Since only
thin solid layers are established, both solid-liquid interfaces do not
move away much from the walls. Thus the shapes are closer to uniform
concentric circles. The corresponding velocity vectors look more
crowded indicating evolution of relatively high velocities at the top
which gradually decrease towards the bottom as can be seen in Fig. 5
(1st hr.). This is due to the superior role of convection in the upper part
of the annulus compared to the lower part. For other cases (with fins),
the velocity field shows high velocity zones (zones with red color)
which mainly exist in the upper part. This substantially shrinks in the
cases with fins compared to no-fin cases. This is due to the higher flow-
resistant forces developed by the presence of fins compared to that
generated by nanoparticles. The overall heat transfer is significantly
promoted by fins as larger solid layers develop near and around fins,
especially in the cases with longer fin lengths such as case 6 and case 7
as can be seen in Fig. 4 at t = 1 h. In these cases, the evolution of solid-
liquid interfaces is much faster because the heat removal from the PCM
is increased due to the fins which aid the solid layers to get more ex-
panded and prolonged along the voids between fins. This obviously
shows that even nanoparticles present higher convection contribution.
However, the enhancement of PCM solidification is better improved
with the existence of fins instead. This implies that increasing the fin
volume fraction (φf) is more favored for solidification enhancement
than increasing the nanoparticle volume fraction (φn).
In the second stage (1 h < t ≤ 3 h), the liquid-fraction contours of
the no-fin cases (i.e. 1, 4 and 10) show more uniformity in propagation
980
Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986
through the unsolidified area while velocity vectors show increasing
shrinking in the red zones especially underneath, as natural convection
starts to lose its role in the solidification as an effective heat transfer
mode. This drives the velocity vectors to show slower movement
compared to the previous period. Similar but more pronounced trends
are noticed in other cases with fins. For example, the cases such as 6
and 7 with relatively large fin lengths show almost complete solidifi-
cation in the whole space except for minor areas in the upper half due
to the local natural convection which delays completion of solidifica-
tion here. Other cases with fins in general show slower velocity values
with larger solid layers as fin length increases. With the presence of
nanoparticles, the ability of fins to spread thermal energy through the
PCM improves. This is seen by comparing case 2 with case 8 where φf is
the same. However, when comparison is made based on φt used, use of
fins alone remains the most effective enhancement in terms of the vo-
lume usage. This is attributed to the fact that longer fins are able to
assist better in the propagation of solidification across the annulus by
providing direct heat transport pathways through the PCM. Under the
condition of fixed fin volume fraction (φf), the solid layers are observed
to be thicker for the cases with longer and thinner fins than for cases
with shorter and thicker fins. These outcomes are seen either by com-
paring case 6 to case 2, or case 5 to case 3. Even longer fins are observed
to provide better thermal diffusion even though they provide a longer
distance for heat to travel through the fins. It is known that the thick-
ness and length of the fins affect their thermal resistance to heat
transfer. There is therefore the need for studies on the optimization of
the fin dimensions for more enhanced thermal response.
For the final stage (t ≥ 5 h), the velocity in parts of the still liquid-
PCM approaches zero while the solidifying layers increase in size to
occupy the major space in cases 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 (or the whole space in
the remaining cases). However, in all the cases, solidification is termi-
nated early in the lower part due to the weak buoyancy effect in this
part, while solidification is a little delayed in the upper part of the
annulus. This is due to the relatively smaller density of the liquid PCM
compared to the solid PCM. However, as solidification continues, the
size of the liquid layer shrinks and the velocity vectors inside, gradually
become even, which ends up with the disappearance of convective
movement of melted PCM at the top. With respect to the effects of
nanoparticles, the results show that the size of the solid layer increases
as the nanoparticle volume fraction increases. Such behavior can be
seen by comparing, for example case 10 to case 1. The reason for this is
that the existence of fins, nanoparticles or a combination of both pro-
motes higher conductive heat transfer and support faster solidification
in the still liquid PCM parts. By comparing the cases in Fig. 4 at t = 5 h,
it can be concluded that use of higher fin volume fraction (φf) while
keeping the total volume fraction (φt) constant leads to faster devel-
opment of the solid-liquid interfaces than increasing the nanoparticle
concentration (φn). Such outcomes are seen by comparing e.g. case 7 to
case 10 and case 4 to case 6. This means that fins are better for im-
proving thermal energy transfer from the PCM than through the na-
noparticles throughout the solidification process.
4.2. Analysis of the isotherms
Distributions of isotherms for the ten cases considered in this study
are shown in Fig.6 over the three, time periods of solidification 1, 3, and
5 h. The results are grouped into the following time stages in order to
better understand and discuss the solidification progress.
Initially (t ≤ 1 h), the isotherms fill the whole space in the annulus
because the major PCM is still in the liquid phase and so, there is not yet
much effect of solidification seen. The isotherms look similar to each
other near and around the fin surfaces. Some recirculation cells in the
spaces between fins and around the HTF tubes start to appear especially
in the upper half of the annulus. This is because the buoyancy force
which originates from the density difference between the hot and the
cold liquid is greater than the gravity effect and so, drives the melted
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986

