Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Experimental analysis of a fin-enhanced three-tube-shell cascaded latent

heat storage system
Yongliang Shen a, Pengwei Zhang a, Abdur Rehman Mazhar b, Hongkuan Chen a, Shuli Liu a, *
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
b
College of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering, National University of Sciences & Technology, Pakistan

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

Keywords: The charging behavior of low-temperature cascaded latent heat storage (CLHS) has been a major research gap. In
Cascaded latent heat storage order to overcome the low thermal conductivity of organic phase change materials (PCMs), a fin-enhanced three-
PCM tube-shell latent heat storage unit is proposed in this paper. A full-scale experiment is carried out to study the
Exergy analysis
temperature evolution and thermodynamic performance of CLHS unit of each stage and overall system. Through
Sensitivity analysis
Correlation analysis
a sensitivity and correlation analysis, the influence of boundary conditions on the thermodynamic performance
of this CLHS system is determined. The experimental results shows that the rate of temperature rise and energy
charged of the first stage of the cascaded arrangement are significantly higher than those of the latter stages. It is
recommended to use a PCM with higher specific heat values in the first stages, and use a PCM with a higher latent
heat value in the later stages. The sensitivity analysis shows that the enhancement effect of the heat transfer fluid
(HTF) inlet temperature on the energy and exergy rate is much stronger than that of its velocity. It is recom­
mended that the HTF inlet temperature should be maximized as much as possible, and the HTF velocity should
not be too high to obtain better thermal performance of the CLHS system.

more uniform heat transfer temperature difference between multiple

1. Introduction
The development and utilization of renewable energy is of great
significance for ensuring energy security, protecting the ecological
environment, and achieving sustainable development. However, most
renewable energy sources are intermittent or periodic, which brings
difficulties to actual utilization. Energy storage technology has played a
role in eliminating the mismatch between energy supply and demand
[1]. According to the RENEWABLE 2020 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT, the
global market for all types of energy storage reached 183 GW in 2019
[2]. Particularly, thermal energy storage (TES) has been used in various
fields such as solar thermal utilization [3], waste heat recovery [4] and
cold storage [5].
Latent heat storage (LHS) has received extensive attention due to its
high heat storage density and constant phase change temperature. A
variety of technologies have been developed to improve the thermal
performance of LHS systems, including improving the thermal conduc­
tivity of PCMs [6,7], embedding fins [8] and heat pipe technologies [9].
In recent years, cascaded latent heat storage (CLHS) technologies based
on multiple PCMs is considered a promising passive method to improve
the performance of LHS. The advantage of CLHS is that it can maintain a
PCMs with different melting points and HTF. Table 1 presents recent
studies of CLHS systems both by numerical and experimental methods:
Numerical and experimental studies in recent years have proved the
advantages of CLHS system performance over non-cascaded systems,
including increasing the energy charged/discharged rates, making the
outlet heat transfer fluid (HTF) temperature more uniform, and
improving energy and exergy charging/discharging efficiencies. How­
ever, there are still some deficiencies that need further improvements
through a research study:
(1) Most of the studies are carried out by numerical methods, and
there are very few full-scale experimental studies.
(2) Among the few experimental studies, medium and high temper­
ature system has received more attention, while low temperature
applications still lack in research.
(3) Previous researchers paid more attention to exploring the per­
formance advantages of the CLHS system relative to the non-
cascaded system, and ignored the investigation of the various
boundary conditions that affect the performance of the CLHS
system.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shuli.liu@bit.edu.cn (S. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118717
Received 10 March 2022; Received in revised form 27 April 2022; Accepted 20 May 2022
Available online 23 May 2022
1359-4311/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Shen et al.
Nomenclature
Q Energy/heat, J
T Temperature, K
m Mass, kg
C Specific heat capacity, J/kg K
h Heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K
A Heat transfer area, m2
E Exergy, J
L Latent heat, J/kg
P Pressure, Pa
U Uncertainty, %
t Time, s
Re Reynolds number
Nu Nusselt number
St Stanton number
Pr Prandtl Number
u Velocity, m/s
Greek letters
ρ Density, kg/m3
Low-temperature latent heat storage systems have lower re­
quirements for heat sources and are more compatible with renewable
energy sources particularly solar energy. In addition, low-temperature
thermal energy usually has a wider range of application scenarios,
including solar thermal utilization system [18], building heating
[19,20], heat pumps [21], etc. During periods of low energy demand,
the LHS system stores excess solar energy or waste heat. During the peak
period of energy demand, it can be directly used for building heating or
evaporator preheating. In particular, the more uniform outlet temper­
ature of HTF in CLHS system is of great benefit to improve the stability of
heat pump system. Therefore, low-temperature CLHS should be thor­
oughly investigated to provide guidance for its usage in different ap­
plications. The purpose of this paper is to fill the above-mentioned
research gaps, to study the thermal performance and operation of a low-
temperature CLHS system by experimental methods. In order to improve
the poor thermal conductivity of organic PCMs, a fin-enhanced three-
tube-shell latent heat storage unit is proposed and applied to the CLHS
configuration. Through a sensitivity and correlation analysis, the influ­
ence of boundary conditions on the thermodynamic performance of this
CLHS system is determined. Finally, recommendations for optimization
are given based on the results of the experimental and theoretical
analysis.
2. Experimental method
2.1. Materials
Air is used as the HTF in the entire charging and discharging process.
In order to prevent corrosion of PCM container, three types organic
PCMs are selected as heat storage materials. The three types of PCM are
stearic acid, RT58 and lauric acid. DSC tests have been carried out on
these three types of PCM, with their phase change temperature and
latent heat of fusion shown in Fig. 1. The properties of the PCMs are
summarized in Table 2.
2.2. CLHS system
As shown in Fig. 2, the CLHS system consists of a CLHS unit, an
electric heater, an air to air cross-flow heat exchanger, a data acquisition
instrument, a fan, and several temperature, pressure, and velocity sen­
sors. The red and blue lines represent the charging circuit and
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
β Liquid fraction
η Efficiency, %
μ Dynamic viscosity, Pa s
Abbreviations
LHS Latent heat storage
TES Thermal energy storage
PCM Phase change material
HTF Heat transfer fluid
CLHS Cascaded latent heat storage
DSC Differential Scanning Calorimeter
Subscripts
f Heat transfer fluid
in Inner tube
m Middle tube
o Outer tube
s Solid state
l Liquid state
c Charging process
I i-stage
discharging circuit respectively, and the black line represents the shared
circuit. The fan and electric heater can make the air flow and temper­
ature reach 2000 m3/h and 180 ℃ respectively. As shown in Fig. 3, the
CLHS unit consists of three identical fin-enhanced three-tube heat ex­
changers. Corresponding to the CLHS unit in Fig. 3, point A-D are the
positions of the three-way valve, and point 1a-3b are the top and bottom
of the three heat storage units. Temperature sensors are arranged on the
top and bottom of the unit to measure the inlet and outlet temperature of
the HTF. Also, pressure and air velocity sensors are also arranged at
points 1a and 3b. The structure and size of the heat storage unit is shown
in Fig. 4. The heat storage unit consists of three tubes with the diameter
of 60 mm, 140 mm and 200 mm and wall thickness of 3.0 mm. The HTF
is in the inner and outer tubes having the same equivalent diameter, and
the middle tube is composed of the PCM with radial copper fins. The
HTF in the inner tube and the outer tube is collected to the air duct with
the inner diameter of 150 mm having a wall thickness of 3.0 mm after
exchanging heat with the PCM. Eight copper fins are evenly connected
with the inner and outer tube, while the thickness and length of the fins
are 1.0 mm and 30 mm respectively. The function of the seal cover is to
encapsulate the PCM and ensure that the HTF is in a fully developed
state when transferring heat with the PCM. As shown in Fig. 4 (b), five
thermocouples are arranged on the three sections of A, B, and C inside
the heat exchanger, and the positions of the thermocouples are shown in
Fig. 4 (c) for measuring the temperature of both the HTF and PCM. The
mean temperature is obtained by calculating the average value of
thermocouples. In order to reduce heat losses, the outer surfaces of the
CLHS unit and the air duct are wrapped with 10 cm thick aluminum
silicate wool. Table 3 and Table 4 present the geometric parameters of
the LHS unit along with detailing the key instrumentations.
2.3. Experimental procedure
During the charging process, initially the control system and data
acquisition system is turned on, and all sensors are set to collect data
every 30 s. Then, the fan is turned on to make the HTF in the air duct
reach a stable flow state. The HTF is considered to reach a stable flow
state after five cycles in the air duct. According to the HTF velocity in the
experiment, it takes about 40–62 s for HTF to reach a stable flow state. In
order to ensure the accuracy of the results, the stable flow time of HTF is
considered to be 120 s in the experiment. Finally, the heater is turned on
to heat the HTF. The HTF flows through the fan, air to air heat
Y. Shen et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717

