Impact of key parameters on the numerical modelling of Phase-Changing phenomena in horizontal latent heat thermal energy storage

• The RMS errors remained below 5% for most of the locations in the current study. • The study recommends utilizing variable properties during the melting process. • Contact resistance was identified as a critical factor in the phase-changing model. • The study recommends utilizing a slightly higher mushy zone constant for melting. • Most of the examined parameters showed minimal influence on the solidification process. Numerous studies have focused on numerical investigations of the performance of the shell-and-tube Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage (LHTES). However, many studies have often overlooked rigorous assessment of key parameters’ impact on the numerical simulation accuracy relative to experimental results. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a numerical model to track the solid–liquid interface during phase-changing phenomena in a horizontal LHTES system and investigate the effects of key parameters on the simulation accuracy. For this purpose, an experimental facility was built, and the numerical model was developed in ANSYS using the enthalpy-porosity method. During the simulation of the computational model, consideration was given to thermophysical properties (constant versus variable) of phase change material, contact resistance (zero versus nonzero), and the mushy zone constant (10 5 , 5 × 10 5 , and 10 6 ). The simulation results were compared with experimental data obtained from the in-house studies. The results showed that, compared to using constant thermophysical properties, employing variable thermophysical properties more accurately tracked the solid–liquid interface during melting. It substantially improved the simulation accuracy with a Root Mean Square (RMS) error less than 5 % for most of the temperature-measuring locations. Conversely, variable properties did not make a significant difference in the solidification process. The contact resistance due to the air gap was determined to be 0.035 m 2 ·K/W for the current study. Furthermore, incorporating this resistance resulted in a more accurate approximation of the solid–liquid interface during melting, with RMS errors below 5 % across all locations. The study comparing different mushy zone constants recommended utilizing a slightly higher value of 10 6 for melting, whereas its impact on solidification was found to be insignificant.