Abstract
Modeling phase change materials (PCMs) has been a topic of research interest in the past, carried out experimentally and by means of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The implemented solidification and melting (SM) model in Ansys Fluent-based on the enthalpy-porosity formulation is widely used in the literature. To the authors’ knowledge, few publications apply the apparent heat capacity (AHC) method in Ansys Fluent and even fewer have discussed both. The SM approach applies a linear relationship of the liquid fraction between solidus and liquidus temperature although it is known that the phase transition follows a non-linear behavior, which can be captured using the AHC method as a curve shape and location of the specific heat capacity containing information about the nature of phase transition behavior. Important factors in modeling are the temperature dependent thermophysical material properties density, viscosity, and thermal conductivity. They are often considered constant in the respective phase (solid or liquid) with a (linear) transition over the melting range. Temperature-dependent density is taken into account by using the Boussinesq approximation to model convective heat transfer. SM and AHC are compared to the analytical solution of the two-phase Stefan problem. As this does not include gravity and thus natural convection behavior, an additional comparison to two different PCMs, one from literature and a second data set gained in a new experiment is provided. The present work helps to evaluate the differences between the SM and AHC approach and to decide which is better suited for intended studies.
Highlights
Different model approaches play an important role in the realistic simulation of heat transfer in geometries filled with phase change materials (PCMs) like heat exchangers.Modeling the phase change has been a topic of great research interest in the past
Two modeling approaches are compared in the following chapter, namely the enthalpyporosity approach, which is implemented in Ansys Fluent as the solidification/melting model, and the apparent heat capacity model
Both the solidification and melting (SM) and apparent heat capacity (AHC) model approach have been compared to the analytical result of the two-phase Stephan problem
Summary
Different model approaches play an important role in the realistic simulation of heat transfer in geometries filled with phase change materials (PCMs) like heat exchangers. The solidification and melting model applies a linear relationship of the liquid fraction between solidus and liquidus temperature it is known that the phase transition follows a non-linear behavior [13] This behavior can be captured using the AHC method as the curve shape and location of the specific heat capacity contain information about the nature of phase transition behavior. [22] presented phase change simulations to experiments for a construction material integrating microencapsulated phase change material In this contribution, Ansys Fluent is used to simulate a PCM with a detailed comparison of AHC and SM methods, including natural convection behavior. Ansys Fluent is used to simulate a PCM with a detailed comparison of AHC and SM methods, including natural convection behavior This includes the Boussinesq approximation as well as a temperature-dependent density.
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have