Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

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

Research Papers

Design analysis and performance prediction of packed bed latent heat

storage system employing machine learning models
Pratyush Anand a, P.K.S. Tejes b, B. Kiran Naik b, Hakeem Niyas a, *
a
Energy Institute Bengaluru, Centre of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
b
Sustainable Thermal Energy Systems Laboratory (STESL), Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, Odisha
769008, India

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

Keywords: In recent years, the goal of becoming energy independent of fossil fuels has gained prominence. Solar energy is an
Thermal energy storage excellent choice because it has a very less environmental impact in comparison to fossil fuels. The variability of
Packed-bed solar radiation creates a divergence between energy demand and supply, making it necessary to implement
Machine learning
efficient thermal energy storage systems to bridge the gap and enable solar thermal power plants to become
Charging
viable solutions for uninterrupted power generation to meet the present and future energy needs. In this study,
Discharging
various data-driven machine learning (ML) models were used to analyze the design and performance of the
packed-bed thermal energy storage (PBTES) system. Six different ML models, including linear regression (LR),
support vector regression (SVR), K-nearest neighbors (KNN), decision trees (DT), random forests (RF), and
extreme gradient boosting (XGB), were employed to evaluate the performance of PBTES. The models were
trained and tested using experimental data reported in the literature on PBTES performance. The results of the
study showed that the XGB ML model provided the best performance for PBTES analysis and prediction, with a
maximum R2 value of 0.982, and minimum MAE, MAPE, and RMSE values of 0.057, 0.182, and 0.16, respec­
tively. The study demonstrated the effectiveness of data-driven approaches in designing and analyzing PBTES
performance, which can be useful for developing more efficient and sustainable energy systems. Overall, this
study provides valuable insight into the potential of data-driven ML models for the design and performance
analysis of PBTES, which could have significant implications for the utilization of renewable energy sources.

storage (TES) is required due to the variable availability and utilization

times. In recent times, there has been a surge in interest towards energy
1. Introduction
storage owing to the rising demand for renewable energy sources. The
emphasis has mainly been on thermal storage, despite its history of
The threat and reality of environmental degradation have grown
inefficient implementation, because several sources generate energy in
during the last few decades. Growing evidence of environmental issues
the form of heat [3]. There are mainly three types of TES modes: sen­
is the result of several factors, as human activity’s impact on the envi­
sible, thermochemical, and latent. The amount of heat that is retained
ronment has greatly increased due to the sheer growth in the global
within a sensible heat storage system is dependent on the specific heat
population, consumerism, industrial activity, etc. [1]. Utilizing renew­
capacity of the material used, the degree of temperature variation, and
able energy sources and technology is one way to deal with the inevi­
the quantity of storage material present. Thermal energy is stored by
table energy shortage. In recent years, solar energy is a viable renewable
raising the temperature of a solid or a liquid. Thermochemical heat
energy source due to its low cost and availability. Particularly in India,
storage materials use a fully reversible chemical reaction to break and
solar energy is given greater significance than in other nations due to its
form molecular bonds to absorb and release heat. Latent heat thermal
high intensity and advantageous geographical location [2]. As solar
energy storage (LHTES) materials absorb/release heat when the storage
energy can only be used throughout the day, it must be combined with a
material undergoes a phase change [4]. Generally, the two most com­
reliable energy storage system (e.g., thermal energy storage) system to
mon system that is used is packed-bed and shell and tube TES systems.
allow for the retention of excess energy and it can be coupled with other
According to different literature, the packed bed configuration is
forms of storage to provide energy during the night. Thermal energy

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hakeemnus@rgipt.ac.in (H. Niyas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.108690
Received 23 May 2023; Received in revised form 3 August 2023; Accepted 9 August 2023
Available online 17 August 2023
2352-152X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

fluids, including molten salts and thermal oils, can be employed based
Nomenclature on the specific requirements and design considerations of the system.
Likewise, while solar radiation is emphasized as a typical heat source for
ΔT Temperature difference charging the system, PBTES can also be charged using alternative
ANN Artificial neural network sources such as waste heat, biomass combustion, or heat recovery sys­
DT Decision tree tems, depending on the availability and feasibility of such options.
HTF Heat transfer fluid The primary objective of a PBTES system is to effectively store and
KNN K-nearest neighbor release thermal energy. The solid material within the bed swiftly con­
LHTES Latent heat thermal energy storage ducts heat from the fluid due to its high heat transfer coefficient. As the
LR Linear regression fluid exits the bed, it retains a temperature similar to the initial bed
MAE Mean absolute error temperature. The particles near the entrance of the bed become heated,
MAPE Mean absolute percentage error while those near the exit remain at their original temperature. Once the
ML Machine learning system reaches full charge, the bed’s temperature reaches a steady state,
PBTES Packed bed thermal energy storage indicating the completion of the storage process (Fig. 1).
PCM Phase change material In recent years, numerous researchers have examined the design and
R2 Determination coefficient performance of PBTES systems for various applications. For example,
RF Random forest Torab and Beasley [7] employed numerical techniques to determine
RMSE Root mean square error optimal design conditions, while Yang et al. [8] experimented on heat
SVM Support vector machines transfer that involved uniform and non-uniform spheres. They evaluated
SVR Support vector regression the thermal efficiency of a packed-bed system using various capsule
TES Thermal energy storage sizes and two types of random packing. Several researchers have also
XGB Extreme gradient boosting conducted numerical studies on the PBTES system. In their research,
Regin et al. [9] investigated how the thermal performance of capsules,
which used paraffin wax as the phase change material (PCM), was
impacted by factors such as inlet fluid temperature, mass flow rate, and
considered to be more effective and economically feasible than the shell- the temperature range for phase change. The study explored capsules of
and-tube arrangement when it comes to latent heat TES systems [5]. different sizes operating within the system. Additionally, Karthikeyan
A packed bed thermal energy storage (PBTES) system operates by and Velraj [10] evaluated the outcomes of three distinct mathematical
allowing a heat transfer fluid (HTF) to flow through a porous solid models by altering the inlet fluid temperatures, mass flow rate, and ball
material, facilitating the storage and release of thermal energy. During sizes. Mol et al. [11] investigated how the bed structure affects the
the charging phase, a heated fluid is introduced at the top of a container, charging and discharging mechanism of an unstructured packed-bed
which can be air heated by solar radiation or any other appropriate HTF. storage system. Grabo et al. [12] investigated the PBTES system using
This fluid then passes through the bed, transferring its heat to the solid non-spherical encapsulated PCM materials, assessing novel capsule
material. To minimize heat loss, the container is designed with effective shapes in terms of their thermal power output and storage capabilities.
insulation. The flow direction is organized so that room temperature Yang and Zhang [13] conducted a numerical investigation of a
fluid enters the bed from the bottom, rises to the top, and subsequently PBTES system that employed a layered PCM. They analyzed how the
returns to the heat source or collectors. This stage is commonly referred charging and discharging processes of the system were affected by
to as the discharging phase, during which the stored energy is extracted variations in the average fluid velocity and inlet temperature. Kumar
for various applications, such as building heating. et al. [14] experimentally investigated the effect of PCM addition on
It is important to note that while air is mentioned as an example of an stratification behavior in a thermal storage tank and compared it to a
HTF, PBTES systems are not limited to using air exclusively. Other

Fig. 1. Schematic of packed-bed thermal energy storage system [6].