1h
3h
5h Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

1h
3h
5h

Fig. 4. Liquid-fraction contours of the PCM at various volume fractions of fins and nanoparticles.

PCM to flow forming recirculation cells. In fact, the melt movement for
producing recirculation cells is governed by the difference between the
buoyancy and gravity. The recirculation induces superior heat transfer
due to natural convection advances between the liquid PCM and the
HTF walls including the fins. Natural confection here serves as an ad-
ditional supply of heat removal effect from the PCM via the fin surfaces
and HTF walls. This expedites the PCM solidification. The change in the
nanoparticle volume fraction during this period shows no noticeable
influence on the distribution of isotherms across the annulus. This is
seen by comparing cases 1, 4, and 10 at t = 1 hr in Fig. 6. This confirms
that during this time period, the existence of nanoparticles only further
enhances the heat removal by conduction between the liquid PCM and
the HTF walls.
Regarding the cases with fins, more but smaller rotating cells in the

981
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986

1h
3h
5h Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

1h
3h
5h

Fig. 5. Velocity vectors of the PCM (in m/sec2) at various volume fractions of fins and nanoparticles.

spaces between the fins start to appear even in the lower half of the dominancy over natural convection during this period.
annulus as seen in case 6 for example. This means that the existence of During the second period (1 h < t ≤ 3 h), the isotherms slightly
fins not only enhances heat conduction in the stagnant parts of the li- start to lose the potential for propagation over the entire space parti-
quid PCM but also promotes conduction and further contributes to its cularly in the cases with fins. By this time, natural convection ceases to

982
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986

1h
3h
5h Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

1h
3h
5h

Fig. 6. Isotherms of the PCM (in kelvins) at various volume fractions of fins and nanoparticles.

be effective as a more solidified layer is generated from solidification of
the PCM. Moreover, the existence of fins or nanoparticles further in-
hibits the role of natural convection due to increase in the convective-
flow resistance. So, the heat transfer mechanism gradually transforms
to conduction domination, and so, the temperature field is affected
more by conduction than by natural convection. This can be seen in
Fig. 6 that the cases with fins like 6 and 7 show a shrink in the con-
vective recirculation cells. The temperature distribution tends to be
even, except at some areas at the top due to the still effective role of
natural convection in this part. Regarding the cases with nanoparticles
like cases 4 and 10, the convection movement is mainly limited to the
upper part of the annulus. It is evident that the existence of nano-
particles enhances conduction at the expense of convection. Also, this
explains why isotherms look more uniform and almost similar in dis-
tribution. Indeed the existence of nanoparticles supports the dom-
inating role of heat conduction due to the high thermal conductivity