Table 1
Numerical and experimental studies of CLHS in recent years.
Ref. Research Melting Structure of Main results or
method points of CLHS units conclusions
PCMs

[10] Numerical 29 ℃, 27.5 ℃ Plate heat The COP of the

2013 and 26.6 ℃ exchanger CLHS system is
significant higher
than non-cascaded
system.
[11] Numerical 337 ◦ C, A staggered The cascaded
2016 308 ◦ C and arrangement multi-PCM had
282 ◦ C of the PCM better energy and
capsules exergy
performance than
a single PCM
system.
[12] Numerical 6–18 ◦ C Packed bed 3–5 stages were
2018 using spherical recommended
capsules because their
thermal
performance was
very close to the
Fig. 1. DSC curves of PCMs with temperature.
optimal 24-stages
unit.
[13] Numerical 244 ◦ C, Cylindrical The series
2021 190 ◦ C and concentric arrangement of Table 2
170 ◦ C heat exchanger CLHS was better in Thermal properties of the PCMs (* represents the test values).
terms of thermal
Parameters PCM1 PCM2 PCM3
energy storage.
(Stearic acid) (RT58) (Lauric acid)
[14] Numerical 80 C, 65 C
◦ ◦
Plate heat Multiple PCM
2021 and 50 ◦ C exchanger energy storage Density (kg/m3) 848 [22] 810 [23] 870 [23]
units increased the Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 0.172 [22] 0.2 [23] 0.192 [23]
average thermal Specific heat (J/kg K) 2380 [22] 2100 [23] 2117 [22]
performance of Latent heat of fusion (kJ/kg) 227.16* 182.24* 187.74*
energy storage by Solidus temperature (K) 340.66* 330.83* 316.65*
12%. Liquidus temperature (K) 343.73* 333.85* 321.35*
[15] Experimental 165–172 ◦ C; Shell-and- Multiple PCM
2015 155–162 ◦ C tubes heat configurations
exchanger introduce a 2.4. Uncertainty analysis
19.36% efficiency
enhancement, and
the HTF
The uncertainty of the experimental test relating to temperature,
temperature pressure and flow rate, is calculated by Eq. (1) [24].
difference between √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ̅
the inlet and the ΔTTC ΔTTC ΔP ΔV
outlet is higher. U=± + + + × 100% (1)
TTC PCM TTC air P air V air
[16] Experimental 404.78 ◦ C; Shell-and-tube The energy, exergy
2018 504.93 ◦ C; heat exchanger and entransy
According to the instrumentation specifications in Table 2, the
585.55 ℃ storage efficiency
of and increases as
overall uncertainty is ± 4.36%.
the number of
stages increases. 3. Thermal performance indicators
[17] Experimental 118.4–122.0 Packed bed The cascaded
2021 using spherical system has a
3.1. Energy analysis
℃;
151.5–153.0 capsules higher average
℃; stratification
183 ℃ number and Energy analysis is based on the first law of thermodynamics. The
average energy charged energy by the PCMs during the charging process can be calcu­
and exergy storage lated by Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) respectively:
rate
[ ( ) ]
QPCM,i = mPCM,i CPCM,i TPCM,i - Tint + Li (2)
exchanger, electric air heater and then flows into the CLHS unit through
∑
N
point 1a to heat the PCMs in three stages before flowing out through QPCM = QPCM,i (3)
point 3b. During the downward flow of air through stage-1, stage-2 and i=1

stage-3 of the experimental part, heat is transferred from the HTF and Where, i represents the i-th stage of the CLHS unit, mPCM is the mass
stored in the PCM. Finally, the HTF flowing out of the CLHS unit is of the PCM, kg; TPCM is the temperature of the PCM, ℃; L is the latent
preheated for fresh HTF in an air to air heat exchanger and then dis­ heat of the PCM, J/kg.
charged outdoors. The charging process stops when the minimum Therefore, the energy charge rate by the PCM can be written as Eq.
temperature of the thermocouple in PCM1 is close to the inlet temper­ (4) and Eq. (5).
ature of the HTF and the temperature rise rate of PCMs is lower than 1
℃/10 min. During the charging process, the inlet temperature of HTF is Q̇PCM,i =
QPCM,i
(4)
controlled to be constant by an electric heater. All experiments are tc
carried out at room temperature (289.15 K- 297.15 K).