2
P. Anand et al.
sensible heat storage system. Kumar and Saha [15] performed a nu­
merical analysis of a PBTES system that made use of cylindrical encap­
sulation. Additionally, they looked at how the system’s performance was
impacted by the fluid flow rate and the encapsulating material. They
found that when comparing the same volume of encapsulation, the
spherical encapsulation had a higher thermal efficiency and heat
transfer rate than the cylindrical encapsulation. Mao and Zhang [16]
observed that the performance of the system was high after numerically
analyzing the thermal performance of three distinct PCMs in a PBTES
system. Overall, a large number of experimental research have been
carried out on the thermal performance of LHTES, with many of these
studies utilizing a packed bed and shell-and-tube method. Xu et al. [17]
explored a cylindrical macro-encapsulated LHTES system designed for
space heating purposes. They compared the performance of the packed
bed system in both horizontal and vertical orientations and found that
the vertical orientation led to a reduction in the time required for
charging and discharging. Sun et al. [18] experimentally studied the
characteristics of a PBTES system with composite PCM encapsulated
spherically. Mawire et al. [19] investigated the charging properties of a
medium-temperature cascaded Packed-bed LHTES system to lower the
total system cost.
In recent times, there has been a shift towards machine learning (ML)
in the research field. This shift is primarily due to the rise in the avail­
ability of large datasets, more robust computing resources, and ad­
vancements in algorithms and techniques for data analysis. ML has
shown great potential in solving intricate problems across diverse do­
mains. Moreover, it has facilitated researchers in gaining valuable in­
sights and predicting outcomes from massive amounts of data that were
once difficult to manage. Consequently, ML has become an indispens­
able tool for researchers across various disciplines, and it is expected to
have a significant impact on the research landscape in the foreseeable
future. Jawaid and NazirJunejo [20] utilized linear regression (LR) and
several other regression models to forecast daily mean solar irradiance.
They also evaluated the performance of these models against an artifi­
cial neural network (ANN) in an attempt to enhance the system’s per­
formance. Li et al. [21] developed algorithms for short-term solar
irradiance forecasting using ML techniques such as the Hidden Markov
Model and Support Vector Regression (SVR). These methods were found
to be effective for clear weather but less accurate for other conditions.
Ahmad et al. [22] evaluated various tree-based ensemble models for
predicting hourly energy from a solar thermal system. Demolli et al. [23]
investigated wind power forecasting with daily wind speed data and five
ML algorithms: Lasso regression, random forest (RF), K-nearest neigh­
bors (KNN), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and SVR. The findings
showed that XGB, SVR, and RF have good long-term daily total wind
power forecasting performance. Narvaez et al. [24] suggested a ML
approach for solar radiation forecasting. They evaluated several ML and
statistical techniques on the same site and compared their results. Naik
et al. [25] used a KNN-ML and the thermal model tool to forecast the
performance and desalinated water extraction rate of a membrane-based
liquid desiccant regenerator driven by low-quality energy. Fei et al. [26]
used an ML model to predict the early-cycle lifetime of a battery, and
Zhaoyu et al. [27] used genetic algorithm and ANN to predict CO2
emission using a numerical model of a solar space heating system.
Mohapatra et al. [28] implemented 7 different ML models on experi­
mental data for the performance and design prediction of evacuated U-
tube solar collector. Eldokaishi et al. [29] presented a framework for
investigating the potential of ANN modeling of a hybrid solar TES sys­
tem with PCM.
Li and Tao [30] utilized Latin Hypercube Sampling and numerical
simulation techniques to create a training database for PBTES systems.
They subsequently developed a prediction model that encompassed all
relevant system parameters, employing LightGBM as the underlying
algorithm. To further enhance system performance, they applied the
naive Bayes optimization algorithm. In a study conducted by Priyadarshi
and Naik [31], the exit parameters of a desiccant coated energy
3
Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690
exchanger were predicted using three data-driven models: ANN, KNN,
and principal component analysis. The models were validated and
analyzed for their prediction accuracy, and it was observed that the ANN
model provided the most accurate predictions of the exit parameters
compared to the other models. Gao et al. [32] conducted an analysis on
the performance of PBTES systems utilizing response surface method­
ology. Their study incorporated seven input parameters, including ball
diameter and flow rate, for the purpose of prediction. Additionally, they
performed a multi-objective performance optimization of PBTES sys­
tems, aiming to enhance its overall efficiency and effectiveness. Marti
et al. [33] used a multi-objective optimization technique in PBTES sys­
tems to improve exergy efficiency and reduce material costs. The tank
height, top and bottom radii, insulation-layer thicknesses, and particle
diameter were among the design elements addressed in their study.
1.1. Research gap
Researchers have explored the charging and discharging perfor­
mance of packed-bed latent heat storage systems through both experi­
mental and numerical methods. However, there has been a lack of
emphasis on the application of ML models in this area, with the majority
of studies focused on wind power and solar irradiance forecasting.
Interestingly, only a handful of studies have delved into the area of solar
thermal systems, and even fewer have utilized experimental data. The
results suggest the need for further investigation into the integration of
ML models in packed-bed latent heat storage systems. By incorporating
experimental data, researchers could gain valuable insights into the
performance of such systems, leading to more precise and efficient
modeling. Moreover, exploration of the use of ML in solar thermal sys­
tems could open up new opportunities to enhance energy storage and
conversion efficiency. Collectively, the current research highlights the
potential benefits of examining the use of ML models in packed-bed
latent heat storage systems, particularly in the context of solar thermal
energy conversion.
1.2. Novelty
The proposed work is aimed at addressing the major challenge of
investigating the performance of packed-bed thermal energy systems
experimentally and numerically, which can be quite expensive and
complex. To overcome this challenge, this study proposes the use of
data-driven approaches that can leverage large amounts of experimental
data to develop predictive models with high accuracy. This could lead to
the development of efficient and cost-effective storage systems for
thermal energy. The novelty of this study lies in its focus on the
implementation of ML based on experimental data of packed bed storage
systems. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no other works have
been presented on this topic. The work aims to optimize the perfor­
mance of the PBTES system by implementing data-driven approaches to
experimental data, which could significantly improve the efficiency of
these systems while reducing costs. In addition, this study gives a special
focus on the hyperparameter tuning of ML models for predicting per­
formance parameters in this field, which is an area that has received very
few to no other works. This focus on hyperparameter tuning is a unique
contribution to the field of thermal energy storage systems and could
significantly improve the accuracy of predictive models for performance
parameters of packed bed thermal energy systems.
The initial section of the paper is dedicated to exploring the signifi­
cance of ML methods and their relevance to the study. A comprehensive
overview of the various methods used in this study is presented in this
section. The second segment provides an in-depth explanation of the
methodology employed, including details on the PBTES system and its
constituent parts, data collection, and preparation, selection of input
and output parameters, and configuration of ML models. In the third
section, the outcomes obtained for the different ML models are pre­
sented and examined, and the influence of thermophysical properties,
P. Anand et al.
design, and operating parameters on PBTES performance is discussed.
The paper concludes with a summary of the main discoveries and con­
tributions, the implications and applications of the findings, and sug­
gestions for future research.
2. Machine learning methods
In this section, the primary aim is to introduce and describe six data-
driven algorithms that were utilized in this study to predict the charging
and discharging time of a PBTES system. These algorithms include LR,
KNN, DT, RF, XGB, and SVR. The introduction of these algorithms
provides the reader with an understanding of the methodology
employed in the study to make accurate predictions of charging and
discharging time.
2.1. Linear regression
Linear regression is a supervised ML approach that uses one or more
input features to predict a continuous target variable. The objective of
LR is to discover the best linear relationship between the input data and
the target variable. Linear regression aims to achieve the fundamental
objective of minimizing the mean square error between the actual values
of the target variable and the predicted values by identifying the line of
best fit. This line of best fit is represented by the equation of a line, which
is given in Eq. (1) and shown in Fig. 2.
β = c0 α0 + c1 α1 + c2 α2 + … + cn αn (1)
where β is the dependent variable, α0, α1, α2, … αn are the input features,
and c0, c1, c2, …, cn are the coefficients of the line. These coefficients can
be calculated using a method known as least squares estimation, which
identifies the values of the coefficients that reduce the mean square error
between the target variable predicted and actual values. When there are
multiple input features, the linear regression model is called multiple
LR.
The process of estimating the coefficients is the same as in simple
linear regression but with multiple input features. However, it can be
challenging to understand the outcomes when the connection between
the input characteristics and the output variable is more intricate. It’s
crucial to keep in mind that linear regression assumes linearity between
the input characteristics and the goal variable and is delicate to outliers.
It also assumes that the input features are independent of each other,
which may not always be the case. Therefore, it is important to check
these assumptions before using linear regression and consider using
other algorithms if they are not met [34].
Fig. 2. Flowchart of LR algorithm with k-fold cross-validation.
4
Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690
2.2. K-nearest neighbor
KNN represents a supervised ML technique that finds its application
in both regression and classification tasks. It is based on the idea that an
instance (data point) is classified or predicted based on the class or value
of the majority of its neighbors. The hyper-parameters of the KNN al­
gorithm include the number of neighbors (K) to consider when making a
prediction, the distance metric used to measure the distance between
data points, and the weighting method used to give more or less
importance to the neighbors based on their distance [35].
To optimize the performance of a KNN model, it is crucial to fine-
tune its hyper-parameters. Failure to do so may result in poor perfor­
mance, overfitting, or underfitting. Several techniques can be employed
to tune the hyper-parameters effectively. Grid search or random search
can be utilized to explore different combinations of hyper-parameters
and assess their performance on a validation set. Alternatively, cross-
validation can be employed, involving training the model on multiple
train-validation splits and averaging the evaluation metrics. By fine-
tuning the hyper-parameters of a KNN model, the optimal values can
be identified, leading to superior performance on the specific task.
Neglecting to tune the hyper-parameters may result in subpar model
performance or difficulties in fitting the data appropriately (Fig. 3).
To tune a KNN algorithm, these are the following strategies:
1. Select the appropriate value of K: K is the number of nearest neigh­
bors used to generate predictions. A smaller K number can make the
model more sensitive to data patterns, while a greater K value can
make the model more resilient to noise.
2. Choose the right distance metric: The KNN algorithm uses a distance
metric to determine which points are “nearest” to the query point.
There are several distance metrics to choose from, such as Euclidean
distance, Manhattan distance, and cosine similarity.
3. Experiment with different weights: The KNN algorithm can use
different weights for the points in the nearest neighborhood.
2.3. Support vector regression
SVR is an ML technique that analyzes data to identify patterns or
decision boundaries within the dataset. Depending on the number of
dimensions in the feature vector of the dataset, SVR divides various
classes into hyper-planes in a multi-dimensional space. As shown in
Fig. 4, support vector machines can handle multiple continuous and
categorical variables. The two types of circles in the figure are in
different colors, the goal of SVR is to classify these two types based on
their features. The model is composed of three lines, one of which is the
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

Fig. 3. KNN flowchart.

larger epsilon value allows for more error, resulting in a simpler

model.
5. Degree: The degree hyper-parameter is used in the polynomial kernel
and determines the degree of the polynomial. A higher degree results
in a more complex model.

