Numerical study on the effect of the location of the phase change material in a concentric double pipe latent heat thermal energy storage unit

Latent heat thermal energy storage (LHTS) represents an intriguing solution to the problem of variability of supply that exists in solar thermal power systems. One such storage system consists of a double pipe, where a phase change material (PCM) is enclosed in either the central pipe, or the annulus surrounding it. The heat transfer fluid fills the other void in the system. Whether the PCM is used in the central pipe or the annulus could, potentially, significantly alter the thermal performance of the system. Thus, a comparison between the PCM mounted in the annulus (case A) and the inner tube (case B) was conducted numerically, to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of each case with regard to the melting and solidification performance. A horizontal double pipe latent heat thermal energy storage device was considered. The numerical simulation solved the transient balance equations in a two-dimensional system. The enthalpy-porosity method was used to simulate the phase change and the Boussinesq approximation, which accounts for the small changes in density that drive natural convection, was applied. The effect of the initial temperature of the heat transfer surface (HTS) on the sensible and latent heat changes of the model PCM, RT-50, was tested for both the melting and solidification processes. Aiming to assess the differences in the storage performance, the average PCM temperature, the liquid fraction, and the average velocity of both the melting and solidification processes were examined. The results of the simulation showed that for both cases, convection was dominant after only a short period of the melting process. The melting time was significantly different in the two cases, i.e. it was shorter in case B than case A by almost 50%. Furthermore, an increase in the temperature of the HTS by 5 °C notably affected the melting time of both cases by as much as 20%. This effect was more pronounced in case B, which had a melting time which was 41% shorter than case A. Finally, the results revealed that the solidification process in case A was more rapid than case B with the total solidification time of case A being lower by 43.4%