983
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor
and the relatively high viscosity which limits the role of natural con-
vection as well.
Finally, for (t ≥ 5 h), the isotherms appear further unified in color
since the whole space shows almost the same temperature except at the
upper part. This is a sign that conduction now has become the dominant
heat transfer mode. Termination of the solidification process in most or
all parts of the annulus as in cases 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 is the prevailing
trend throughout this period. This means that the entire heat transfer
process continues to be conduction dominated as convection exerts only
a little influence in the PCM that is still solidifying at the upper part of
the annulus. This dominancy is largely due to the high thermal con-
ductivity of the nanoparticles and fins that promote the role of con-
duction over convection in the still liquid parts of the PCM. Moreover,
the flow resistance generated by fins severely suppresses the convection
contribution. Generally speaking, it is seen that the thermal con-
ductivity effect from nanoparticles along with that from the fins support
the trend of domination of conduction over convection here.
4.3. Characteristics of nanoPCM solidification with fins
The duration of the charging/discharging process is an important
factor considered in the design of latent TES systems. It reveals how the
storage material is effective in responding with time for the energy
storage/retrieval. The liquid fraction (λ) is the parameter used to de-
scribe and track the melted PCM during the phase transition progress. It
is defined as the volumetric ratio of liquid PCM to the whole PCM (li-
quid + solid). The history of the liquid fraction has been tracked in this
study and is shown in Figs. 7 and 8. This is used to evaluate and in-
vestigate possible solidification improvements for the application of
nanoparticles, fins, or composite of both. The cases in each figure were
selected to share the same total volume fraction (φt) but different na-
noparticle volume fraction (φn) or fin volume fraction (φf). Fig. 7
compares the transient evolution of the liquid fraction during the PCM
solidification with nanoparticles and fins having a total volume fraction
of: (a) φt = 0.02 and (b) φt = 0.03. This figure suggests that the
configuration with fins of fin length of 29.0 mm and no nanoparticles
(case 7), shows maximum enhancement for the cases of φt = 0.03 and
b = 2 mm. The fins with fin length of 19.3 mm and no nanoparticles
(case 2) gives the best performance for solidification among the cases of
φt = 0.02 and b = 2 mm. Fig. 8 shows the comparison for evolution of
the PCM liquid fraction for the cases of φt = 0.02 and b = 1 mm. As can
be observed from the figure, case 6 with fins of fin length 38.6 mm and
Fig. 7. Evolution of PCM liquid fraction with nanoparticles and fins of b = 2 mm at: (a) φt = 0.02, and (b) φt = 0.02.
984
Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986
no nanoparticles gives the best enhanced solidification rate.
For the same volume fraction condition, both Figs. 7 and 8 show
that the cases with fins alone (cases 2, 6 and 7) achieve better improved
performance than for either cases with nanoparticles alone or cases
with the composite of fins and nanoparticles. In other words, the ex-
istence of nanoparticles relatively reduces possible solidification en-
hancement and negatively prolongs the phase change process compared
to the case of fins alone. Moreover, the existence of nanoparticles with
higher fin volume fraction leads to better enhancement rate than with
either the nanoparticles alone or nanoparticles with lower fin fraction.
This can be seen from the comparison of the cases with composite of
fins and nanoparticles as seen by comparing case 8 with case 9. This
implies that the potential for nanoparticles to enhance the thermal
storage properties of the PCM is increased with increasing volume
fraction of fins.
It can also be observed from Figs. 7 and 8 that the slope of the PCM
liquid faction curve in all the cases considered reveals a steeper trend
within about the first 50 min of discharging and then reduces as time
further progresses. This indicates that faster solidification rate is
achieved during the early stage of the process. As explained earlier, the
contribution of natural convection in the heat transfer process is more
obvious and controlling within the first hour of operation. So, we can
conclude that improvement in the solidification progress is seen before
the natural convection loses effectiveness. This can be seen in all the
cases studied. It is more obvious in case 6 and case 7 due to the large
heat transfer enhancement achieved due to the longer fins used in those
cases. Therefore, both fins and nanoparticles help in expediting PCM
solidification but solidification rate is faster with longer fins and lower
nanoparticle volume fraction combination.
Table 3 displays the time to reach complete solidification for all the
cases reported along with the percentage of possible time savings. The
data from the table show that all the three enhancement techniques
considered: (fins alone: cases 2, 6, and 7), (nanoparticles alone: cases
10, and 4) and (composite of fins and nanoparticles: cases 3, 5, 8 and 9)
show significant improvement in the storage process over the base case
(case 1). Compared to the base case, the time needed to completely
solidify the PCM is reduced by up to 55% using fins alone (case 6), 8%
using nanoparticles alone (case 10) and 30% using the combination of
fins and nanoparticles (case 5).
At the same volume fraction (φt), it is clear that employing fins
alone as the heat transfer promoter is the best approach compared to
either the nanoparticles alone or combination of both. This can be seen
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986

Fig. 8. Evolution of the PCM liquid fraction with na-

noparticles and fins of b = 1 mm at φt = 0.02.