It is important to tune these hyper-parameters carefully to achieve

good performance on the test set. To discover the optimum combination
of hyper-parameters, one typical way to hyper-parameter tuning is to
employ grid search or random search.

2.4. Decision trees

A DT is a type of supervised ML approach used for regression and

classification tasks. The basic idea behind decision trees is to recursively
partition the dataset into smaller subsets, creating a tree-like structure of
decisions. In the DT algorithm, predicted class or output values are
assigned to the leaf nodes, while the features are represented by the
Fig. 4. SVM classifier.
internal nodes. The entire dataset is symbolized by the root node of the
tree. To put it simply, leaf nodes correspond to the final outputs, internal
marginal line or margin, represented by the equation (Φ ⋅ α) − Ψ = 0.
nodes signify the attributes or characteristics, and the root node denotes
The closest data points for both classes are represented by the lines (Φ ⋅
the entire dataset in the decision tree. It then selects the feature that best
α) – Ψ = 1 and (Φ ⋅ α) − Ψ = − 1. The support vectors are the circles separates the data into subsets based on a certain criterion, such as Gini
located on the hyper-plane. The filled circles in the other class are
impurity or information gain. The feature that results in the highest
referred to as outliers, to prevent over-fitting and achieve a near-perfect
value of the criterion is chosen as the splitting feature. The technique is
classification, they are disregarded. SVR tends to minimize the proba­
then repeated for each subset after the data has been divided into subsets
bility of generalization error by increasing the perpendicular distance
according to the splitting feature’s values.
between the two edges of the hyper-plane. When the hyper-plane de­
Once a stopping condition is satisfied, such as reaching a maximum
pends on fewer support vectors, the model’s generalization capacity
depth or a minimum number of samples per leaf, this process is repeated.
increases.
DT has the benefit of being simple to interpret and comprehend, which is
There are several hyper-parameters that can be tuned in SVR:
one of their advantages. The relationships between the features and the
target variable can be quickly visualized thanks to the tree structure.
1. Kernel: The kernel function is utilized to project the data into a
Both category and numerical features, as well as missing data, can be
higher-dimensional space, enabling linear separation. Popular kernel
handled using decision trees. However, decision trees can also be
functions include the linear, polynomial, and radial basis function
vulnerable to overfitting, particularly if they are deep and have
(rbf) kernels.
numerous branches. By adopting methods like pruning or limiting the
2. Gamma: The gamma hyper-parameter, which is applied in the rbf
tree’s maximum depth, this can be reduced. Decision trees can produce
kernel, regulates the Gaussian function’s width. A higher gamma
different trees for different samples of the same data because they are
value leads to a narrower and more complex model.
sensitive to even little changes in the data. Using ensemble methods,
3. C: The C hyper-parameter controls the trade-off between the error of
such as random forests, which integrate different decision trees to create
the model and the simplicity of the model. A larger C value results in
a more reliable model, can help with this.
a more complex model that tries to fit the training data more closely
Hyper-parameters for decision trees include:
but may overfit and have poor generalization to new data.
4. Epsilon: The epsilon hyper-parameter determines the width of the
• Maximum depth: The highest number of levels in the tree.
epsilon tube within which the model is allowed to make errors. A

5
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

• Minimum samples per leaf: The smallest quantity of data needed for
a leaf node.
• Minimum samples per split: The smallest quantity of data required to
split an internal node.
• Maximum number of features: The most features possible to take into
account while selecting the ideal split.
• Criterion: The metric used to assess a split’s quality, such as Gini
impurity or information gain.

The complexity of the tree can be managed with these hyper-

parameters, and overfitting can be avoided (Fig. 5).

2.5. Random forest

The RF method is a type of tree-based ensemble method used for

classification and prediction by combining the results of multiple deci­
sion tree algorithms. It employs numerous parallel weak decision tree
learners to minimize the model’s bias and unpredictability. The pro­
cedure starts by collecting N bootstrapped samples from the dataset for
training and then constructing regression or classification trees from
each set using only a small number of randomly selected predictors. To
make predictions for new data, the results of each of the T trees are
amalgamated, and this process is repeated until T trees have been
generated. This approach helps to minimize the model’s overall variance
and increase the range of trees utilized. Eq. (2) is the formula for an RF
Fig. 6. Random forest algorithm.
regression predictor, where x is the input variable, T is the total number
of trees, and (α) is a single tree.
• Maximum depth: The highest number of levels in each tree.
1∑ T
• Minimum samples per leaf: The smallest quantity of data required at
T
fRF α) =
( DT i (α) (2) a leaf node in each tree.
T n=1
• Minimum samples per split: The smallest quantity of data required to
Fig. 6 shows the methodology of the RF algorithm. RF has a key split an internal node in each tree.
advantage in enabling the evaluation of input parameters’ significance, • Maximum number of features: The most features possible to take into
which is crucial for dimensionality reduction and can significantly account while selecting the ideal split.
improve the model’s performance on large datasets [36].
The following are some of the hyper-parameters that are used to Criterion: The metric used to assess a split’s quality, such as Gini
control the complexity of a random forest and prevent overfitting: impurity or information gain.

• Number of trees: The number of decision trees in the forest.

Fig. 5. Schematic of decision tree algorithm.

6
P. Anand et al.
2.6. Extreme gradient boosting
A strong and effective use of the gradient boosting technique is called
extreme gradient boosting. It is an ensemble learning technique that
enhances the model’s accuracy by combining the predictions of various
decision trees. Large datasets and high-dimensional data can be handled
by XGB, making it especially effective for tasks like classification and
regression. A decision tree or other special base learner and a loss
function are created during the procedure. Instead of trying to estimate
the parameters directly, an iterative approach is used where at each
iteration, the model is improved by addressing the residuals of the
previous iteration’s predictions. This way, a final model is obtained by
combining the predictions of multiple models [37]. Given a training
dataset of N samples, {xᵢ, yᵢ}, where xᵢ is the feature vector and yᵢ is the
target output for the ith sample, the objective of XGB is to learn a
function f(α) that maps the input features x to a predicted output y. The
function f(α) is modeled as a sum of k weak learner functions hk(α) that
are applied to the input features:
∑
f (α) = hk (α) (3)
k formance. Thermo-physical properties, such as the latent heat of the
Each weak learner hk(x) is a decision tree, and the algorithm
sequentially trains the decision trees, with each subsequent tree
attempting to correct the errors made by the previous trees. In every
iteration, the algorithm calculates the gradient of the loss function based
on the model’s present predictions. It then proceeds to construct a de­
cision tree using the negative gradient values. The resulting tree is then
added to the ensemble model and the process is repeated until a stopping
criterion is met. The final model prediction is given by Eq. (4) where ŷ is
the predicted output for the input features x.
∑ study were limited to single systems. While hybrid and cascaded systems
y = f (α) =
̂ hk (α) (4)
k to single systems alone.
XGB also includes several regularization techniques to prevent
overfitting, such as L1 and L2 regularization, which helps to reduce the
model’s complexity. Additionally, XGB includes several techniques for
reducing the computational cost of training, such as parallel processing,
which allows the algorithm to train multiple trees at the same time.
Another important feature of XGB is its ability to perform feature
importance analysis. This allows users to understand which features of
the data are most important for making predictions. This can be useful in
identifying important features and in understanding the underlying
patterns in the data [37].
The main hyper-parameters of XGB are:
• eta (also known as learning rate): controls the step size at which the
algorithm proceeds along the gradient, with smaller values resulting
in slower progress but potentially more accurate models.
• max_depth: regulates the maximum depth of each tree in the model,
with higher values leading to more complex models but also an
increased risk of overfitting.
• alpha and lambda: They are L1 and L2 regularization terms on
weights, which inhibits models with too many parameters, and helps
reduce over-fitting.
• n_estimators: number of trees in the model.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection and description
A total of about 140 datasets including charging and discharging
were collected from different experimental papers on the PBTES system
[13,38–45]. The complete datasets are included in the manuscript in the
form of the supplementary material. The input parameters were set
based on the dataset generated. Table 1 provides an overview of the key
parameters considered in the design and analysis of packed-bed thermal
7
Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690
Table 1
List of input parameters.
Design parameters Operating parameters Thermo-physical properties
Number of capsules Mass flow rate Latent heat of PCM
Diameter of packed-bed Inlet HTF temperature Density of PCM
Length of packed-bed Initial PCM temperature Thermal conductivity
Diameter of capsules – –
energy storage (PBTES) systems. Design parameters, including the
number of capsules, packed-bed diameter, and capsule diameter, play a
significant role in determining the physical characteristics and capacity
of the PBTES system. Additionally, the aspect ratio is considered instead
of bed length and diameter, as it offers a more feasible and practical
approach for system design and optimization. Table 2 presents a sum­
mary of the input parameters, including their range and weighted
average value.
Operating parameters, including the mass flow rate of the HTF and
the inlet HTF temperature, exert influence on the rate of thermal energy
transfer into or out of the PBTES system, thus affecting its overall per­
phase change material (PCM), PCM density, and thermal conductivity,
play a crucial role in determining the PCM’s ability to store and release
thermal energy, as well as the efficiency of heat transfer within the
system. The output is charging and discharging time (in minutes).
The dataset used in this study did not include varying orientations of
the PBTES system. Approximately 90 % of the dataset consisted of sys­
tems with a vertical orientation. Therefore, it can be assumed that the
orientation of the PBTES systems in the study was predominantly ver­
tical. It is also worth noting that the training models generated in this
would have been useful, a lack of available dataset limited the analysis
Despite the absence of varying orientations and the consideration of
single systems, the study aimed to provide valuable insights into the
design and performance analysis of PBTES systems. The input parame­
ters, such as the number of capsules, diameter of the packed-bed, length
of the packed-bed, diameter of the capsules, and other thermophysical
properties, were carefully selected to capture the key design aspects of
the system.
The temperature difference is a key factor studied in PBTES systems
as it greatly influences system efficiency and performance. It represents
the difference in temperature across the system, impacting the rate of
heat transfer and overall energy storage capacity. Analyzing the tem­
perature difference helps evaluate how effectively the PBTES system
absorbs and releases thermal energy. While the system’s initial tem­
perature ranges from 5 to 345 ◦ C and the HTF inlet temperature ranges
from 25 to 445 ◦ C, the study primarily focuses on investigating the
temperature difference. This choice is due to its practical importance
and significant impact in the research context. Although the HTF inlet
temperature and initial storage temperature are important parameters,
their individual effects are often overshadowed by the temperature
difference. Hence, the study emphasizes studying and optimizing the
temperature difference to ensure effective heat transfer and efficient
energy storage in PBTES systems.
3.2. Data pre-processing and feature scaling
Data pre-processing is the process of preparing, cleaning, and
transforming data for analysis. It can significantly affect the precision
and quality of the results, making it a crucial phase in the data science
process. The pre-processing of data plays a vital role in guaranteeing the
accuracy and integrity of the ultimate analysis. It serves to enhance the
quality of predictive models, data visualization, and other data-centric
operations. This phase is a pivotal aspect of the data science process.
While the specific procedures employed during data pre-processing may
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

