Lab 9: Thermal Energy Storage

A Lab Report

Submitted By

Neel Nadpara

ME 3264 Applied Measurements Laboratory

Section 004L

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Connecticut

Lab Preformed On:

April 6, 2015

1|Page
Summary:
In many engineering applications energy is required at a given time therefore in order to have
energy when needed, some type of energy storage system must be employed. Energy can be
stored in a number of ways, examples include: chemical such as batteries, electrical such as
capacitors, mechanical such as kinetic energy, and thermal such as latent and sensible thermal
energy storage. In the thermal energy storage lab our goal was to analyze heat transfer during
thermal energy storage and release. Primarily there are two types of thermal energy storage, one
that includes latent heat thermal energy storage and sensible heat thermal energy storage. In this
lab our focus was on the exploration of latent energy storage through a phase change material
called PCM. Latent heat is the energy necessary to change the phase of a material from solid to
liquid or from a liquid to a vapor, without a change in temperature. The amount of latent energy
stored was measured though the change in the pressure of the solid wax that melted and
expanded. Through the expansion and pressure change the liquid fraction, energy of latent heat,
and instantaneous average rate of heat transfer were calculated and plotted. From these
calculations we found that latent heat and liquid fraction gradually increases until all the PCM
(phase change material) is melted, and that the greatest resistance is between the water and the
evaporator region of the heat pipe.

Experimental Procedure:

In order to achieve our goal and study the phase change process of the PCM we used an
experiment setup to observe latent heat as seen below in Figure 1. In this setup, hot water acts as
the thermal energy reservoir in which energy is brought to the system. Using copper foils within
the heat exchanger section of the heat pipe, the heat transfer from the water to the PCM is
enhanced. The air gaps between the water and the PCM guarantee that the energy transfer occurs
as a result of the heat pipe. Within the PCM itself, aluminum foils are inserted to increase the
rate of energy transfer from the heat pipe to the PCM. Within the setup there were a total of 14
thermocouples in the system in order to record the temperature profiles as energy is being stored
or released. Looking at the setup, 6 thermocouples were within the PCM at three different
heights at opposing locations. Two other thermocouples are located at the water inlet and outlet
locations, and four thermocouples are in the concentric heat pipe with two on the upper and
lower evaporator section and two on the upper and lower condenser section. In order to start the
lab we needed to determine the initial temperature of the PCM to know whether or not to use the
melting or solidification process. If the initial temperature of the PCM was higher than the
melting temperature of 28C then the solidification process was to be done, and if it were lower
than 28C then the melting process would be done. In our case because the temperature was
lower than 28C the melting process was chosen. In order to ensure the PCM was 100% solid,
the PCM was cooled down to 24 ± 1C by setting the water bath to 23.5C and opening valve 2.
Once the equilibrium temperature was reached, valve 2 was closed and the water in the bath was

2|Page
then heated to 44.6C using hot tap water to accelerate the heating process. As the water was
heating the pressure meter was zeroed out and the option to record was set on so that the pressure
meter would not shut off during the experiment. Once the temperature was reached and the valve
opened, the pressure meter was used to measure the change in pressure of the system throughout
the melting process, because as the PCM melted the volume of the PCM also increased because
the liquid had a lower density than the solid. Due to the volume increase, the air in which the
pressure meter was reading increased in pressure. When the pressure meter read a constant value
for more than 6 minutes, it was concluded that the melting process was completed. Once valve 2
was opened the LabView program was also enabled. The program measured the temperatures of
all the thermocouples in the system at one-second intervals and the pressure readings were
recorded every 2 minutes by lab members until 100% liquid PCM was obtained. Using the
recorded data of the PCM, water, and heat pipe were plotted against time. Using the
measurements of pressure calculated values of volume fraction, latent energy stored,
instantaneous average latent heat transfer, and average thermal conductivity were also calculated
from the pressure readings using the below equations.

Figure 1: Schematic of experimental apparatus along with thermocouple locations.