3
Y. Shen et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

Therefore, the energy efficiency during the charging process can be

defined as the ratio of the charged energy by the PCM to the discharged
energy by the HTF, which are shown as Eq. (8) and Eq. (9).
QPCM,i
ηQ,i = (8)
Qair,i

QPCM
ηQ = (9)
Qair

3.2. Exergy analysis

Energy analysis is based on the second law of thermodynamics. The

charged exergy by PCMs can be described as follows [11,25]:
[ ( ) ( )]
TPCM,i T0
EPCM,i = mPCM,i CPCM,i TPCM,i - Tint − T0 ln + Li 1 − (10)
Tint Tm,i

∑
N
EPCM = EPCM,i (11)
i=1

Where, the Tm,i is the melting point of PCM. The discharged exergy
by the hot HTF can be calculated by Eq. (12) and Eq. (13).
Fig. 3. Overview of the experimental cascaded latent heat storage unit. ∫ tc [ ]
( ) Tin,i
Eair,i = ṁair Cp,air Tin,i - Tout,i − T0 ln dt (12)
0 Tout,i
QPCM
Q̇PCM = (5)
tc ∑
N
Eair = Eair,i (13)
Where, tc is the charging time, s. The discharged energy by the hot
i=1
HTF can be written as Eq. (6) and Eq. (7).
∫ tc Therefore, the exergy efficiency during the charging process can be
( ) defined as the ratio of the charged exergy by the PCM to the discharged
Qair,i = ṁair Cp,air Tin,i - Tout,i dt (6)
0 exergy by the HTF, which are shown as Eq. (14) and Eq. (15).

∑ EPCM,i
(14)
N
Qair = Qair,i (7) ηE,i =
Eair,i
i=1

4
Y. Shen et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the latent heat storage unit ((a) whole structure view; (b) First section view; (c) Vertical section view).

EPCM
Table 3 ηE = (15)
Eair
Geometry parameters of the LHS unit.
Geometry parameter Value Unit 4. Results and discussions
Total height of LHS unit 1200 mm
PCM cavity height 900 mm 4.1. The temperature evolution and thermodynamic performance
PCM filling height 810 mm
Seal cover height 100 mm
Inner diameter of outer tube (do) 200 mm Fig. 5 presents the evolution of the HTF and mean temperatures of
Inner diameter of middle tube (dm) 140 mm the PCMs under the when the electric heater is set to 100 ℃ and the fan
Inner diameter of inner tube (din) 60 mm frequency is set to 30 HZ. The average HTF inlet velocity during the
Inner diameter of air duct 150 mm entire charging process is 4.8 m/s, and the mass flow rate is calculated to
Thickness of the outer tube middle tube and inner tube 3.0 mm
Thickness of the cooper fins 1.0 mm
be 0.108 kg/s. As can be seen from Fig. 5 (a), with the operation of the
Height of cooper fins 900 mm electric heater, the inlet temperature of the HTF at all stages of the CLHS
Length of cooper fins 30 mm unit gradually increases and then tends to stabilize at 46 min. The HTF in
stage-3 has a smaller temperature difference between inlet and outlet
because of its smaller heat transfer temperature difference between
Table 4 PCM3.
The details of the key instrumentations. Fig. 5 (b) shows the evolution of the mean temperature of the PCMs.
Instruments Specification Quantity
Before melting, PCM1 has a higher temperature rising rate because of its
3
higher inlet temperature. After that, PCM3 and PCM2 melt faster than
Fan Frequency: 0–50 HZ, Air volume: 2000 m /h, 1
PCM1 because of their lower melting points. After the phase change
Pressure: 2000 Pa
Air to air plate heat Size: 500 (L) *500 W*360 (H), Plate distance: 1 process, the temperature rising rate of PCM1 is significantly higher than
exchanger 5 mm, Exchange form: cross flow that of PCM2 and PCM3. When the charging process is completed at
Electric heater Power: 15 kW 1 232.5 min, PCM1 has the highest temperature and PCM3 has the lowest
Data logger Type: TPC1061Ti, Input: 24 V DC/300 mA 1
temperature. In addition, although the time to reach thermal equilib­
Sensors Airflow rate: Range: 0–100 m/s, Accuracy: 3% 2
Air/PCM temperature Range: − 50–200 ℃, 54
rium in the three stages is almost the same, the phase change will not
Accuracy: 3% occur at the same time due to differences in the melting points of the
Air pressure: Range: 0–1000 Pa, Accuracy: 3% 2 PCMs and the HTF inlet temperature. It can be observed that PCM1 has a
significantly longer melting time because of its high latent heat.
Fig. 6 presents the thermodynamic performance of the LHS unit of
each stage in CLHS system. As shown in Fig. 6 (a) and (b), stage-1 has the
highest charged energy and exergy by the PCM along with the dis­
charged energy and exergy by the HTF, followed by stage 2, and then
stage-3. The charged energy by PCM1 is 15.27% more than PCM2 and

