Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Adaptive demand-driven control lets PCM storage cut district-heating peaks without creating new ones, but payback stays long.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 12:23 UTC pith:7UX53BRB

load-bearing objection Solid campus-scale sim showing headroom/overload PCM control beats schedule RBC on peak shape; numbers rest on an unvalidated model and a same-day peak threshold. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28280 v1 pith:7UX53BRB submitted 2026-07-30 eess.SY cs.SY

Adaptive Demand-Driven Energy Management of PCM-Integrated District Heating Systems: Operational Flexibility and Techno-Economic Assessment

Xin Jin , Chunjun Huang , Pei Huang , Natasa Nord This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.SY
keywords district heatingthermal energy storagephase change materialpeak shavingadaptive demand-driven controltechno-economic analysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

District heating networks face sharp winter peaks that force oversized plant and high demand charges. This paper argues that a shell-and-tube phase-change storage tank, charged from the city network and discharged to buildings, can shift those peaks if it is controlled by real-time network headroom and overload rather than by a fixed clock. In a dynamic model of a Norwegian campus system with heat-pump waste-heat recovery, the adaptive strategy smooths city heat extraction, cuts the representative-period peak by about 5.3 percent (11.3 percent annualized), and avoids the secondary charging spikes that simple schedule-based rules create, all while holding indoor comfort. Material sensitivity points to a melting temperature near 80 °C and conductivity above roughly 2 W/(m·K) as the sweet spot. The same runs show a simple payback of about 25 years under present tariffs, so cost cuts or stronger peak incentives are still required before the approach is economically attractive.

Core claim

Under a dynamic campus district-heating model, adaptive demand-driven (ADD) control of a PCM tank—charging only when network headroom exists and discharging only when load exceeds a daily threshold—smooths city-network heat extraction and delivers roughly 5.3 percent peak reduction in a winter comparison (up to 11.3 percent annualized) without secondary charging peaks or loss of indoor comfort, outperforming fixed-schedule rule-based control; a melting point near 80 °C and conductivity above 2 W/(m·K) further improve results, yet simple payback remains about 25 years.

What carries the argument

Adaptive demand-driven (ADD) PCM control: daily peak threshold plus headroom-limited charging and overload-limited discharging (with candidate time windows retained only as soft bounds), coupled to an effective-heat-capacity shell-and-tube PCM model inside a full campus DH–heat-pump–building simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The unvalidated end-to-end dynamic simulation is assumed accurate enough that its peak-reduction and payback numbers would hold on the real campus plant.

What would settle it

Instrument the real campus main substation and a pilot PCM tank under both schedule-based and ADD logic for one winter and check whether measured city-network peak (average of three highest) falls by roughly 5–11 percent without new off-peak spikes or comfort loss.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Fixed time-of-day charging of PCM storage can raise, rather than lower, the billed peak and should not be treated as a default control layer.
  • PCM selection for DH should prioritize melting temperature match (~70–80 °C) and conductivity ≳2 W/(m·K) over simply maximizing latent heat.
  • Under present demand-charge structures the storage investment alone is unlikely to pay back inside a typical project life without material-cost cuts or stronger flexibility tariffs.
  • Headroom- and overload-aware logic can be layered on existing weather-compensated DH controls without requiring full model-predictive infrastructure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If dynamic network tariffs begin to reward continuous load flattening rather than only the three highest monthly peaks, the same ADD–PCM package would become far more bankable than the 25-year figure suggests.
  • The same headroom/overload logic could be ported to other low-temperature TES media or to multi-building clusters once local mass-flow and return-temperature measurements exist.
  • Because latent-heat capacity showed only marginal system-level gains once conductivity and melt temperature were adequate, future material R&D for DH may yield higher returns from heat-transfer enhancement than from enthalpy alone.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a dynamic Python simulation of a campus-scale two-stage district heating (DH) network in Trondheim with heat-pump recovery of data-centre waste heat and a shell-and-tube PCM storage tank. It compares a baseline weather-compensated system, a schedule-based rule-based PCM controller (RBC), and a proposed adaptive demand-driven (ADD) controller that charges only under network headroom and discharges only under overload relative to a daily peak threshold. Performance is assessed via peak DH extraction (average of the three highest peaks), operating cost under energy-plus-demand tariffs, indoor comfort, and HP COP, with sensitivity on PCM phase-change temperature, latent heat, and thermal conductivity, plus a CAPEX/payback analysis. The central claim is that ADD smooths city-network heat extraction, avoids RBC charging peaks, and delivers about 5.3% peak reduction in a 31-day winter window and up to 11.3% annualized peak reduction with ~1.4% operating-cost savings, at a simple payback of 25.3 years; recommended PCM settings are Tm ≈ 80 °C and k ≳ 2 W/(m·K).