Table 2
Range of input parameters.
Input parameters Density (kg/m3) Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) Latent heat (kJ/kg) Ball dia. (mm) ΔT Mass flow rate (kg/s) Aspect ratio

Range 820–2310 0.2–1.64 154.2–260 15–60 20–161 0.005556–0.25 1–2.6

Weighted average 1210 0.5 201 36 49 0.056 1.18

differ based on the dataset and analysis objectives, certain routine ac­ algorithms allowed for the development of a highly effective model for
tivities include: predicting the charging and discharging time, which has important ap­
plications in various fields such as energy storage systems.
• Handling missing data: Identifying and filling in missing values or
removing observations with missing data. 3.4. Error estimation metrics
• Data cleaning: Removing outliers, and incorrect or irrelevant data.
• Data transformation: Normalizing or scaling the data to ensure that To assess the efficiency of the created models, multiple metrics were
all variables are on a similar scale. employed to analyze their performance on both the training and testing
datasets. These metrics include mean absolute error (MAE), root mean
Fig. 7 displays a correlation matrix encompassing all parameters for square error (RMSE), determination coefficient (R2), and mean absolute
both the charging and discharging phases. A correlation matrix is an percentage error (MAPE). The R2 was chosen as a measure of the cor­
invaluable tool that succinctly summarizes the relationships between relation between the actual and predicted charging/discharging time
multiple variables. This matrix promptly reveals the strength, weakness, values. The former four indicators are defined below in Eqs. (6)–(9)
or absence of correlation among the variables. The correlation co­
efficients, which range from − 1 to 1, indicate negative and positive 1 ∑F
MAE = |β − ̂
βn| (6)
correlations, respectively. F n=1 n
To generate the correlation matrix, the dataset underwent thorough
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
data cleanup procedures. This involved carefully examining the dataset √F
√∑
to identify and remove any missing values. Additionally, efforts were √ (βn − ̂
√n=1 β n )2
made to check for inconsistencies and outliers, which were subsequently RMSE = (7)
F
eliminated from the dataset. Subsequently, the correlation matrix was
constructed based on this refined and cleaned data.
1 ∑F ̂
β n − βn
Feature scaling is an important step in the data preprocessing pro­ MAPE = × 100 (8)
F n=1 βn
cess, it is done to ensure that the variables in a dataset are on a similar
scale and that one variable does not dominate the others. This helps to
improve the performance of ML algorithms and make the data more ∑
F
β n − βn )2
(̂
interpretable. In this model, the Min-Max scaling method is used. The 2
R = 1− n=1
(9)
goal of Min-Max scaling is to transform the data in such a way that all the ∑F
(βn − β)2
features are on the same scale, typically between 0 and 1. This is done by n=1

subtracting the minimum value of the feature in the dataset and dividing
it by the range of the feature.
The formula used to perform Min-Max scaling is as follows:
β − βmin
βscaled =
βmax − βmin
where βscaled is the scaled feature value, β is the original feature value,
βmin is the smallest data point for the given feature in the dataset, and
βmax is the highest possible value of the feature within the dataset.
3.3. Machine learning models
To create a reliable and accurate model for predicting the charging
and discharging time, data from various literature sources were
collected and processed. To ensure that the model was effective, the data
was divided into two distinct sets - the training set and the validation set.
The training set consisted of 80 % of the data and was used to develop
and train the model. This set of data was used to teach the model how to
make predictions based on a variety of different factors. The remaining
20 % of the data was designated as the testing set, which was used to
evaluate the model’s performance.
To build the model, six different ML algorithms were used, including
LR, KNN, SVR, DT, RF, and XGB. By using multiple algorithms, the
model could take advantage of the strengths of each one, resulting in a
more robust and accurate prediction model. The performance of the
model was assessed by evaluating its ability to accurately predict the
melting and solidification time using the testing set. The results were
then analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the model and to identify
areas where improvements could be made. Overall, the use of these ML
where βn, ̂
β n , F, and β are the experimental data value, predicted value,
number of datasets, and the experimental data mean value, respectively.
The values of MAE, MAPE, and RMSE should be as minimum as possible
whereas values of R2 should be as near as 1 for a robust model.
(5)
4. Results and discussions
In this section, the results of various ML algorithms (including LR,
KNN, SVR, RF, DT, and XGB) are presented, which are described in
Section 2. Additionally, an analysis of the effect of different hyper-
parameters on the model’s performance is discussed. Furthermore, the
best-performing ML model is utilized for optimizing the design and
performance of PBTES, taking into consideration the inlet condition that
resulted in the maximum reduction of both charging and discharging
time.
4.1. Hyper-parametric tuning
Hyper-parameter tuning is an important phase in the ML process that
involves determining the best set of hyper-parameters for a model.
Hyper-parameters refer to the fixed parameters of a model that are set
before the training process, as opposed to the parameters that are
adjusted during training. Selecting appropriate hyper-parameters is
crucial as it can greatly influence the overall performance of the model,
as different settings can result in models with vastly different perfor­
mances, even when using the same algorithm. Therefore, finding the
best set of hyper-parameters for a model is crucial to achieving optimal
performance and generalization. To determine the best values for a
model’s hyper-parameters, a stepwise search method is employed

8
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

Fig. 7. Correlation plot of all attributes of PBTES system during (a) charging and (b) discharging.