5
Y. Shen et al.
Fig. 5. Evolution of (a) HTF temperatures and (b) mean temperatures of PCMs.
20.43% than PCM3, which is mainly due to the higher heat transfer
temperature difference, latent heat and specific heat capacity of PCM1.
More obviously, the charged exergy by PCM1 is 32.88% more than
PCM2 and 72.59% more than PCM3 because of the higher melting points
and latent heat of PCM1, which means that PCM1 absorbs more high-
grade thermal energy. After calculations, the latent heat exergy of
PCM1 accounts for 61.08% of the charged exergy, while PCM2 and
PCM3 are 55.69% and 50.15%, respectively. Correspondingly, the en­
ergy and exergy charged rates of PCM1 are higher than that of PCM2 and
PCM3.
As shown in Fig. 6 (c), the average energy charging rates by PCM1,
PCM2 and PCM3 are 249.05 W, 216.05 W and 206.8 W respectively. The
average exergy charged rates by PCM1, PCM2 and PCM3 are 36.21 W,
27.25 W and 20.98 W respectively. The temperature rising rate and
energy charging rate of the first stage of the CLHS unit are significantly
higher than those of the latter stages. This difference indicates that
sensible heat may account for a larger proportion in the first stages, and
a relatively small proportion in the latter stages. Therefore, it is rec­
ommended to use a PCM with higher specific heat in the early stages of
the CLHS unit, and use a PCM with higher latent heat in the later stages.
Fig. 6 (d) shows the charged energy and exergy efficiencies of three
CLHS units. The energy charging efficiency of PCM1 (49.28%) is slightly
higher than that of PCM2 (47.40%) and PCM3 (47.49%). This means
that the heat loss and the heat absorbed by the metal account for about
50% of the discharged energy by the HTF. Although the higher tem­
perature difference in the LHS unit of stage-1 between the HTF and
PCM1 is beneficial to enhance heat transfer, the higher inlet temperature
causes greater heat loss. Consistent with the reasoning for the exergy
charging rates, the exergy charging efficiency of PCM1 (41.04%) is 3.5%
and 7.12% higher than that of PCM2 (37.54%) and PCM3 (33.92%).
Therefore, from the perspective of a LHS unit, the PCM closer to the
entrance of the HTF has advantages in terms of the energy charging rate,
exergy charging rate and the exergy charging efficiency. The main
reason for the low energy and exergy charging rates and efficiencies of
the later stages is the low thermal conductivity of the organic PCM
leading to low heat transfer rates and high heat losses, although the
structure of the heat storage unit has been optimized. Therefore, the
thermal conductivity of the PCMs should be improved to advance the
heat transfer performance of the LHS unit. From the perspective of the
whole CLHS system, the energy and exergy charging rates by the PCM
are 670.4 W and 84.44 W respectively. In addition, the energy and
6
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
exergy charging efficiency of the CLHS system are 47.11% and 37.92 %
respectively.
4.2. The effect of HTF inlet temperature on the thermodynamic
performance
The thermodynamic performance of the CLHS system with four
different HTF inlet temperatures are compared. The HTF inlet temper­
atures are 100 ◦ C, 105 ◦ C, 110 ◦ C and 120 ◦ C, and the average HTF
velocity is 4.8 m/s. Fig. 7 presents the effect of the HTF inlet temperature
on energy and exergy charging rates. It can be found that the energy and
exergy charging rates of each stage in ghe CLHS system increase with an
increase of the HTF inlet temperature, because the temperature differ­
ence of the heat transferred from the HTF to the PCM becomes larger. As
shown in Fig. 7 (a), when the HTF inlet temperature increases from 100
℃ to 115 ℃, the energy charging rate of PCM1, PCM2 and PCM3 in­
creases from 249.05 W, 216.05 W and 206.8 W to 397.32 W, 346.04 W
and 327.21 W, respectively. When the HTF inlet temperature increases
by 15%, the energy charging rate of PCM1, PCM2 and PCM3 increases
by 59.53%, 60.17%, 58.23%, respectively. This means that the increase
in the HTF inlet temperature has the greatest effect on the energy
charging rate of the stage-2, followed by the stage-1, and then the stage-
3 PCM but the difference is not obvious.
The effect of the HTF inlet temperature on exergy charging rate is
similar to that on energy charging rate. A higher HTF inlet temperature
not only increases the heat transfer temperature difference, but also
improves the energy grade of the HTF and PCM. Therefore, the exergy
charging rate increases significantly with an increase of the HTF inlet
temperature. As shown in Fig. 7 (b), when the HTF inlet temperature
increases from 100 ℃ to 115 ℃, the exergy charging rates of PCM1,
PCM2 and PCM3 increase from 36.21 W, 27.35 W and 20.98 W to 58.23
W, 44.34 W and 33.64 W, respectively. When the HTF inlet temperature
increases by 15%, the exergy charged rate of PCM1, PCM2 and PCM3
increases by 60.81%, 62.72%, 60.34%, respectively. In all three LHS
units, the enhancement effect of the HTF inlet temperature on exergy
charging rate is stronger than that on energy charging rate.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of the HTF inlet temperature on energy and
exergy charging efficiencies. As shown in Fig. 8 (a), the effect of the HTF
inlet temperature on the energy efficiency of the three LHS units is
different, but the overall trend is that it increases first and then de­
creases. This is because a higher HTF inlet temperature can provide a
Y. Shen et al.
Fig. 6. Thermodynamic performance of CLHS system ((a) charged energy by PCMs and discharged energy by HTF; (b) charged exergy by PCMs and discharged
exergy by HTF; (c) energy and exergy charged rates (d) energy and exergy charged efficiencies).
higher heat transfer temperature difference and also a heat transfer rate
between the HTF and PCMs, but it will also increase the heat loss of the
LHS unit. When the heat loss is more than the charged energy by the
PCMs, the efficiency will start to decrease. For stage-1 and stage-3, when
the HTF inlet temperature increases from 100 ℃ to 110 ℃, the energy
charging efficiency increases from 49.28% and 47.49% to 52.00% and
50.32%. Subsequently, when the HTF inlet temperature increases to 115
℃, the energy charging efficiency decreased to 51.78% and 49.66%. On
the contrary, the energy charging efficiency of stage 2 reaches the
maximum value of 50.34% when the HTF inlet temperature is 105 ℃,
and then begins to decrease. Under different HTF inlet temperature
conditions, the energy charging efficiency of stage-1 is always the
highest, while the energy charging efficiency of stage-2 is higher than