Significance. If the quantitative peak-shaving and cost results transfer beyond the unvalidated plant model, the work is a useful systems-level contribution: it couples PCM thermophysics with a practical (non-MPC) control layer and shows that control design can dominate storage hardware for demand-charge reduction. The explicit baseline/RBC/ADD comparison under shared weather and comfort checks, the temperature-distribution diagnostics that explain Tm and k trends, and the frank 25.3-year payback are strengths. The ADD logic (headroom-limited charge, overload-limited discharge) is a clear, implementable idea for DH operators. Significance is currently limited by the lack of integrated model validation and by an oracle daily threshold that uses same-day maximum demand, so the headline 5.3%/11.3% figures should be treated as model-internal until those issues are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. 3–22; §4.1; Table 5] The end-to-end plant (effective-heat-capacity PCM PDE Eqs. 5–6, semi-empirical HP map Eq. 3/Fig. 3, lumped RC building/radiators Eqs. 11–17, energy balances Eqs. 18–22) has no integrated experimental or operational validation against the Trondheim campus. Only component-level literature is cited. Because the central claims (5.3% winter peak cut in Fig. 9; 11.3% annualized in Table 5; 25.3-year SPP) are entirely simulation deltas in Q_DH and cost, the manuscript needs either (i) validation of key trajectories (substation heat rates, HP COP, storage inlet/outlet temperatures) against campus data or a published benchmark, or (ii) a structured uncertainty/bias analysis showing how peak and payback move under plausible model error. Without this, transferability of the quantitative results remains unestablished.
  2. [§3.3, Eqs. 23–28; Table 3] The ADD daily threshold is Q_th,d = (1−α_sh) Q_daily,max,d with α_sh = 15% (Eq. 23, Table 3). Q_daily,max,d is the same day’s reference maximum and is therefore not available to a causal online controller. Headroom charging (Eqs. 24, 27) and overload discharge (Eqs. 25, 28) can look artificially well-timed under this oracle. Please replace or stress-test with a causal threshold (e.g., previous-day peak, rolling percentile, or day-ahead forecast with error) and report how the 5.3%/11.3% peak reductions and secondary-peak avoidance change. If the oracle is retained only as an upper bound, state that explicitly and demote the online-performance claim.
  3. [§4.1.2 Fig. 9; §4.3 Table 5; Eqs. 21–22, 29–36] Peak reduction is reported as ~5.3% for the 31-day winter comparison (Fig. 9, abstract) but 11.3% annualized (Table 5), with annual peak loads 98.3 → 87.2 MW. The annualization method is not described (scaling of the 31-day window? full-year weather? different peak definition?). Clarify the procedure, reconcile the two figures, and state which metric supports the techno-economic cash flows (S_ann, SPP 25.3 years). Inconsistent peak metrics undermine the load-bearing economic claim.
  4. [§2.2 Eqs. 1–2; §3.3 Table 3; §4.2] Storage sizing uses a target excess energy above a threshold (Eqs. 1–2) with utilization factor η_u, while ADD is tuned with α_sh = 15% and 2 MW charge/discharge caps (Table 3), yet realized winter peak reduction is only 5.3%. Please report achieved shifted energy versus E_target, average state-of-charge / latent-heat utilization under ADD, and whether under-performance is due to thermal conductivity, temperature mismatch, or the headroom logic. Without utilization metrics, the sensitivity conclusions on Tm and k (Figs. 10–15) are harder to interpret at system level.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Nomenclature; §3.4; Fig. 16] Nomenclature lists DPP (discounted payback period) but the main text and Table 5 emphasize SPP; Fig. 16 uses DPP. Define DPP explicitly alongside SPP and state the discount rate(s) used in Fig. 16.
  2. [Fig. 8] Fig. 8 encoding appears corrupted in the manuscript source (unicode private-use sequences), which harms readability of the key load-profile comparison. Ensure a clean vector figure in revision.
  3. [Abstract; §5] Abstract says “up to 5.3% peak-load reduction” while conclusions lead with 11.3% annualized; align abstract, §4, and §5 on which figure is primary.
  4. [Table 1; §2.3.3] Table 1 lists building heated volume 1,054,600 m³ and very large envelope capacitance; briefly justify that these represent the full campus aggregate rather than a single building, since §2.3.3 says “a representative building is considered as the campus heating demand.”
  5. [§2.3.1 Eq. 3] HP fit (Eq. 3) coefficients a–g are not tabulated; providing them (or a data/code supplement) would aid reproducibility.
  6. [Abstract; References] Minor language/typos: “Latent heat thermalenergy storage”, “peak load reduction” vs “peak-load”, and arXiv dates in references (e.g., 2026) should be checked for consistency before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: peak-shave and cost claims are open-loop simulation outputs against explicit baselines, not algebraically forced by fitted targets or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claims (ADD vs baseline/RBC peak reduction, operating-cost deltas, payback) are obtained by running a dynamic plant model and comparing simulated city-DH heat-rate trajectories under three control laws. Peak metrics are defined post hoc from the three highest simulated peaks (Eqs. 21–22) and costs from external tariffs (Eq. 29); neither quantity is fitted to match a target outcome. The control parameter α_sh = 15% only sets the daily headroom/overload threshold (Eq. 23); realized reductions (≈5.3% winter, 11.3% annualized) differ from that setpoint, so the headline percentages are not the threshold by construction. The semi-empirical HP map (Eq. 3) is fitted to prior operational data and used as a fixed plant input, not as a renamed prediction of peak shave. PCM sizing (Eqs. 1–2) and property sensitivities are design/parameter studies, not circular predictions. Citations support component models and cost factors; none import a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the central ADD result. Model-validation risk is real but is a correctness/transfer issue, not circularity of the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