3|Page
Equations used for Calculations:

Volume Fraction:
∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓 (𝒕)
𝒇𝑽,𝒎 (𝒕) ≈ 𝑬𝒒𝒖. 𝟏
∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓,𝒎𝒂𝒙

Where:

fV,m (t) = Volumetric liquid Fraction

ΔPAir (t) = Pressure Change at a Given Time

ΔPAir,max (t) = Maximum Pressure Change = .164 Bar

Mass Fraction/Latent Energy Stored:

𝝆𝒍 ∗ 𝑽𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 ∗ 𝒇𝒗,𝒎 (𝒕)

𝒇𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔,𝒍 (𝒕) = 𝑬𝒒𝒖. 𝟐
𝒎_𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍

𝑓𝑉,𝑚 (𝑡) ≈ 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠,𝑚 (𝑡)

∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓 (𝒕)
𝑬𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 (𝒕) = 𝒇𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔,𝒍 (𝒕)𝒎𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒔𝒍 = 𝒇𝑽,𝒎 (𝒕)𝒎𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒔𝒍 = ∗ 𝒎𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 ∗ 𝒉𝒔𝒍 𝑬𝒒𝒖. 𝟑
∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓,𝒎𝒂𝒙

fmass,l (t) = Liquid Mass Fraction

kg
ρl = Liquid Density = 770
m3
Vtotal = Total Volume = 8.27 × 10−5 m3

fV,m (t) = Volumetric liquid Fraction

mtotal = Total Mass = .058 kg

Elatent (t) = Latent Energy Stored

kJ
hsl = Latent Heat = 243.5
kg

Instantaneous Average Latent Heat Transfer:

∆𝑬𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 (𝒕) ∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓 (𝒕) ∗ 𝒎𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 ∗ 𝒉𝒔𝒍

𝒒𝒂𝒗𝒆 (𝒕) = = 𝑬𝒒𝒖. 𝟒
∆𝒕 ∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓,𝒎𝒂𝒙 ∗ ∆𝒕

4|Page
Elatent (t) = Average Heat Transfer Rate

t = time

Average Thermal Conductivity:

𝑻𝟏 (𝒕) − 𝑻𝟐 (𝒕) ∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓,𝒎𝒂𝒙 ∗ ∆𝒕

𝑹𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 (𝒕) = = 𝑻𝟏 (𝒕) − 𝑻𝟐 (𝒕) ∗ 𝑬𝒒𝒖. 𝟓
𝒒𝒂𝒗𝒆 (𝒕) ∆𝑷𝒂𝒊𝒓 (𝒕) ∗ 𝒎𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 ∗ 𝒉𝒔𝒍

R average (t) = Average Thermal Conductivity

t = time

5|Page
Results and Discussion:

PCM Temperature vs Time

40
38
36
T5 T2
Temperature (°C)

34
32 T0
30 T1
T3
28
26
T4
24
22
20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (s)
T0 PCM Bottom R T2 PCM Top R T4 Middle Left
T5 PCM Top L T3 PCM Bottom L T1 PCM Middle R

Graph 2: Temperature profile of the PCM over time (PCM Temperature vs. Time) for
each relevant thermocouple.

HP Temerature Distribution and Average Water Temperature vs Time

50

45
Temperature (°C)

40 H20 Average
T9
35

30 T8
T6
T7
25

20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (s)
T7 HP PCM T T6 HP PCM B T8 HP H20 T H2O Average T9 HP H2O B

Graph 2: Temperature profile of the HP and average water over time (HP/Average Water
Temperature vs. Time) for each relevant thermocouple.

6|Page
 Time ΔP Liquid Liquid Mass Latent Energy Average Heat Transfer
(min) (Bar) Fraction Fraction Stored (kJ) Rate (kJ/min)
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 0.012 0.073 0.080 1.135 0.567
4 0.028 0.171 0.187 2.647 0.662
6 0.034 0.207 0.228 3.215 0.536
8 0.042 0.256 0.281 3.971 0.496
10 0.052 0.317 0.348 4.916 0.492
12 0.060 0.366 0.402 5.673 0.473
14 0.070 0.427 0.469 6.618 0.473
16 0.078 0.476 0.522 7.375 0.461
18 0.088 0.537 0.589 8.320 0.462
20 0.098 0.598 0.656 9.266 0.463
22 0.108 0.659 0.723 10.211 0.464
24 0.118 0.720 0.790 11.157 0.465
26 0.126 0.768 0.844 11.913 0.458
28 0.134 0.817 0.897 12.669 0.452
30 0.142 0.866 0.951 13.426 0.448
32 0.148 0.902 0.991 13.993 0.437
34 0.152 0.927 1.018 14.371 0.423
36 0.154 0.939 1.031 14.560 0.404
38 0.158 0.963 1.058 14.939 0.393
40 0.162 0.988 1.085 15.317 0.383
42 0.164 1.000 1.098 15.506 0.369
Table 1: Calculations from pressure measurements including: liquid fraction, liquid mass
fraction, latent energy stored, and average heat transfer rate.