that of stage-3 only when the inlet temperature is 105 ℃.
As shown in Fig. 8 (b), the exergy charging efficiency shows a
different trend from the energy charging efficiency as the HTF inlet
temperature increases. For stage-1, the exergy charging efficiency in­
creases from 41.01% to 44.74% as the HTF inlet temperature increases
from 100 ℃ to 105 ℃. Subsequently, the exergy charging efficiency
decreases as the HTF inlet temperature increases. For stage-2 and stage-
3, the exergy charging efficiencies gradually decrease with the increase
7
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
of the HTF inlet temperature. The reduction of exergy charging effi­
ciency is mainly caused by the exergy destruction produced by the
irreversible heat transfer process and the exergy loss produced by the
heat loss. The exergy destruction I caused by irreversible heat transfer
process can be calculated by Eq. (16) [26].
∫ tc [ ( ) ]
1 1
I= T0 − Q̇charged dt (16)
TPCM THTF
0
It can be found from Eq. (16) that the higher HTF inlet temperature
and energy charging rate of PCMs will cause greater exergy destruction.
When the increment of exergy loss and exergy destruction is higher than
that of the charged exergy by PCMs, it will lead to the reduction of
exergy charging efficiency. In addition, under different HTF inlet tem­
perature conditions, stage-1 has the highest exergy charging efficiency,
followed by stage-2, and then stage-3.
From the perspective of CLHS system, Fig. 9 shows the effect of the
HTF inlet temperature on system energy and exergy charging rates along
with efficiencies. As shown in Fig. 9 (a), the energy and exergy charging
rate increases significantly with an increase of the HTF inlet tempera­
ture. As the HTF inlet temperature increases from 100 ℃ to 115 ℃, the
energy charging rate of the system increases from 671.9 W and 84.44 W
Y. Shen et al.
Fig. 7. Effect of HTF inlet temperature on (a) energy charged rate and (b) exergy charged rate.
Fig. 8. Effect of HTF inlet temperature on (a) energy charged efficiency and (b) exergy charged efficiency.
to 1070.57 W and 136.21 W. It can be calculated that when the HTF inlet
temperature increases by 15%, the energy and exergy efficiency of the
system increases by 59.33% and 61.31% respectively. It can be observed
from Fig. 9 (b) that the system energy and exergy charging efficiencies
first increase and then decrease with an increase of the HTF inlet tem­
perature. The difference is that the energy charging efficiency reaches
the maximum value of 50.78% at the HTF inlet temperature of 110 ℃,
while it reaches the maximum value of 38.49% at 105 ℃.
4.3. The effect of HTF velocity on the thermodynamic performance
The thermodynamic performance of the CLHS system under four
different HTF inlet velocities are compared. The HTF velocity under the
four experimental conditions are 4.0 m/s, 4.8 m/s, 5.6 m/s and 6.4 m/s.
In addition, the inlet temperature of the HTF is set to 105 ℃. As can be
seen from Fig. 10 (a), when the HTF velocity increases from 4.0 m/s to
6.4 m/s, the mean energy charging rates of the PCMs at the three stages
8
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
increase from 292.30 W, 254.83 W and 242.3 W to 375.39 W, 330.09 W
and 315.66 W, respectively. When the HTF velocity increases by 60%,
the energy charging rates of the PCMs in the three stages increase by
27.9%, 29.53% and 30.28%, respectively. This is because the increase of
the HTF velocity enhances forced convective heat transfer between the
HTF and PCMs. As shown in Fig. 10 (b), when the HTF velocity increases
from 4.0 m/s to 6.4 m/s, the mean exergy charging rates of the PCMs at
the three stages increase from 40.67 W, 30.67 W and 23.25 W to 52.79
W, 40.56 W and 31.38 W, respectively. When the HTF velocity increases
by 60%, the exergy charging rates of the PCMs in the three stages in­
crease by 29.80%, 32.25% and 34.97%. It can be found that the
enhancement effect of the HTF velocity on energy and exergy charging
rate increases gradually along the flow direction of the HTF. This means
that although PCM1 always has advantages over PCM2 and PCM3 in
energy and exergy charging rates under different HTF velocities, this
advantage is gradually weakened with the increase of HTF velocity. This
is because although the increase of HTF velocity enhances the
Y. Shen et al.
Fig. 9. Effect of HTF inlet temperature on (a) system energy and exergy charged rate and (b) system energy and exergy charged efficiency.
Fig. 10. Effect of HTF velocity on (a) energy charged rate and (b) exergy charged rate.
convective heat transfer, it also increases the heat loss of the system. The
HTF temperature and heat loss of LHS unit decreases gradually along the
flow direction. Similar to the effect of HTF inlet temperature, the effect
of HTF velocity on exergy charging rate is stronger than that of energy
charging rate.
Fig. 11 presents the effect of the HTF velocity on energy and exergy
charging efficiencies. As shown in Fig. 11 (a), the effect of HTF velocity
on energy charging efficiency is complicated. For stage-1 and stage-3,
when the HTF velocity increases from 4.0 m/s to 4.8 m/s, the energy
charging efficiencies increase from 50.54% and 49.28% to 51.87% and
49.88%, respectively. Subsequently, as the HTF velocity continues to
increase, the energy charging efficiencies begins to decrease. Finally,
when the HTF inlet velocity increases to 6.4 m/s, the energy charging
efficiencies are reduced to 50.15% and 47.23% respectively. For stage-2,
the energy charging efficiency decreases unilaterally with the increase
of HTF velocity. When the HTF velocity increases from 4.0 m/s to 6.4 m/
s, the energy charging efficiencies reduce from 50.77% to 46.28%.
Therefore, the influence of HTF velocity on the energy charging
9
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
efficiency of LHS unit in different stages is different. In the current HTF
velocity range (4.0–6.4 m/s), the energy charging efficiency of stage-2 is
most affected, followed by stage-3 and then stage-1.
As shown in Fig. 11 (b), the trend of exergy charging efficiency with
HTF velocity is similar to that of energy charging efficiency. The dif­
ference is that the effect of HTF velocity on exergy charging efficiency is
significantly lower than that on energy charging efficiency. For stage-1
and stage-3, when the HTF velocity increases from 4.0 m/s to 4.8 m/s,
the exergy charging efficiencies increase from 44.67% and 32.17% to
44.74% and 32.93%, respectively. Subsequently, as the HTF velocity