Table 3 usage was studied, analyzed and disscussed. Graphical results in the
The possible savings in the time required to reach complete solidification status. form of isotherms, solid-liquid interface positions, and transient liquid
fraction profile over the whole solidification duration were presented.
Case # φf φn φt t (minutes) % time saving
The conclusions drawn from the study are as follows:
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 404 0.0
2 0.02 0.00 0.02 277 31.5 (1) Introduction of nanoparticles alone or a combination of nano-
3 0.01 0.01 0.02 381 5.6
particles with fins significantly improves the solidification process.
4 0.00 0.02 0.02 397 1.8
5 0.01 0.01 0.02 282 30.2
However, a much better enhancement can be achieved by em-
6 0.02 0.00 0.02 182 55.0 ploying fins alone for the same volume usage.
7 0.03 0.00 0.03 197 51.2 (2) For the same volume usage, the use of fin-nanoparticle combina-
8 0.02 0.01 0.03 269 33.4 tions showed better solidification effect than using nanoparticles
9 0.01 0.02 0.03 359 11.1
alone. Also, increasing the fin volume fraction when these combi-
10 0.00 0.03 0.03 371 8.0
nations are used shows better performance.
(3) For the same volume usage, it is recommended to increase the fin
by comparing case 6 to either case 4 or case 5. Fin size is another im- length and decrease the fin thickness to improve the PCM thermal
portant parameter that affects instantaneous rates of solidification. response for solidification in longitudinally-finned latent heat sto-
Comparing the cases with fins alone (i.e., case 2 and case 6) that rage systems.
showed the best performance, Figs. 7(a) and 8 respectively, it can be (4) Although employing longer fins further inhibits natural convection,
seen that the use of longer fins with smaller thickness (case 6 of higher solidification rates were reported in all the cases studied.
w = 38.6 mm and b = 1 mm) works better, in terms of solidification The reason for this is that the application of longer fins provides
time than the use of shorter fins with larger thickness (case 2 of deeper heat penetration to the PCM, and effectively overcomes the
w = 19.3 mm and b = 2 mm) even though both cases have the same fin natural convection inhibition effect.
volume fraction (φf = 0.02). Thus, for the same fin volume usage, the (5) Natural convection plays a role only during the early periods of
increase of the fin length resulted in a more significant enhancement of solidification. Conduction remains the dominant heat transfer mode
the PCM solidification than the increase of the fin thickness. Lastly, the for the entire process. This seems to be due to the flow-resistant
use of the combination (fins + nanoparticles) gives more enhancement forces generated by the fin structure and the extra viscosity effects
than using nanoparticles alone under the same volume reduction limit. added by the presence of nanoparticles.
This can be seen by comparing the solidification time in case 5 with that
of case 4, or case 9 with that of case 10. This infers that the potential for References
enhancement by nanoparticles is increased with the existence of fins
more than the existence of nanoparticles alone. [1] Dincer I, Rosen M. Thermal energy storage: systems and applications. John Wiley &
Sons; 2011.
[2] Abedin A, Rosen M. A critical review of thermochemical energy storage systems.
5. Conclusions Open Renew Energy J 2011;4:42–6.
[3] Palomba V, Brancato V, Frazzica A. Experimental investigation of a latent heat
storage for solar cooling applications. Applied Energy 2017;199:347–58.
Solidification of nano-enhanced PCM in an isothermally-cooled, [4] Cui H, Tang W, Qin Q, Xing F, Liao W, Wen H. Development of structural-functional
internally-finned triplex-tube storage system was numerically in- integrated energy storage concrete with innovative macro-encapsulated PCM by
hollow steel ball. Applied Energy 2017;185:107–18.
vestigated. The problem was a 2D annulus containing PCM aided by [5] Miró L, Gasia J, Cabeza LF. Thermal energy storage (TES) for industrial waste heat
either fins alone, nanoparticles alone, or combination of both with total (IWH) recovery: a review. Applied Energy 2016;179:284–301.
system’s volume reduction (φt ≤ 0.03) the thermal effectiveness of fins, [6] Weng Y-C, Cho H-P, Chang C-C, Chen S-L. Heat pipe with PCM for electronic
cooling. Applied Energy 2011;88:1825–33.
nanoparticles, or fin-nanoparticle combinations for the same volume