9
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

during the hyper-parameter tuning process. To avoid overfitting and Table 4

assess the model’s efficacy on new data, a cross-validation technique is Performance of SVR Algorithm with and without Hyper-parameter tuning.
employed to select the best set of hyper-parameters. Metric SVR (without tuning) SVR (with tuning)

Charging Discharging Charging Discharging

4.1.1. LR, KNN, and SVR
In this section, we will delve into the procedure for fine-tuning the RMSE 0.072 0.125 0.067 0.084
MAE 0.066 0.108 0.060 0.070
hyper-parameters of three distinct ML algorithms: LR, KNN, and SVR MAPE 4.990 0.275 3.160 0.197
which are discussed. The goal of this process is to optimize the perfor­ R2 0.857 0.807 0.877 0.906
mance of the algorithms on the testing dataset. This method involves
varying the values of the hyper-parameters and evaluating the perfor­
mance of the algorithm on the testing dataset for each set of hyper-
Table 5
parameters. The set of hyper-parameters that results in the best perfor­ Optimal hyper-parameters of the KNN and SVR algorithm.
mance is then selected as the optimal set. To identify the most suitable
Model Parameters Charging Discharging
hyper-parameters for LR, KNN, and SVR algorithms, the aforementioned
process is iterated individually for each algorithm. KNN Metric Cosine Cosine
Number of neighbors 3 3
In the LR algorithm, by applying the cross-validation technique, the
Weights Distance Distance
R2 value of charging was improved from 0.92 to 0.942 when tested on SVR C 10 10
the dataset which was divided into 5 subsets for cross-validation. Using Epsilon 0.1 0.1
the Python library sci-kit-learn, the preprocessed dataset was utilized to Gamma 0.1 1
train the KNN and SVR algorithms. Grid search was used to perform Kernel rbf rbf

hyper-parameter tuning for both algorithms. The optimal hyper-

parameters were found using 5-fold cross-validation. The effectiveness
of the KNN and SVR algorithms was assessed through various metrics, Table 6
including MAE, RMSE, MAPE, and R2, and the outcomes of this analysis Performance of DT algorithm with and without Hyper-parameter tuning.
are exhibited in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 displays the KNN algorithm’s Metric DT (without tuning) DT (with tuning)
performance, both with and without hyper-parameter tuning, whereas Charging Discharging Charging Discharging
Table 4 illustrates the SVR algorithm’s performance, both with and
RMSE 0.070 0.084 0.043 0.070
without hyper-parameter tuning.
MAE 0.046 0.076 0.034 0.066
It is evident that both KNN and SVR with hyper-parameter tuning MAPE 0.250 0.220 0.199 0.216
perform better than those without hyper-parameter tuning in terms of R2 0.848 0.920 0.950 0.930
all four-performance metrics. The MSE, MAE, and MAPE are all lower
when hyper-parameter tuning is used, and the R2 value is higher, indi­
cating that the predictions made by the KNN and SVR model with hyper- Table 7
parameter tuning are more accurate and better explain the variance in Performance of RF algorithm with and without hyper-parameter tuning.
the dependent variable. The optimal values of the hyper-parameters are
Metric RF (without tuning) RF (with tuning)
given in Tables 5.
Charging Discharging Charging Discharging

4.1.2. Random forest and decision trees RMSE 0.042 0.062 0.050 0.060
The DT and RF algorithms were trained on the pre-processed dataset. MAE 0.290 0.060 0.014 0.057
MAPE 0.150 0.189 0.150 0.182
Grid search was used to perform hyper-parameter tuning. The optimal
R2 0.940 0.925 0.9904 0.950
hyper-parameters were found, and the performance of the RF and DT
algorithms was examined by employing RMSE, MAE, MAPE, and R2
metrics. Tables 6 and 7 show the results of DT and RF algorithms
respectively and as we can see that DT and RF with hyper-parameter Table 8
Optimal hyper-parameters of DT and RF model.
tuning perform better than DT and RF without hyper-parameter tun­
ing in terms of all four-performance metrics. When hyper-parameter Parameters Charging Discharging
tuning was employed, the RMSE, MAE, and MAPE were reduced, and DT Maximum depth 7 10
the R2 value increased, suggesting that the predictions generated by the Maximum leaf nodes 32 32
DT and RF model were more precise and better accounted for the fluc­ RF Number of trees 300 200
Maximum depth 15 15
tuations in the dependent variable. The optimal hyperparameter values
Minimum samples per leaf 3 1
can be found in Table. 8. Minimum samples per split 2 2

4.1.3. Extreme gradient boosting (XGB)

To incorporate XGB, the dataset is partitioned into two subsets: a fair and consistent evaluation of the model’s performance. By using
training set and a testing set. The training and testing datasets used in all identical datasets, any differences observed in the performance of the
the ML models were the same. This approach was adopted to ensure a models can be attributed to variations in their algorithms, architectures,
or hyperparameter settings, rather than discrepancies in the training or
testing data. Using the same datasets across all models allows for a direct
Table 3 and meaningful comparison of their effectiveness in solving the given
Performance of KNN Algorithm with and without Hyper-parameter tuning.
problem.
Metric KNN (without tuning) KNN (with tuning) The XGB model undergoes training with the use of the training set,
Charging Discharging Charging Discharging while the testing set is employed to find out the ideal hyper-parameters
RMSE 0.330 0.220 0.031 0.120
for the XGB model, a grid search technique is applied, along with cross-
MAE 0.083 0.178 0.022 0.068 validation. The hyper-parameters tuned included the learning rate,
MAPE 0.385 9.880 0.147 0.190 weights, maximum depth of trees, and the number of trees. XGB model
R2 0.675 0.440 0.973 0.836 was evaluated using four metrics: RMSE, MAE, MAPE, and R2 value.

10
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

Table 9 efficiently generate predictions based on the input parameters provided.

Performance of XGB algorithm with and without hyper-parameter tuning.
Metric XGB (without tuning) XGB (with tuning)
Charging Discharging Charging Discharging
RMSE 0.029 0.044 0.029 0.160
MAE 0.015 0.0326 0.009 0.026
MAPE 0.230 0.470 0.140 0.150
R2 0.987 0.972 0.994 0.982
Table 9 shows the results of the XGB algorithm, and we can see that XGB
with hyper-parameter tuning outperforms XGB without hyper-
parameter tuning concerning four-performance metrics. The RMSE,
MAE, and MAPE are all lower when hyper-parameter tuning is used, and
the R2 value is higher, indicating that the predictions made by the XGB
model with hyper-parameter tuning are more accurate and better. The
optimal values of the hyper-parameter are given in Table 10.
Fig. 8 compares the performance of six different algorithms: LR,
KNN, SVR, RF, DT, and XGB on four evaluation metrics: RMSE, MAPE,
MAE, and R2. The RMSE metric calculates the mean deviation between
the estimated and true values. A lower RMSE value indicates a superior
model with more accurate predictions. In Fig. 8(a), XGB has the lowest
RMSE value of 0.029, followed by KNN with an RMSE of 0.031. SVR and
DT have relatively higher RMSE values of 0.067 and 0.04 respectively,
and LR has the highest RMSE value of 0.44. The MAE metric calculates
the mean absolute difference between the estimated and true values. A
smaller MAE value indicates a higher precision of the model in fore­
casting the actual values. It is apparent from Fig. 8(b) that, XGB has the
lowest MAE value of 0.009, followed by RF with an MAE of 0.014. KNN,
DT, and SVR have relatively lower MAE values, and LR has the highest
MAE value of 0.193.
The MAPE metric measures the average absolute percentage error
between the estimated values and the true values. In Fig. 8(c), KNN and
XGB have the lowest MAPE values of 0.14, followed by RF with a MAPE
of 0.15. DT has a MAPE of 0.199 and LR has a relatively higher MAPE
value of 1.66, and SVR has the highest MAPE value of 3.16. The R2
metric quantifies the degree to which the model fits the data. From Fig. 8
(d), XGB and RF have the highest R2 values of 0.994 and 0.9904
respectively, followed by KNN with an R2 value of 0.973. DT has an R2
value of 0.95, SVR has a relatively lower R2 value of 0.877, and LR has
an R2 value of 0.942. In conclusion, after considering the outcomes of
the four metrics used, the XGB and RF algorithms exhibit the highest
performance, with KNN following closely behind. On the other hand,
SVR and DT algorithms display relatively poorer performance, while LR
exhibits the weakest performance when compared to these algorithms.
Table 11 depicts the training time consumed by each ML model for
the prediction of the charging and discharging time of the PBTES system.
It is important to note that the training time of ML models can vary
depending on the computational resources available. Factors such as the
computer’s processing power, memory capacity, and parallel processing
capabilities can influence the training time of the algorithms. Therefore,
the training times presented in the table should be considered as
indicative values based on the specific computing environment used for
the study. Once the ML models are trained and the predictive models are
established, the prediction of the charging and discharging time does not
require significant additional time. The trained models can quickly and
Table 10
Optimal hyper-parameters of XGB.
Parameters Charging Discharging
Number of trees 500 200
Learning rate 0.1 0.1
Maximum depth 3 3
alpha 0 0
lambda 1 1
Among the algorithms, it can be observed that extreme gradient
boosting (XGB) had relatively longer training times compared to the
other algorithms. This indicates that XGB may require more computa­
tional resources and time for training. However, it is important to note
that longer training times are often associated with higher accuracy and
predictive performance. XGB is known for its powerful and effective
learning capabilities, which can lead to superior results in terms of
system analysis and prediction.
On the other hand, the remaining algorithms, had relatively shorter
training times. These algorithms offer faster computational processing,
making them suitable for scenarios where efficiency and speed are
crucial considerations.
Due to the complex nature of phase change materials (PCMs)
involving melting and solidification with volume change, the numerical
approach for modeling PCMs requires additional computation time. This
is attributed to the necessity of accurately capturing the phase change
process, including the handling of volume variations and associated
thermodynamic and transport properties. Consequently, numerical
modeling of PCMs entails intricate calculations and simulations,
resulting in longer computational times.
On the other hand, machine learning (ML) models utilize training
data and algorithms to learn patterns and relationships, enabling them
to make prompt predictions once trained. However, the accuracy and
reliability of ML models hinge on the quality of the training data and the
appropriate selection of algorithms. Consequently, it is crucial to thor­
oughly evaluate and validate ML models to ensure their suitability for
specific applications in the packed bed thermal energy system using
PCM.
In terms of assessing the accuracy of the models, it is noteworthy to
consider the maximum and minimum differences observed between the
experimental values and the corresponding model predictions. For the
charging process, the absolute value of the maximum difference recor­
ded between the experimental value and the model prediction was 54.9,
indicating the largest absolute error observed. On the other hand, the
minimum absolute difference was 0.012, indicating a relatively close
alignment between the experimental and model values. Similarly, for
the discharging process, the maximum absolute difference was 26.21,
highlighting the largest absolute error observed in this scenario.
Conversely, the minimum absolute difference recorded was 0.00154,
indicating a closer agreement between the experimental and model
values. These discrepancies provide valuable insights into the perfor­
mance of the models and the level of accuracy achieved in predicting the
charging and discharging processes in the PBTES system.
4.2. Performance and design optimization
Based on the previous section, The XGB model seems to be the most
suitable for comparing the performance of PBTES to other ML models.
Therefore, this section utilizes the XGB model to optimize PBTES per­
formance by examining all input parameters, which are divided into
three categories: thermophysical parameters of PCM, operating param­
eters, and design parameters. The graphs shown below display the
correlation between charging and discharging time with all input pa­
rameters. The horizontal axis represents the scaled value of the input
parameter, ranging from 0 to 1, and can be converted to its original
value by applying the range specified in Table 2 to Eq. (5).
The duration of the charging and discharging processes of a PBTES
system that utilizes PCM is impacted by three thermophysical factors:
the thermal conductivity, latent heat and density of the PCM. PCMs with
greater density are inclined to possess a larger heat capacity, leading to a
longer time requirement due to the larger amount of heat energy needed
to bring about a phase change. Conversely, a lower thermal conductivity
can slow down heat transfer and prolong the melting and solidification
process. Consequently, the duration of charging and discharging of a
PBTES system is influenced by the interplay between the density and