continues to increase to 6.4 m/s, the exergy charging efficiencies are
reduced to 42.27% and 30.11% respectively. For stage-2, when the HTF
velocity increases from 4.0 m/s to 6.4 m/s, the exergy charging effi­
ciency reduces from 36.74% to 32.77%. Under different HTF velocity
conditions, the exergy charging efficiency of stage-1 is the highest, fol­
lowed by stage-2, and then stage-3.
In general, too high a HTF velocity will result in a decrease in energy
efficiency and exergy efficiency. Although the increase in HTF velocity is
Y. Shen et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of HTF velocity on (a) energy charged efficiency and (b) exergy charged efficiency.
beneficial to enhance forced convection heat transfer between the HTF
and PCM, it also enhances the heat dissipation of the LHS unit to the
environment and the exergy destruction associated with this irreversible
heat transfer process. Due to the low thermal conductivity of organic
PCMs, the heat transfer enhancement effect between the HTF and PCM is
inhibited. When the increment in energy and exergy of PCMs cannot
compensate for heat loss and exergy destruction, energy efficiency and
exergy efficiency will reduce as the HTF velocity increases.
Fig. 12 presents the effect of the HTF velocity on system energy and
exergy charging rates along with efficiencies. According to Fig. 12 (a),
the system energy and exergy charging rates increase significantly with
an increase of HTF velocity. When the HTF velocity increases from 4.0
m/s to 6.4 m/s, the energy and exergy charging rate of the system in­
creases from 789.43 W and 94.59 W to 1021.24 W and 124.73 W,
respectively, which is an increase of 29.36% and 31.86%. It can be found
from Fig. 12 (b) that the system energy and exergy charging efficiencies
first increase and then decrease with the increase of the HTF velocity.
The energy and exergy charging efficiency reach the maximum values of
Fig. 12. Effect of HTF velocity on (a) system energy and exergy charged rate and (b) system energy and exergy charged efficiency.
10
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
50.75% and 38.49% respectively when the HTF velocity is 4.8. Subse­
quently, when the HTF velocity increases to 6.4 m/s, the energy and
exergy charging efficiency of the system reduces to 48.20% and 35.36%,
respectively.
4.4. Sensitivity analysis and correlation analysis
4.4.1. Sensitivity analysis
It is clearly observed that the energy and exergy charging rates of the
LHS units and overall system are positively correlated with the HTF inlet
temperature and velocity. In order to find the sensitive factors that have
a significant influence on the energy and exergy charging rates the
sensitivity indices Si are calculated using Eq. (17) [27].
Δy/y
Si = (17)
Δx/x
Where, the numerator and denominator both represent the change
rate of performance parameters and influencing factors. The larger the
Y. Shen et al.
Fig. 13. The sensitivity of (a) HTF inlet temperature and (b) HTF velocity to energy and exergy charged rates.
sensitivity index, the more obvious the influencing factor on the per­
formance parameters. Fig. 13 (a) and (b) presents the sensitivity of the
HTF inlet temperature and velocity to energy and exergy charging rates,
respectively. It can be found that the sensitivity indices of HTF inlet
temperature to energy and exergy charging rates are almost an order of
magnitude higher than that of HTF velocity to energy and exergy
charging rates. Therefore, the influence of HTF inlet temperature on
energy and exergy charging rates is much stronger than that of the HTF
velocity. It means that the HTF inlet temperature should be increased as
much as possible instead of the HTF velocity to enhance the energy and
exergy charging rates of the PCMs. In addition, it can be observed that
the HTF inlet temperature and velocity have a stronger influence on the
exergy charging rate than on the energy charging rate. It can be seen
from Fig. 13(a) that the HTF inlet temperature has the greatest impact
on the energy and exergy charging rates of stage-2, followed by stage-1,
then stage-3. While from Fig. 13 (b), the HTF velocity has the greatest
impact on the energy and exergy charging rates of stage-3, followed by
stage-2, and then stage-1.
4.4.2. Correlation analysis
The Stanton number (St) is used to analyze the effect of HTF inlet
temperature and velocity on the energy charged efficiency and exergy
charged efficiency of the CLHS system. St is regarded as the ratio of the
actual heat flux to the maximum potential heat flux of HTF, which can
be described as Eq. (18) [28].
Nu
St = (18)
Re ⋅Pr
Where, Nu, Re and Pr are the Nusselt number, Reynolds number and
Prandtl Number. For the forced convection heat transfer in a pipe, Nu
can be calculated using the Dittus-Boelter relation [28]:
Nu = 0.023Re0.8 Pr0.3 (19)
For the inner tube, the Reynolds number of HTF is [28]:
ρudin
Re = (20)
μ
For the outer tube, the Reynolds number of HTF can be calculated by
equivalent diameter [28]:
ρu(do − dm )
Re = (21)
μ Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 presents the Pearson’s and Spearman’s correla­
For air, Pr will increase with the increase of inlet temperature.
11
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
According to the Eq. (18) - (21), Re and Nu also increase with the in­
crease of HTF inlet temperature and velocity. However, when the HTF
inlet temperature and velocity are too high, the increment of Nu may be
less than that of (Re• Pr), resulting in the decrease of St. This means that
the ratio of the actual heat flux to the maximum potential heat flux of
HTF will be reduced, resulting in the increase of PCM heat loss and the
decrease of energy charged efficiency. Therefore, the influence of the
HTF inlet temperature and velocity on energy and exergy charging ef­
ficiency is complicated.
As illustrated in Eq. (22) and Eq. (23), Pearson’s correlation coeffi­
cient [29] and Spearman’s correlation coefficient [30] are used for a
correlation analysis between influencing factors and performance pa­
rameters. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Spearman’s corre­
lation coefficient are used to evaluate the linear and nonlinear
correlation between influencing factors and performance parameters,
respectively. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is usually applied when
the datasets are interval or continuously scaled and normally distrib­
uted. Generally speaking, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient is very
sensitive to outliers. Spearman’s correlation coefficient is often used for
