Heat absorption/release efficiency betterment of phase change material inside a shell-and-tube latent heat storage system under six different conditions of tube and fins

Abstract

Researchers are exploring innovative solutions for thermal energy storage to address the challenges posed by intermittent renewable sources, enhance energy efficiency, and contribute to the global shift towards cleaner and more sustainable energy practices. In the pursuit of an optimal system to improve the heat release/absorption efficiency of phase change materials (PCMs), a unique shell and tube latent heat storage system with four rectangular fins was designed. The melting and solidification behaviors of the material in this device were examined by manipulating the tube's position within the shell and fins around the tube. Six different cases were considered such as case A (tube in the center of the shell), case B (tube at the top of the shell), case C (tube at the bottom of the shell), case D (tube in the center of the shell with fins on its sides), case E (tube at the top of the shell with fins located in its bottom section), and case F (tube at the bottom of the shell with fins located in its top section). Cases D and E were the best options for absorbing and releasing heat in the shortest time. However, it should be noted that case F was faster during the melting process and dropped behind in the final stages. The authors proposed that if achieving a balanced result without incurring additional costs is essential, case D is a suitable option since it offers reasonable performance in melting and solidification processes. However, suppose researchers and developers of energy storage systems are seeking higher performances where heat absorption and release occur much more rapidly. In that case, it is suggested to construct one of the cases, E or F, and implement a rotational mechanism to enable access to the other case. Based on the outcomes, cases D and F needed 6235 s and 7552 s, respectively, to fully melt. While all cases even required more than 3 h to solidify 80 % of the PCM. The complete melting speed of Case F is 21.12 % faster than that of Case D. Additionally, the time required for 50 % solidification is 14.79 % faster for Case E compared to Case D. During 3 h, this system could absorb 1172 kJ of energy (cases D and F) and release 893 kJ of energy (cases D and E).