985
J.M. Mahdi, E.C. Nsofor
[7] Zhao C-Y, Lu W, Tian Y. Heat transfer enhancement for thermal energy storage
using metal foams embedded within phase change materials (PCMs). Solar Energy
2010;84:1402–12.
[8] Mahdi JM, Nsofor EC. Melting enhancement in triplex-tube latent heat energy
storage system using nanoparticles-metal foam combination. Applied Energy
2017;191:22–34.
[9] Mahdi JM, Nsofor EC. Solidification enhancement in a triplex-tube latent heat en-
ergy storage system using nanoparticles-metal foam combination. Energy
2017;126:501–12.
[10] Pal D, Joshi YK. Thermal management of an avionics module using solid-liquid
phase-change materials. J Thermophys Heat Transfer 1998;12:256–62.
[11] Yang X, Lu Z, Bai Q, Zhang Q, Jin L, Yan J. Thermal performance of a shell-and-tube
latent heat thermal energy storage unit: role of annular fins. Appl Energy
2017;202:558–70.
[12] Nithyanandam K, Pitchumani R. Computational studies on a latent thermal energy
storage system with integral heat pipes for concentrating solar power. Applied
Energy 2013;103:400–15.
[13] Zeng J, Liu Y, Cao Z, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Sun L, et al. Thermal conductivity en-
hancement of MWNTs on the PANI/tetradecanol form-stable PCM. J Therm
Analysis Calorimetry 2007;91:443–6.
[14] Elgafy A, Lafdi K. Effect of carbon nanofiber additives on thermal behavior of phase
change materials. Carbon 2005;43:3067–74.
[15] Khodadadi J, Hosseinizadeh S. Nanoparticle-enhanced phase change materials
(NEPCM) with great potential for improved thermal energy storage. Int Commun
Heat Mass Transfer 2007;34:534–43.
[16] Fleischer AS. Thermal energy storage using phase change materials: fundamentals
and applications. Springer; 2015.
[17] Braga SL, Viskanta R. Effect of density extremum on the solidification of water on a
vertical wall of a rectangular cavity. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 1992;5:703–13.
[18] Assis E, Katsman L, Ziskind G, Letan R. Numerical and experimental study of
melting in a spherical shell. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2007;50:1790–804.
[19] Sulfredge C, Chow L, Tagavi K. Void initiation and growth in unidirectional
freezing: the influence of natural convection. Exp Heat Transfer Int J
1993;6:411–36.
[20] Revankar ST, Croy T. Visualization study of the shrinkage void distribution in
thermal energy storage capsules of different geometry. Exp Therm Fluid Sci
2007;31:181–9.
[21] Sedeh MM, Khodadadi J. Solidification of phase change materials infiltrated in
porous media in presence of voids. J Heat Transfer 2014;136:112603.
[22] Solomon L, Elmozughi AF, Oztekin A, Neti S. Effect of internal void placement on
the heat transfer performance–encapsulated phase change material for energy sto-
rage. Renew Energy 2015;78:438–47.
[23] Liu M-J, Fan L-W, Zhu Z-Q, Feng B, Zhang H-C, Zeng Y. A volume-shrinkage-based
method for quantifying the inward solidification heat transfer of a phase change
material filled in spherical capsules. Appl Therm Eng 2016;108:1200–5.
[24] Abdulateef AM, Mat S, Abdulateef J, Sopian K, Al-Abidi AA. Geometric and design
parameters of fins employed for enhancing thermal energy storage systems: a re-
view. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
[25] Agyenim F, Eames P, Smyth M. A comparison of heat transfer enhancement in a
medium temperature thermal energy storage heat exchanger using fins. Solar
Energy 2009;83:1509–20.
[26] Agyenim F, Eames P, Smyth M. Experimental study on the melting and solidifica-
tion behaviour of a medium temperature phase change storage material (Erythritol)
system augmented with fins to power a LiBr/H2O absorption cooling system.
Renewable Energy 2011;36:108–17.
[27] Mat S, Al-Abidi AA, Sopian K, Sulaiman M, Mohammad AT. Enhance heat transfer
for PCM melting in triplex tube with internal–external fins. Energy Convers Manage
2013;74:223–36.
[28] Al-Abidi AA, Mat S, Sopian K, Sulaiman M, Mohammad AT. Experimental study of
melting and solidification of PCM in a triplex tube heat exchanger with fins. Energy
Build 2014;68:33–41.
[29] Rathod MK, Banerjee J. Thermal performance enhancement of shell and tube Latent
Heat Storage Unit using longitudinal fins. Appl Therm Eng 2015;75:1084–92.
986
Applied Energy 211 (2018) 975–986