ordinal scale data sets or continuous variables that do not meet the
normality requirements. Specifically, the method calculates the actual
ranks separately, and then evaluates their correlation. The values of
Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Spearman’s correlation coefficient
are between − 1 and 1. Correlation values close to 1, − 1, and 0 indicate
strong positive correlation, strong negative correlation, and weak or no
relationship, respectively [31]. It should be noted that the values of
Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Spearman’s correlation coefficient
only indicates the correlation between the two parameters and do not
reflect the impact intensity.
∑n
i
k=1 (Pk − Pi )(Ek − E)
Rp = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (22)
∑n
2 ∑
n
(Pik − Pi ) (Ek − E)2
k=1 k=1
∑ ′ 2
6 nk=1 (Xi − Yi )
′
RS = 1 − (23)
2
n(n − 1)
Where, RP and RS are the Pearson’s correlation coefficient and
Spearman’s correlation coefficient, respectively; i = P1; P2 – influencing
factors; E represents the performance parameters; P and E is mean values
of P and E.Xi and Yi are the ranks of Xi andYi .
′ ′
tion coefficient of (a) HTF inlet temperature and (b) HTF velocity to
Y. Shen et al.
Fig. 14. Pearson’s correlation coefficients of (a) HTF inlet temperature and (b) HTF velocity to energy and exergy charged efficiencies.
Fig. 15. Spearman’s correlation coefficients of (a) HTF inlet temperature and (b) HTF velocity to energy and exergy charged efficiencies.
energy and exergy charging efficiencies. The two correlation analysis
methods show a similar trend of influencing factors on performance
parameters. As shown in Fig. 14 (a) and Fig. 15 (a), the HTF inlet tem­
perature is moderately positively correlated with the energy charging
efficiencies of stage-1, stage-3 and the overall system, while it is weakly
but positively correlated with that of stage-2. Nevertheless, the HTF inlet
temperature is strongly but negatively correlated with the exergy
charging efficiencies of stage-2, stage-3 and the overall system, while it
is weakly but positively correlated with that of stage-1. This means that
an increase of the HTF inlet temperature is likely to increase energy
charging efficiency and reduce exergy charging efficiency. According to
the previous analysis, the increase of the HTF inlet temperature will only
lead to a slight decrease in exergy efficiency. Considering the obvious
enhancement effect of HTF inlet temperature on energy and exergy
charged rates, in general, increasing HTF inlet temperature is more
beneficial to the thermal performance of the CLHS system.
Fig. 14 (b) and Fig. 15 (b) indicate that the HTF velocity is negatively
correlated with energy and exergy charging efficiencies. The HTF ve­
locity has a strong negative correlation with the energy charging effi­
ciency of stage-2 and the overall system, and a moderately negative
12
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
correlation with that of stage-1 and stage-3. However, HTF velocity has
strong negative correlations with the exergy charging efficiency of the
LHS units in all stages and the overall system. This means that increasing
the HTF velocity is likely to reduce the energy and exergy charging ef­
ficiency of the CLHS system. Considering that the increase in HTF ve­
locity does not significantly enhance the energy and exergy charged
rates in the sensitivity analysis, the HTF velocity should not be too high
for the charging process of the CLHS system.
5. Conclusion
This study has established an experimental fin-enhanced three-tube-
shell cascaded latent heat storage system. The evolution of the tem­
perature profiles and thermodynamic performance during the charging
process have been studied. The effects of the HTF inlet temperature and
velocity on thermodynamic performance are compared in detail through
a sensitivity and correlation analysis. The main conclusions are as
follows:
Y. Shen et al.
(1) Due to the difference in heat transfer temperature and the melting
point of PCM, the phase change process of a PCM in each stage
will not occur at the same time. The phase change process in the
PCM of the latter stages initiates and finishes the fastest.
(2) The temperature rising rate and energy charging rate of the first
stages are significantly higher than those of the latter stages. This
difference indicates that sensible heat may account for a larger
proportion in the first stages, and a relatively small proportion in
the latter stages. Therefore, it is recommended to use a PCM with
a higher specific heat in the first stages, and use a PCM with
higher latent heat in the later stages.
(3) Higher HTF inlet temperatures and velocities are beneficial to
enhance the energy and exergy charging rates of the LHS units at
all stages. When the HTF inlet temperature increases by 15%, the
energy charging rate of PCM1, PCM2 and PCM3 increases by
59.53%, 60.17%, 58.23%, and the exergy charged rate of PCM1,
PCM2 and PCM3 increases by 60.81%, 62.72%, 60.34%,
respectively. When the HTF velocity increases by 60%, the energy
charging rates of the PCMs in the three stages increase by 27.9%,
29.53% and 30.28%, and the exergy charging rates of the PCMs in
the three stages increase by 29.80%, 32.25% and 34.97%,
respectively. Sensitivity analysis shows that the enhancement
effect of the HTF inlet temperature on energy and exergy rate is
much stronger than that of the HTF velocity.
(4) The influence of HTF inlet temperature and velocity on the en­
ergy and exergy charging efficiencies of each LHS unit in the
CLHS system is complicated. The correlation analysis show that
the HTF inlet temperature has a moderately positive correlation
with the energy charging efficiency, while it has a strongly
negative correlation with the exergy charging efficiency. The HTF
velocity is strongly negatively correlated with the energy and
exergy charging efficiencies.
(5) Considering the sensitivity and correlation analysis, the HTF inlet
temperature should be increased as much as possible, and the
HTF velocity should not be too high to obtain better thermal
performance of a CLHS system.
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.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support for this
study provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 52178063).
References
[1] H. Huang, Y. Xiao, J. Lin, T. Zhou, Y. Liu, Q. Zhao, Improvement of the efficiency of
solar thermal energy storage systems by cascading a PCM unit with a water tank,
J. Cleaner Prod. 245 (2020) 118864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.118864.