7|Page
 Liquid Fraction vs. Time
1.20000000

1.00000000

0.80000000
Liquid Fraction

0.60000000

0.40000000

0.20000000

0.00000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (min)

Graph 3: Graph showing the liquid fraction versus time during the melting of the PCM.

Latent Energy Stored vs. Time

18.00000000
16.00000000
14.00000000
Latent Energy Stored (kJ)

12.00000000
10.00000000
8.00000000
6.00000000
4.00000000
2.00000000
0.00000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (min)

Graph 4: Graph showing the latent energy stored versus time during the melting of the
PCM.

8|Page
 Average Heat Transfer Rate vs. Time
Average Heat Transfer Rate (kJ/min) 0.70000000

0.60000000

0.50000000

0.40000000

0.30000000

0.20000000

0.10000000

0.00000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (min)

Graph 5: Graph showing the average heat transfer rate versus time during the melting of
the PCM.

Properties Wax (n-octadecane)

Density 774 (liquid)
(kg/m3) 817 (solid)
.152 (liquid)
Thermal Conductivity (W/m*K)
.358 (solid)
2.18 (liquid)
Specific Heat (kJ/kg*K)
2.15 (solid)
Latent Heat Solidification (kJ/kg) 244
Melting temperature (K) 301
Mass (kg) .058 ± .00014

Table 2: Property table with all necessary values for PCM (n-octadecane).

9|Page
 Average Temperature (°C)
HP Condenser
HP Evaporator (lower) PCM at Tm Water
(upper)
41.93 33.31 28 44.68

Calculating Rave at t=16.78 min and 𝒒𝒂𝒗𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟖𝒌𝑱/𝒎𝒊𝒏

Water and the HP lower [44.68 − 41.93]𝐾 𝑲
𝑅𝑎𝑣𝑒 = = 𝟓. 𝟗𝟓
section 𝑘𝐽 𝒌𝑱/𝒎𝒊𝒏
0.4618 ⁄𝑚𝑖𝑛
HP evaporator and HP [41.93 − 33.31]𝐾 𝑲
𝑅𝑎𝑣𝑒 = = 𝟏𝟖. 𝟔𝟔
condenser 𝑘𝐽 𝒌𝑱/𝒎𝒊𝒏
0.4618 ⁄𝑚𝑖𝑛
HP upper section and PCM [33.31 − 28]𝐾 𝑲
𝑅𝑎𝑣𝑒 = = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟒𝟗
at Tm 𝑘𝐽 𝒌𝑱/𝒎𝒊𝒏
0.4618 ⁄𝑚𝑖𝑛

Table 3-4: Tables for calculating the average thermal resistances for the different sections
of the experimental apparatus. This was done with the following constraints: 𝒇𝑽,𝒍 =
𝒌𝑱
𝟎. 𝟓 when 𝒕 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟕𝟖 𝒎𝒊𝒏 and 𝒒𝒂𝒗𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟖 𝒎𝒊𝒏.

Discussion:

10 | P a g e
Plotted above in Graph 1 was the temperature distribution within the PCM (phase change
material) there are six lines corresponding to six different thermocouples which were placed in
six different locations within the PCM. From this it can be seen that the temperature distribution
within the PCM varied throughout the experiment as certain regions of the PCM reached the
final temperature much sooner than others. Additionally, looking at the combinations of T2 and
T5, T0 and T3, and T1 and T4 closely resemble each other. This observation makes sense
because by looking at the placement of these thermocouples (top, middle, and bottom) they are
directly opposite one another in symmetric locations within the PCM. We can also observe in
this graph that there is a noticeable increase of temperature to 28°C in all of the thermocouples,
followed up by a section where the temperature stays constant in which phase change occurs, and
finally a section where the temperature of the PCM increased once it had completed phase
change. The different rates in which the temperature of the PCM changed can be attributed to the
waxes proximity to the heat pipe and its hotter section being closer to the bottom than the top.
Next, we can observe Graph 2 which shows the temperature profiles of the heat pipe at different
height locations within the lab apparatus. There are five different lines for five different
thermocouples at different height locations. The figure also shows the average temperature of the
water between the inlet and the outlet water temperature, with thermocouple 10 being higher
because it measured the inlet temperature. Again, because the T6 thermocouple was closer to the
hot inlet water, its rate of increase in temperature was faster than the temperature reported by
thermocouples 6, 7, 8, and 9. The figure also shows that as the relative distance between the
thermocouple and the water inlet increased the more the temperature profile of the thermocouple
would lag the temperature of the water in the system. Graph 3 shows the liquid fraction of the
PCM over time using the equation that relates liquid fraction as the change of pressure over the
maximum change of pressure. The change in air pressure of the system can be seen as a function
of the change in volume of the PCM as it melts and expands. The phase change of the PCM can
be used to explain the gradual increase of the liquid fraction. Graph 4 as seen above shows the
energy stored versus time. The slope of the line also indicates that it melts at a constant rate and
does not taper off. Around the 35-40 minute mark there is no longer any melting occurring and
the PCM is 100% liquid. As more and more of the PCM became liquid, it was able to store less
and less latent heat energy. Once it was completely melted at 40 minutes, there was no longer
had any latent energy as the phase change was complete. Next, observing Graph 5 which shows
the average instantaneous heat transfer rate in the system over time. Looking at the graph the
greatest change in heat transfer rate occurred in the first four minutes of the experiment and
reached a maximum rate of 0.661 kJ/min followed by a gradual decrease in rate. During the
course of the procedure there could have been many sources of error that could have had an
effect on the figures, tables, and calculations. One possible error could have come from the
thermocouples themselves. Error is associated with how the thermocouples measure temperature
and reaction delay to when input was received and measured could have been a factor in the data
results. Error could also have come from the pressure meter used. The pressure meter had an
error of:
√(.001)2 + (.02∆𝑃𝐴𝑖𝑟 )2 𝐸𝑞𝑢. 6
and therefore could also have had an effect on the reported results of this experiment. Also, Ideal
Gas Law was used this in turn lends the assumption that the temperature of the air remains
constant. However, this is not true as the temperature is increasing as the experiment continues.
Moreover, above in Table 3-4 one can see the calculations for average resistance. In order to
preform these calculations the average temperatures of the heat pipe lower, upper, PCM at the

11 | P a g e
melting temperature, and water under the conditions of 𝑓𝑉,𝑙 = 0.5 when 𝑡 = 16.78 𝑚𝑖𝑛 and
𝑞𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 0.4618 𝑘𝐽/𝑚𝑖𝑛 were found. Average heat transfer was not needed as the resistances
were computed when each section had the same liquid factor. Thus, the resistance depended on
the temperature difference between the two locations being compared. The greatest resistance
was between the heat pipe evaporator section and condenser since the temperature difference
between the two locations was the largest. Conversely, the smallest resistance was seen between
the water and the heat pipe evaporator. Moving on, the phase change process is dominated by the
conduction process in both instances of melting and solidification. Looking at Graph 1, this
claim is supported by looking at the values obtained by the thermocouples that are closer to the
inlet water and its rate of increase as opposed to the thermocouples further away from the source
of the driving temperature, where more time was needed for the wax to melt. This makes sense
as heat is absorbed and transferred across the heat pipe to the PCM which heats up the PCM
allowing for a phase change. Moreover, the process of solidification would have a higher average
rate of heat transfer than the process of melting. This can be seen by looking at the equation for
average heat transfer. As the average heat transfer rate depends on the latent energy stored.
Additionally, the latent energy equations for solidification and melting make it evident that the
density and liquid mass fraction are important. The solidification process would have higher
density and liquid mass fraction values which leads to higher latent heat energy. Average heat
transfer rate is directly proportional to latent heat, thus it would be higher for solidification. This
experiment is useful as it shows one that the empirical results are very similar to the theoretical
equation’s results. Thus, if one desires to create a larger system the same equations could be
applied. If one knows the required latent heat energy to be stored, then one could use this
information to calculate the temperatures needed in order to obtain the desired results. After the
temperatures are known, one can find the capacity of the heat pipe along with the geometric
requirements for a larger set up. In fact, for a larger system the design of this experiment can be
scaled by multiplying the time scale by a constant value. Due to the fact that the larger system
would use more wax, the system would have to be run longer in order to fully melt or solidify the
wax. This would also mean that in a larger scale system enough time would have to be given so
that the maximum amount of latent energy can be stored. When our results for the HP-Foil-PCM
system are compared to the results of a HP-PCM system it can clearly be seen that the latter
system took much longer to finish either melting or solidification. In our system (HP-Foil-PCM)
the total time to melt was about 40 minutes, without the foil the melting time was 160 minutes.
This makes sense as the thermal conductivity of the wax is very poor. However, the thermal
conductivity of most metal such as aluminum is significantly higher. Thus, if aluminum foil is
added to wax the effective thermal conductivity is much higher. Our system was able to take
advantage of this; however the latter was not leading to a much slower heat transfer process from
the heat pipe to the PCM.

