4.7 Article

Performance enhancement of a maple leaf-shaped latent heat energy storage unit by adding nanoparticles and leaf vein fins

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2021.103159

关键词

Solidification; Maple leaf-shaped LHES; NEPCM; Leaf vein-Fin; SGFEM; RSM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The solidification process of phase change material in a Maple Leaf-shaped Latent Heat Energy Storage system was investigated using fins and nanoparticles as heat transfer enhancement methods. The research optimized the use of innovative fins and examined the effectiveness of two different methods for improving the thermal conductivity of PCM.
In this paper, the solidification process of a phase change material (PCM) in a maple leaf-shaped Latent Heat Energy Storage (LHES) system applying fins in the form of leaf veins and nanoparticles as direct and indirect heat transfer enhancement methods is investigated numerically. These systems are used to balance energy supply and need. In this research, both methods are used to solve the problem of pure PCM, ie low thermal conductivity. The innovative fins used in this work are geometrically optimized using the Response Surface Method (RSM). The goal of optimization is accelerating the solidification process and reducing the full solidification time (FST). In the second method, nano-enhanced phase change material (NEPCM) is made by adding MWCNT nanoparticles to PCM (water). Standard Galerkin Finite Element Method (SGFEM), along with adaptive grid refinement, has been used to simulate the solidification process. The two methods were examined separately and simultaneously (Hybrid method), and the results were compared. Although the hybrid use of the two aforementioned methods is excellent with a 56.9% reduction in FST if the two methods are used separately, the method of using optimized fins in the form of leaf veins with a 42.6% reduction in FST is much more effective than making NEPCM with a 25.5% reduction in FST.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据