MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412809438 · doi:10.1016/j.est.2025.117904

Heat transfer enhancement to promote melting and solidification in a PCM-based thermal storage module

2025· article· en· W4412809438 on OpenAlexafffund
Luca Crnjac, Kamran Siddiqui, Anthony G. Straatman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Storage · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Change Materials Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Council on Graduate Studies, Council of Ontario Universities
KeywordsThermal energy storageMaterials scienceHeat transfer enhancementHeat transferHeat transfer fluidThermalProcess engineeringNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringThermodynamicsEngineeringHeat transfer coefficientPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latent heat thermal energy storage systems can capture and store solar thermal energy, eliminating the misalignment between when solar energy is available and when heating is required, thereby enhancing the reliability of solar energy by facilitating a continuous and consistent energy supply. However, phase change materials used in these systems generally suffer from low thermal conductivities making it difficult to achieve charging and discharging rates suitable for application. The present research investigated the design of a rectangular four-pass thermal storage module by considering three heat transfer enhancement elements: steel wool, aluminum wool and an aluminum honeycomb structure. Each were incorporated into the thermal storage module to analyze their effect on charging and discharging rates as compared to the same four-pass module with no enhancement elements. The findings showed that steel wool performed the most poorly of the elements tested as it lengthened charging times by 60 % (Improvement factor 0.61) and shortened discharging times by only 30 % (Improvement factor 1.28). The highly conductive aluminum wool shortened the charging time by a factor of 1.62 and the discharging time by a factor of 2.33. However, the aluminum honeycomb structure was superior in enhancing the overall module performance for both charging (improvement factor of 3.11) and discharging (Improvement factor of 3.88) as it enhanced thermal penetration into the PCM region away from the HTF tubes while still permitting natural convection within the narrow, vertically oriented cells. The results presented in this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the optimal design for thermal storage modules.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy StorageSame topicPhase Change Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207