Data and Error Analysis:

12 | P a g e
 Uncertainty (t=14 min)

2 2 2 2
𝛿∆𝑃 (𝑡) 𝛿∆𝑃 (𝑡) 𝛿∆𝑃 (14) 𝛿∆𝑃 (14)
𝛿𝑓𝑣,𝑚 ➔𝑓𝑉,𝑚 (𝑡)√( ∆𝑃 𝑎𝑖𝑟(𝑡) ) + ( ∆𝑃 𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥(𝑡) ) ➔𝑓𝑉,𝑚 (14)√( ∆𝑃 𝑎𝑖𝑟(14) ) + ( ∆𝑃 𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥(14) )
𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥

0.001 2
0.001 2
➔0.07√( 0.01 ) + (0.008) ➔ ±0.0112

𝜌𝑙 𝑉𝑙 𝛿𝑓𝑉,𝑚 770∗8.27𝐸−5∗0.0112
𝛿𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠,𝑙 ➔ ➔ ➔ ±0.0123
𝑚𝑡𝑜𝑡 0.58
𝛿𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑡 ➔𝑚𝑡𝑜𝑡 ℎ𝑠𝑙 𝛿𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠,𝑙 ➔0.058 ∗ 243.5 ∗ 0.0123➔ ±0.1737
𝛿𝐸𝑙𝑎𝑡 ➔ 𝛿𝑞𝑎𝑣𝑒 ➔ ± 𝟎. 𝟏𝟕𝟑𝟕
Table 5: Table for calculating the uncertainties due to our measurements.

The error analysis values are calculated above (the pressure meter had an uncertainty of ±0.001
bar while the uncertainty for temperature was ± 1°C). The source of error that would probably
cause the most amounts of inaccuracies are from pressure readings from the pressure meter. If
the pressure readings were off, the pressure over time would be skewed and would in turn
propagate through the liquid fraction, latent energy, average heat transfer rate and thermal
resistance values calculated. Besides uncertainty, one must account for other errors with the lab
that stem from beyond just errors in measurement. First off, our timed measurements of the
pressure were not very exact as there was a slight delay due to recording. Another source of error
is from assuming the times were constant increments of 2 minutes each. Moreover, we assumed
the properties of pure wax and aluminum which are most likely somewhat different from their
true values. Also, the experimental setup is not well insulated and heat can be lost to the
environment or added by the environment. Additionally, there is a section of the PCM where
there is no foil present (it is the last section to fully melt) this in turn means that the temperature
increases were not uniform which would lead to some error. Additionally, the temperatures being
used in this experiment are in a rather narrow window. A thermocouple is typically accurate over
a certain range; however being at the lower/higher range could affect its accuracy. Also, when
dealing with such a small window of temperatures the thermocouples need to be calibrated very
well which could be another source of error as we do not know if they were calibrated properly.
All in all, despite these errors our experiment and data is valid since it makes sense theoretically
and most of these errors are rather small.

Conclusion:

13 | P a g e
Based on this experiment we can conclude a lot about latent heat energy. Latent heat energy is
the energy necessary to change the phase of a material without the effect of temperature change.
Based on our measured and calculated values, we can see that latent heat has a major practicality
to utilize excess heat in a way that can be stored and used for another use. Additionally, we
became familiar with the design and measurements of the experiment primarily in regards to
latent heat thermal energy storage. We were also able to analyze heat transfer during thermal
energy storage and release and conclude that the phase change process is dominated by
conduction, that the foil greatly enhances the effectiveness of transferring heat from the heat pipe
to the wax, and that the greatest thermal resistance is observed between the water and the
evaporator section of the heat pipe.

14 | P a g e