[30] Hosseini M, Ranjbar A, Rahimi M, Bahrampoury R. Experimental and numerical
evaluation of longitudinally finned latent heat thermal storage systems. Energy
Build 2015;99:263–72.
[31] Abdulateef AM, Mat S, Sopian K, Abdulateef J, Gitan AA. Experimental and com-
putational study of melting phase-change material in a triplex tube heat exchanger
with longitudinal/triangular fins. Solar Energy 2017;155:142–53.
[32] Ho C-J, Gao J. Preparation and thermophysical properties of nanoparticle-in-par-
affin emulsion as phase change material. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer
2009;36:467–70.
[33] Wu S, Wang H, Xiao S, Zhu D. An investigation of melting/freezing characteristics
of nanoparticle-enhanced phase change materials. J Therm Anal Calorimetry
2011;110:1127–31.
[34] Fan L, Khodadadi J. An experimental investigation of enhanced thermal con-
ductivity and expedited unidirectional freezing of cyclohexane-based nanoparticle
suspensions utilized as nano-enhanced phase change materials (NePCM). Int J
Therm Sci 2012;62:120–6.
[35] Dhaidan NS, Khodadadi J, Al-Hattab TA, Al-Mashat SM. Experimental and nu-
merical investigation of melting of phase change material/nanoparticle suspensions
in a square container subjected to a constant heat flux. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2013;66:672–83.
[36] Mahdi JM, Nsofor EC. Solidification of a PCM with nanoparticles in triplex-tube
thermal energy storage system. Appl Therm Eng 2016;108:596–604.
[37] Mahdi JM, Nsofor EC. Melting of PCM with Nanoparticles in a Triplex-Tube
Thermal Energy Storage System. ASHRAE Transactions 2016;122:215–24.
[38] Elbahjaoui R, El Qarnia H. Transient behavior analysis of the melting of nano-
particle-enhanced phase change material inside a rectangular latent heat storage
unit. Appl Therm Eng 2017;112:720–38.
[39] Motahar S, Alemrajabi AA, Khodabandeh R. Experimental study on solidification
process of a phase change material containing TiO2 nanoparticles for thermal en-
ergy storage. Energy Convers Manage 2017;138:162–70.
[40] Khodadadi J, Fan L, Babaei H. Thermal conductivity enhancement of nanostructure-
based colloidal suspensions utilized as phase change materials for thermal energy
storage: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:418–44.
[41] Dhaidan NS. Nanostructures assisted melting of phase change materials in various
cavities. Appl Therm Eng 2017;111:193–212.
[42] Liu M, Ma Y, Wu H, Wang RY. Metal matrix-metal nanoparticle composites with
tunable melting temperature and high thermal conductivity for phase-change
thermal storage. ACS Nano 2015;9:1341–51.
[43] Mahdi JM, Nsofor EC. Melting enhancement in triplex-tube latent thermal energy
storage system using nanoparticles-fins combination. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2017;109:417–27.
[44] Cabeza LF. Advances in thermal energy storage systems: methods and applications.
Elsevier; 2014.
[45] Tao YB, Liu YK, He Y-L. Effects of PCM arrangement and natural convection on
charging and discharging performance of shell-and-tube LHS unit. Int J Heat Mass
Transfer 2017;115(Part B):99–107.
[46] Rubitherm Technologies GmbH.
[47] Shmueli H, Ziskind G, Letan R. Melting in a vertical cylindrical tube: numerical
investigation and comparison with experiments. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2010;53:4082–91.
[48] Chieruzzi M, Miliozzi A, Crescenzi T, Torre L, Kenny JM. A new phase change
material based on potassium nitrate with silica and alumina nanoparticles for
thermal energy storage. Nanoscale Res Lett 2015;10:1–10.
[49] Vajjha RS, Das DK, Namburu PK. Numerical study of fluid dynamic and heat
transfer performance of Al2O3 and CuO nanofluids in the flat tubes of a radiator. Int
J Heat Fluid Flow 2010;31:613–21.
[50] Arasu AV, Mujumdar AS. Numerical study on melting of paraffin wax with Al2O3 in
a square enclosure. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2012;39:8–16.
[51] Amano R, Sundén B. Computational fluid dynamics and heat transfer: emerging
topics. WIT Press; 2011.
[52] Leonard BP. A stable and accurate convective modelling procedure based on
quadratic upstream interpolation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1979;19:59–98.
[53] Patankar S. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. CRC Press; 1980.