[2] Y. Shen, Y. Liu, S. Liu, A.R. Mazhar, A dynamic method to optimize cascaded latent
heat storage systems with a genetic algorithm: A case study of cylindrical
concentric heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 183 (2022).
[3] E. Alptekin, M.A. Ezan, A systematic assessment on a solar collector integrated
packed-bed single/multi-layered latent heat thermal energy storage system,
J. Storage Mater. 37 (2021) 102410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.102410.
[4] Y. Fan, C. Zhang, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, L. Qiu, Exploration on two-stage latent
thermal energy storage for heat recovery in cryogenic air separation purification
system, Energy 239 (2022) 122111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2021.122111.
[5] X. Cheng, X. Zhai, Thermal performance analysis of a cascaded cold storage unit
using multiple PCMs, Energy 143 (2018) 448–457.
13
Applied Thermal Engineering 213 (2022) 118717
[6] Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, L. Jia, L. Yang, Paraffin and paraffin/aluminum foam composite
phase change material heat storage experimental study based on thermal
management of Li-ion battery, Appl. Therm. Eng. 78 (2015) 428–436.
[7] R. Elarem, T. Alqahtani, S. Mellouli, G.A. El Awadi, S. Algarni, L. Kolsi,
Experimental investigations on thermophysical properties of nano-enhanced phase
change materials for thermal energy storage applications, Alexandria Engineering
Journal 61 (2022) 7037–7044.
[8] Y. Huang, X. Liu, Charging and discharging enhancement of a vertical latent heat
storage unit by fractal tree-shaped fins, Renewable Energy 174 (2021) 199–217.
[9] A. Amini, J. Miller, H. Jouhara, An investigation into the use of the heat pipe
technology in thermal energy storage heat exchangers, Energy 136 (2017)
163–172.
[10] A.H. Mosaffa, C.A. Infante Ferreira, F. Talati, M.A. Rosen, Thermal performance of
a multiple PCM thermal storage unit for free cooling, Energy Convers. Manage. 67
(2013) 1–7.
[11] L. Solomon, A. Oztekin, Exergy analysis of cascaded encapsulated phase change
material—High-temperature thermal energy storage systems, J. Storage Mater. 8
(2016) 12–26.
[12] X. Cheng, X. Zhai, Thermal performance analysis and optimization of a cascaded
packed bed cool thermal energy storage unit using multiple phase change
materials, Appl. Energy 215 (2018) 566–576.
[13] O.S. Elsanusi, E.C. Nsofor, Melting of multiple PCMs with different arrangements
inside a heat exchanger for energy storage, Appl. Therm. Eng. 185 (2021) 116046,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116046.
[14] S. Nekoonam, R. Ghasempour, Optimization of a solar cascaded phase change slab-
plate heat exchanger thermal storage system, J. Storage Mater. 34 (2021) 102005,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.102005.
[15] G. Peiró, J. Gasia, L. Miró, L.F. Cabeza, Experimental evaluation at pilot plant scale
of multiple PCMs (cascaded) vs. single PCM configuration for thermal energy
storage, Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 729–736.
[16] Y. Zhao, Y. You, H.B. Liu, C.Y. Zhao, Z.G. Xu, Experimental study on the
thermodynamic performance of cascaded latent heat storage in the heat charging
process, Energy 157 (2018) 690–706.
[17] A. Mawire, C.S. Ekwomadu, A.B. Shobo, Experimental charging characteristics of
medium-temperature cascaded packed bed latent heat storage systems, J. Storage
Mater. 42 (2021) 103067, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.103067.
[18] K. Chopra, V.V. Tyagi, A.K. Pandey, R.K. Sharma, A. Sari, PCM integrated glass in
glass tube solar collector for low and medium temperature applications:
Thermodynamic & techno-economic approach, Energy 198 (2020).
[19] X. Sun, Y. Zhang, K. Xie, M.A. Medina, A parametric study on the thermal response
of a building wall with a phase change material (PCM) layer for passive space
cooling, J. Storage Mater. 47 (2022) 103548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2021.103548.
[20] Y. Shen, S. Liu, C. Zeng, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, X. Han, L. Yang, X. Yang, X.e. Yang,
Experimental thermal study of a new PCM-concrete thermal storage block (PCM-
CTSB), Constr. Build. Mater. 293 (2021) 123540, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.123540.
[21] Y. Li, N. Zhang, Z. Ding, Investigation on the energy performance of using air-
source heat pump to charge PCM storage tank, J. Storage Mater. 28 (2020) 101270,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101270.
[22] R. Kumar, P. Verma, An experimental and numerical study on effect of longitudinal
finned tube eccentric configuration on melting behaviour of lauric acid in a
horizontal tube-in-shell storage unit, J. Storage Mater. 30 (2020) 101396, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101396.
[23] C. Yadav, R.R. Sahoo, Exergy and energy comparison of organic phase change
materials based thermal energy storage system integrated with engine exhaust,
J. Storage Mater. 24 (2019) 100773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.100773.
[24] D. Zhou, C.Y. Zhao, Experimental investigations on heat transfer in phase change
materials (PCMs) embedded in porous materials, Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2011)
970–977.
[25] S. Jegadheeswaran, S.D. Pohekar, T. Kousksou, Exergy based performance
evaluation of latent heat thermal storage system: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 14 (9) (2010) 2580–2595.
[26] A. Bejan, Advanced engineering thermodynamics, Advanced engineering
thermodynamics (1988).
[27] C. Xu, Z. Wang, Y. He, X. Li, F. Bai, Sensitivity analysis of the numerical study on
the thermal performance of a packed-bed molten salt thermocline thermal storage
system, Appl. Energy 92 (2012) 65–75.
[28] Rohsenow, W.M. Hartnett, J.P. Editors, Handbook of heat transfer, Handbook of
heat transfer, 1973.
[29] J. Wołoszyn, A. Gołaś, Sensitivity analysis of efficiency thermal energy storage on
selected rock mass and grout parameters using design of experiment method,
Energy Convers. Manage. 87 (2014) 1297–1304.
[30] M.A. Musarat, W.S. Alaloul, M.S. Liew, A. Ma Qs Oom, A. Qureshi, Investigating
the impact of inflation on building materials prices in construction industry,
Journal of Building Engineering, 32 (2020) 101485.
[31] Z. Li, X. Gao, D. Lu, Correlation analysis and statistical assessment of early
hydration characteristics and compressive strength for multi-composite cement
paste, Constr. Build. Mater. 310 (2021) 125260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.125260.