11
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

(a) 0.5 (b) 0.25

0.45 Charging Charging
0.4 Discharging 0.2
Discharging
0.35
0.3 0.15
RMSE

MAE
0.25
0.2 0.1
0.15
0.1 0.05
0.05
0 0
LR KNN SVR DT RF XGB LR KNN SVR DT RF XGB

(c) 3.5 (d) 1.05

Charging
Charging
3 1
Discharging
Discharging
2.5 0.95
MAPE (%)

2 0.9

R2
1.5 0.85

1 0.8

0.5 0.75

0 0.7
LR KNN SVR DT RF XGB LR KNN SVR DT RF XGB

Fig. 8. Variation in metrics for charging and discharging of ML models.

(a) RMSE (b) MAE (c) MAPE (%) (d) R2.

the melting and solidification time increases by 58 % and 66.67 %

Table 11
Training time of ML models.
Algorithms Training time (in s)
Charging
LR 6.5
KNN 10.2
SVR 5.7
DT 10.8
RF 26.4
XGB 33.5
thermal conductivity of the PCM. The most favourable values for these
parameters will be PCM with high thermal conductivity and lower
density.
The duration of melting and solidification in a PBTES system with
PCM is directly linked to the specific heat capacity of the PCM utilized.
This capacity dictates the quantity of energy required to increase the
temperature of one unit of the PCM by a certain degree. In contrast, the
latent heat of the PCM, which is energy intake or dispensing out by a
material during a change of phase like melting or solidifying, may not
necessarily affect the charging and discharging time of the system. A
higher latent heat capacity of the PCM will lead to a slower charging and
discharging time, as more energy is required to raise the temperature of
the PCM.
The effect of all the thermophysical properties on the performance
parameters of the PBTES system is shown in Fig. 10. From this figure, it
is seen that with the increment of density, the melting and solidification
time increases by 32.7 % and 45.8 % respectively. Similarly, as the
thermal conductivity increases, the charging and discharging times
decrease by 3 % and 4.4 %, respectively. This phenomenon can be
attributed to the fact that the dataset predominantly consists of paraffin
wax, which has consistent thermal conductivity across the samples
(more than 70 % of the dataset). Therefore, the variation in charging and
discharging times is relatively small, as there is limited diversity in
thermal conductivity among different types of PCMs compared to other
thermophysical properties of PCMs, and as the latent heat increases from
respectively. From the explanation above, it is recommended that
reduction of melting and solidification time can be achieved by PCM
having low density and latent heat of PCM, but with high thermal
Discharging conductivity.
5.9 Fig. 11 illustrates the fluctuation of melting and solidification time
7.5 with operating parameters. The duration of melting and solidification in
5 a PBTES system is reliant on the temperature differential between the
7.7 system and its environment. A greater difference in temperature be­
10.9
11.2
tween the system and its surroundings promotes a higher level of heat
transfer, resulting in decreased charging and discharging times.
Conversely, a smaller temperature difference will cause a slower heat
transfer rate and result in increased charging and discharging times.
Additionally, the melting and solidification duration of a packed bed
latent heat storage system is impacted by the mass flow rate of the heat
transfer fluid. An elevated rate of mass flow can increase the rate of heat
transfer and reduce the charging and discharging time, while a lower
mass flow rate will slow down the rate of heat transfer, resulting in
increased charging and discharging times.
Fig. 12 depicts the impact of change in operating parameters on the
performance parameters of the PBTES system. From this figure, it is
evident that with the increment of ΔT, the melting and solidification
time decreases by 10 % and 29 % respectively. Likewise, raising the
mass flow rate of HTF results in a decrease of 69.4 % and 83.15 % in the
discharging and charging time, respectively. As demonstrated earlier, it
is advised that to reduce discharging and charging time, it is preferable
to maintain both the mass flow rate and temperature difference at high
levels.
Fig. 13 illustrates the impact of design parameters on charging and
discharging time in a PBTES system. The performance of the system,
specifically with PCM, can be influenced by the ball diameter and aspect
ratio. The ball diameter affects the speed of both the melting and so­
lidification processes by influencing the rate of heat transfer. A smaller
ball diameter results in a higher surface area-to-volume ratio, enhancing
heat transfer and reducing the charging time. Conversely, a larger ball
diameter reduces the surface area-to-volume ratio, leading to a slower

12
P. Anand et al.
heat transfer rate and longer charging time.
Similarly, the aspect ratio plays a crucial role in the performance
parameters of the PBTES system. An increase in the aspect ratio trans­
lates to a higher rate of heat transfer, consequently reducing the
charging and discharging times. However, this advantage is offset by the
corresponding increase in the overall volume of the system, resulting in
longer discharging and charging times. Thus, the aspect ratio is a critical
design parameter that needs to be carefully considered to achieve
optimal performance in the PBTES system.
Fig. 14 provides insights into the influence of design parameters on
the performance of the PBTES system. The results clearly indicate that
an increase in the ball diameter leads to a noticeable increase in both the
charging and discharging time (by 9 % and 41.1 %, respectively).
Moreover, the aspect ratio plays a significant role, resulting in a sub­
stantial percentage change of 81.1 % in charging time and 78.2 % in
discharging time. These findings underscore the critical importance of
the aspect ratio as a design parameter that significantly affects the ef­
ficiency of charging and discharging in the PBTES system.
4.3. Optimal input condition
The PBTES performance parameters, such as charging and dis­
charging time, can be enhanced for optimal inlet conditions, as indicated
in Table 12, by utilizing the XGB ML tool and considering the PBTES
specifications, operating range, and inlet condition presented in Table 2
and illustrated in Figs. 9–14.
The dataset used in this study encompassed a range of heat storage
capacities, with a minimum value of 12 MJ and a maximum value of 35
MJ. These data points provide valuable insights into the spectrum of
heat storage capacities considered.
To facilitate the design of practical and feasible PBTES systems, a
heat storage capacity constraint of 20 MJ was thoughtfully selected. As a
result, the optimal input conditions identified in the study were not able
to reach the maximum values for thermal conductivity, temperature
difference, or mass flow rate. This constraint was chosen with the aim of
guiding the optimization process, minimizing system costs, and pro­
moting energy efficiency. By imposing a maximum heat storage capacity
constraint, the study aimed to avoid unrealistic designs, computational
complexity, overfitting, and ambiguous trade-offs. This approach
ensured a more realistic and optimized system design that effectively
balanced high performance with real-world limitations.
Based on the dataset characteristics and the imposed heat storage
capacity constraint, the study examined 1000 different cases. These
cases involved changing the number of capsules, PCM density, latent
heat of the material, and capsule diameter within specific ranges. By
using the powerful XGB ML model, the study predicted the charging
time for each case, allowing the identification of optimal conditions that
met the heat storage capacity constraint.
Through careful analysis, the study pinpointed a specific combina­
tion of design parameters and inlet conditions as the best configuration.
This configuration achieved the shortest charging and discharging times
while still satisfying the heat storage capacity constraint. Detailed in
Table 12, the optimal configuration specified the number of capsules,
PCM density, latent heat of the material, capsule diameter, as well as the
inlet temperature and flow rate. The corresponding charging and dis­
charging times for this configuration were determined to be 321 min and
343 min, respectively.
By utilizing the XGB ML tool to predict system performance, the
study systematically evaluated the impact of different design parameters
Table 12
PBTES optimal condition.
Inlet Number of Density (kg/ Thermal conductivity (W/m-
parameters capsules m3) K)
Values 1898 1000 0.45
13
Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690
and inlet conditions on the charging time of the PBTES system. This
thorough analysis led to a more efficient and effective optimization of
the system design, ensuring compliance with the selected heat storage
capacity constraint.
5. Summary and concluding remarks
5.1. Summary
In this study, several data-driven ML models, including LR, SVR,
KNN, DT, RF, and XGB were employed for analyzing the performance of
a PBTES system. The system was evaluated based on its charging and
discharging time, with 80 % of the data used for training and 20 % for
testing. The results showed that the XGB ML model outperformed the
other models, achieving a maximum R2 value of 0.982 and minimum
MAE, MAPE, and RMSE values of 0.057, 0.182, and 0.16, respectively.
Therefore, the XGB model can be considered the most suitable ML tool
for accurately analyzing and predicting the performance of PBTES sys­
tems in terms of charging and discharging time.
5.2. Outcomes
The major outcomes of the study with reference to ML models and
operating parameters are listed below:
• The performance of six ML models, namely LR, KNN, SVR, DT, RF,
and XGB, was evaluated for PBTES performance assessment. The
XGB ML model was found to be the most suitable, with a minimum
R2 value of 0.982 and maximum MAE, MAPE, and RMSE values of
0.057, 0.182, and 0.16, respectively. On the other hand, the LR ML
model was found to be the least performing.
• In the specified operating range, the impact of the thermo-physical
properties of PCM density (kg/m3), thermal conductivity (W/m-K),
and latent heat (kJ/kg) on PBTES performance parameters, such as
charging and discharging time, were analyzed. It was observed that a
rise in thermal conductivity and a reduction in latent heat and
density improved the PBTES performance.
• Furthermore, as the density increases from 820 kg/m3 to 2310 kg/m3
the charging and discharging time increases by 32.7 % and 45.8 %,
respectively. As thermal conductivity rises from 0.2 W/m-K to 1.64
W/m-K, the charging and discharging time decreased by 3.3 % and
4.4 %, respectively. With an increase in latent heat from 154.2 kJ/kg
to 260 kJ/kg the charging and discharging time increases by 58 %
and 66.67 %, respectively.
• Furthermore, the effect of operating parameters such as temperature
difference (ΔT) and mass flow rate (kg/s) on PBTES performance
parameters, such as charging and discharging time, were also
analyzed within the specified operating range. It was observed that
an increase in temperature difference and mass flow rate enhanced
PBTES performance.
• An increase in ΔT from 20 to 161 decreased the charging and dis­
charging time by 10 % and 29 %, respectively. As the mass flow rate
increased from 0.00556 kg/s to 0.1529 kg/s, the charging and dis­
charging time decreased by 69.3 % and 83.14 %, respectively.
• Moreover, an increase in ball diameter, bed diameter, and bed length
increases both melting and solidification time. As the ball diameter
increased from 15 mm to 60 mm, the melting and solidification time
increased by 9.6 % and 41.4 %, respectively. As the aspect ratio
Latent heat (kJ/ Mass flow rate (kg/ ΔT Ball dia. Aspect
kg) s) (mm) ratio
212 0.12 100 45.6 1.5
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

Fig. 9. Variation of time with thermophysical properties of PBTES system during.

(a) Charging (b) discharging.

including:
80
Charging
• Exploring additional ML models: While the study evaluated six ML
60
models, there are still other models that could be examined for
increase in thermophysical properties
% Change in output parameters with

Discharging
PBTES performance assessment. Future research could explore
40
models like neural networks, gradient descent, and other ensemble
models to determine the best-performing model for this application.
20
Thermal • Investigating other input and output parameters: The study consid­
Conductivity ered a limited number of input and output parameters for PBTES
0
Density Latent heat performance assessment. Future research could investigate the
-20 impact of other parameters, such as PCM shape, PCM material, and
HTF properties, on PBTES performance.
-40 • Examining different experimental datasets: The study used experi­
mental datasets from the literature to evaluate PBTES performance
-60 using different ML models. Future research could collect new
experimental data to validate the findings of this study and explore
Fig. 10. Percentage change in charging/discharging time with an increase in the PBTES performance using ML models.
thermophysical properties. • Real-time performance monitoring: The ML models developed in this
study could be employed for real-time performance monitoring of
increased from 1 to 2.6, the charging and discharging time increased PBTES systems, which would provide valuable insights for system
by 81.1 % and 78.2 % respectively. optimization and maintenance.
• Integration with renewable energy systems: PBTES systems can be
5.3. Future scope integrated with renewable energy systems like solar or wind power
to store excess energy for later use. Future research could investigate
The study on the performance of PBTES using various ML models the performance of PBTES systems in combination with different
presents several opportunities for further research and exploration, renewable energy systems.

14
P. Anand et al.
Fig. 11. Variation of time with operating parameters of PBTES system during.
(a) Charging (b) discharging.
into account are:
Fig. 12. Percentage change in charging and discharging time with increasing
operating parameters.
5.4. Drawbacks
The study showcased the efficacy of data-driven approaches in both
designing and analyzing PBTES performance. Overall, it is vital to note
that there exist certain limitations or drawbacks when using ML models
for PBTES analysis and prediction. Some probable limitations to take
15
Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690
• Although ML models offer accurate predictions, interpreting the
model can be difficult. This lack of interpretability can hinder the
usefulness of the model in practical applications by limiting the
understanding of why the model makes specific predictions.
• ML models are commonly trained on historical data, which may not
always be representative of future conditions. As a result, the
generalizability of the model can be restricted, reducing its accuracy
when applied to new data.
• ML models may sometimes overfit the training data, resulting in the
model becoming too specialized to the training data and, thus, may
not perform well when applied to new data.
• The quality of the data utilized to train the ML models can signifi­
cantly impact their performance. If the data is incomplete or inac­
curate, the model may not be able to make precise predictions.
• Some ML models such as tree-based ensemble models require sig­
nificant computational resources, making them challenging to
implement in practical applications.
• In the event of concept drift or a shift in the fundamental association
between input and output data, the performance of the ML model
may be compromised, resulting in inaccurate predictions.
• The conclusions from ML models are limited by the model’s as­
sumptions and dataset constraints. Careful consideration is needed,
P. Anand et al. Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690

Fig. 13. Variation of time with design parameters of PBTES system during.
(a) Charging (b) discharging.

• The study lacks information on charge/discharge rates and storage

90
capacity, impacting the optimization process. Addressing this limi­
Charging
tation is essential to ensure transparency and consider potential
implications on the analysis and optimization outcomes.
% Change in output parameters with

70
Discharging
increase in design parameters

50 In overall, it is crucial to consider these potential limitations when

utilizing ML models for PBTES analysis and prediction. While these
30 models can offer valuable insights and improve the efficiency and sus­
tainability of energy systems, it is essential to ensure that they are
10 appropriately used in conjunction with other analytical methods.

-10
Ball Diameter Aspect Ratio CRediT authorship contribution statement

-30 Pratyush Anand: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,

Fig. 14. Percentage change in charging/discharging time with increasing
design parameters.
as they may only be valid within the specific study context. Extrap­
olating to different scenarios may lead to errors.
• The model’s accuracy is confined to the temperature range of
25–100 ◦ C, and its predictions may not be reliable for systems
operating at temperatures above 445 ◦ C. Interpretation of results
beyond the model’s validated range should be done cautiously.
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. P.K.S. Tejes:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. B. Kiran Naik: Conceptualization, Meth­
odology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Hakeem Niyas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

16
P. Anand et al.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
Authors are thankful for the computational facilities provided by the
Energy Institute Bengaluru and National Institute of Technology
Rourkela.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.est.2023.108690.
References
[1] I. Dincer, Environmental impacts of energy, Energy Policy 27 (14) (1999) 845–854.
[2] S.R. Bull, Renewable energy today and tomorrow, Proc. IEEE 89 (8) (2001)
1216–1226.
[3] F.W. Schmidt, A.J. Willmott, Thermal Energy Storage and Regeneration, 1981.
[4] G. Alva, L. Liu, X. Huang, G. Fang, Thermal energy storage materials and systems
for solar energy applications, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 68 (2017) 693–706.
[5] S.S.M. Tehrani, Y. Shoraka, K. Nithyanandam, R.A. Taylor, Shell-and-tube or
packed bed thermal energy storage systems integrated with a concentrated solar
power: a techno-economic comparison of sensible and latent heat systems, Appl.
Energy 238 (2019) 887–910.
[6] H. Singh, R.P. Saini, J.S. Saini, A review on packed bed solar energy storage
systems, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (3) (2010) 1059–1069.
[7] H. Torab, D.E. Beasley, Optimization of a Packed Bed Thermal Energy Storage Unit,
1987.
[8] J. Yang, Y. Hu, P. Qian, Z. Guo, Q. Wang, Experimental study of forced convective
heat transfer in packed beds with uniform and non-uniform spheres, Heat Transf.
Eng. 41 (4) (2020) 351–360.
[9] A.F. Regin, S.C. Solanki, J.S. Saini, An analysis of a packed bed latent heat thermal
energy storage system using PCM capsules: numerical investigation, Renew. Energy
34 (7) (2009) 1765–1773.
[10] S. Karthikeyan, R. Velraj, Numerical investigation of packed bed storage unit filled
with PCM encapsulated spherical containers–a comparison between various
mathematical models, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 60 (2012) 153–160.
[11] J. Mol, M. Shahi, A. Mahmoudi, Numerical modeling of thermal storage
performance of encapsulated PCM particles in an unstructured packed bed,
Energies 13 (23) (2020) 6413.
[12] M. Grabo, E. Acar, E.Y. Kenig, Modeling and improvement of a packed bed latent
heat storage filled with non-spherical encapsulated PCM-Elements, Renew. Energy
173 (2021) 1087–1097.
[13] L. Yang, X.S. Zhang, Performance of a new packed bed using stratified phase
change capsules, Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 7 (3) (2012) 208–214.
[14] G.S. Kumar, D. Nagarajan, L.A. Chidambaram, V. Kumaresan, Y. Ding, R. Velraj,
Role of PCM addition on stratification behaviour in a thermal storage tank–an
experimental study, Energy 115 (2016) 1168–1178.
[15] A. Kumar, S.K. Saha, Performance analysis of a packed bed latent heat thermal
energy storage with cylindrical-shaped encapsulation, Int. J. Energy Res. 45 (9)
(2021) 13130–13148.
[16] Q. Mao, Y. Zhang, Thermal energy storage performance of a three-PCM cascade
tank in a high-temperature packed bed system, Renew. Energy 152 (2020)
110–119.
[17] T. Xu, J.N. Chiu, B. Palm, S. Sawalha, Experimental investigation on cylindrically
macro-encapsulated latent heat storage for space heating applications, Energy
Convers. Manag. 182 (2019) 166–177.
[18] B. Sun, Z. Liu, X. Ji, L. Gao, D. Che, Thermal energy storage characteristics of
packed bed encapsulating spherical capsules with composite phase change
materials, Appl. Therm. Eng. 201 (2022), 117659.
[19] A. Mawire, C.S. Ekwomadu, A.B. Shobo, Experimental charging characteristics of
medium temperature cascaded packed bed latent heat storage systems, J. Energy
Storage 42 (2021), 103067.
[20] F. Jawaid, K. NazirJunejo, Predicting daily mean solar power using machine
learning regression techniques, in: 2016 Sixth International Conference on
Innovative Computing Technology (INTECH), IEEE, August 2016, pp. 355–360.
[21] Y. Li, G. Zhang, G.Z. Lv, A.N. Zhang, R.Z. Wang, Performance study of a solar
photovoltaic air conditioner in the hot summer and cold winter zone, Sol. Energy
117 (2015) 167–179.
17
Journal of Energy Storage 72 (2023) 108690
[22] M.W. Ahmad, J. Reynolds, Y. Rezgui, Predictive modelling for solar thermal energy
systems: a comparison of support vector regression, random forest, extra trees and
regression trees, J. Clean. Prod. 203 (2018) 810–821.
[23] H. Demolli, A.S. Dokuz, A. Ecemis, M. Gokcek, Wind power forecasting based on
daily wind speed data using machine learning algorithms, Energy Convers. Manag.
198 (2019), 111823.
[24] G. Narvaez, L.F. Giraldo, M. Bressan, A. Pantoja, Machine learning for site-
adaptation and solar radiation forecasting, Renew. Energy 167 (2021) 333–342.
[25] B.K. Naik, M. Chinthala, S. Patel, P. Ramesh, Performance assessment of waste
heat/solar driven membrane-based simultaneous desalination and liquid desiccant
regeneration system using a thermal model and KNN machine learning tool,
Desalination 505 (2021), 114980.
[26] Z. Fei, F. Yang, K.L. Tsui, L. Li, Z. Zhang, Early prediction of battery lifetime via a
machine learning based framework, Energy 225 (2021), 120205.
[27] Z. He, A.S. Farooq, W. Guo, P. Zhang, Optimization of the solar space heating
system with thermal energy storage using data-driven approach, Renew. Energy
190 (2022) 764–776.
[28] A. Mohapatra, P.K.S. Tejes, C. Gembali, B. Kiran Naik, Design and performance
analyses of evacuated U-tube solar collector using data-driven machine learning
models, J. Solar Energy Eng. 145 (1) (2023), 011007.
[29] A.O. Eldokaishi, M.Y. Abdelsalam, M.M. Kamal, H.A. Abotaleb, Modeling of water-
PCM solar thermal storage system for domestic hot water application using
artificial neural networks, Appl. Therm. Eng. 204 (2022), 118009.
[30] Z. Li, S.-T. Lv, Performance analysis and optimization of packed-bed TES systems
based on ensemble learning method, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 8165–8176, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.06.028.
[31] G. Priyadarshi, B. Kiran Naik, Performance potentiality analysis of desiccant coated
energy exchanger for M-cooler based air conditioning and solar driven drying
systems – a case study, Therm. Sci. Eng. Progress (2023), 102022, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tsep.2023.102022.
[32] L. Gao, Gegentana, Z. Liu, B. Sun, D. Che, S. Li, Multi-objective optimization of
thermal performance of packed bed latent heat thermal storage system based on
response surface method, Renew. Energy 153 (2020) 669–680, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.157.
[33] J. Marti, L. Geissbühler, V. Becattini, A. Haselbacher, A. Steinfeld, Constrained
multi-objective optimization of thermocline packed-bed thermal-energy storage,
Appl. Energy 216 (2018) 694–708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.12.072.
[34] K. Kumari, S. Yadav, Linear regression analysis study, J. Pract. Cardiovasc. Sci. 4
(1) (2018) 33.
[35] G. Guo, H. Wang, D. Bell, Y. Bi, K. Greer, KNN model-based approach in
classification, in: On The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2003: CoopIS, DOA,
and ODBASE: OTM Confederated International Conferences, CoopIS, DOA, and
ODBASE 2003, Catania, Sicily, Italy, November 3–7, 2003. Proceedings, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 986–996.
[36] A.L. Boulesteix, S. Janitza, J. Kruppa, I.R. König, Overview of random forest
methodology and practical guidance with emphasis on computational biology and
bioinformatics, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2 (6) (2012)
493–507.
[37] E. Al Daoud, Comparison between XGBoost, LightGBM and CatBoost using a home
credit dataset, Int. J. Comput. Inf. Eng. 13 (1) (2019) 6–10.
[38] M.J. Li, B. Jin, J.J. Yan, Z. Ma, M.J. Li, Numerical and experimental study on the
performance of a new two-layered high-temperature packed-bed thermal energy
storage system with changed-diameter macro-encapsulation capsule, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 142 (2018) 830–845.
[39] A. Raul, M. Jain, S. Gaikwad, S.K. Saha, Modelling and experimental study of latent
heat thermal energy storage with encapsulated PCMs for solar thermal
applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 143 (2018) 415–428.
[40] S. Loem, T. Deethayat, A. Asanakham, T. Kiatsiriroat, Thermal characteristics on
melting/solidification of low temperature PCM balls packed bed with air charging/
discharging, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 14 (2019), 100431.
[41] S. Loem, T. Deethayat, A. Asanakham, T. Kiatsiriroat, Study on phase change
material thermal characteristics during air charging/discharging for energy saving
of air-conditioner, Heat Mass Transf. 56 (2020) 2121–2133.
[42] T.E. Alam, J. Dhau, D.Y. Goswami, M.M. Rahman, E. Stefankos, Experimental
investigation of a packed-bed latent heat thermal storage system with encapsulated
phase change material, in: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition vol. 46521, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November
2014 (p. V06BT07A050).
[43] Z. He, X. Wang, X. Du, C. Xu, L. Yang, Cyclic characteristics of water thermocline
storage tank with encapsulated PCM packed bed, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 139
(2019) 1077–1086.
[44] L.A. Naeem, T.A. Al-Hattab, M.I. Abdulwahab, Study of the performance of paraffin
wax as a phase change material in packed bed thermal energy storage system, Iraqi
J. Chem. Pet. Eng. 17 (4) (2016) 25–33.
[45] W. Guo, Z. He, Y. Zhang, P. Zhang, Thermal performance of the packed bed
thermal energy storage system with encapsulated phase change material, Renew.
Energy 196 (2022) 1345–1356.