Claims rest on a constructed dynamic model and chosen control/economic parameters rather than on new measured plant data. Load-bearing inputs are the PCM effective-capacity continuum model, the fitted HP map, lumped building RC dynamics, the ADD threshold design (α_sh, time windows, 2 MW caps), peak definition as mean of three highest peaks, and component-level CAPEX markups. No new physical entities are postulated; ADD is a control policy.

free parameters (7)
  • Peak-load reduction target α_sh = 0.15
    Hand-set design parameter defining daily Q_th,d (Eq. 23); chosen as 15% in Table 3, not identified from data.
  • Maximum charging/discharging power = 2 MW
    Hard limits on ADD commands (Table 3); directly shape achievable shave and secondary-peak avoidance.
  • HP performance-map coefficients a–g = not reported numerically
    Semi-empirical fit of compressor power to temperatures and flows (Eq. 3); numerical values not tabulated, only the map in Fig. 3.
  • Effective storage utilization factor η_u
    Appears in tank volume sizing (Eq. 2); value not stated explicitly in the excerpted tables.
  • PCM volume fraction f_PCM = 55%
    Design choice fixing latent vs sensible share in the hybrid tank (Table 2).
  • CAPEX factors f_tank, f_BOP, f_inst, f_main and c_PCM = c_PCM=1.0 €/kg; f_tank=30%; f_BOP=15%; f_inst=20%; f_main=2%
    Economic results (SPP 25.3 y, NPV) scale directly with these literature-based markups (Table 4).
  • Peak definition window (top-3 average) = mean of three highest peaks
    Eq. 21 defines billed/reported peak as mean of three highest DH peaks; changes reported η_shift.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Effective heat-capacity method adequately represents PCM melting/solidification and tank heat rates for system-level control comparison.
    Section 2.3.2, Eqs. 5–6; standard TES modeling choice, not validated here against the installed tank.
  • domain assumption Lumped RC building + segmented radiator model reproduces campus heat demand and comfort under weather-compensated control.
    Section 2.3.3, Eqs. 11–17; representative building stands in for campus load.
  • domain assumption City DH energy and peak-demand tariffs are 0.060 EUR/kWh and 3.25 EUR/kW·month and dominate operating-cost differences.
    Section 3.4, Eq. 29 and citation [27]; economics hinge on this structure.
  • ad hoc to paper Candidate charge window 20:00–05:00 and discharge window 05:00–20:00 are appropriate operational constraints for ADD.
    Table 3; retained from RBC schedule for 'practical operation' without optimization of windows.
  • standard math Standard continuum energy balances and PI weather-compensated plant control hold for the two-stage campus network.
    Sections 2.3.4 and 3.1; conventional DH modeling.
invented entities (1)
  • Adaptive demand-driven (ADD) PCM control policy no independent evidence
    purpose: Select CH/DIS/IDLE from network headroom, overload above daily threshold, and storage availability (Eqs. 23–28, Fig. 5).
    Core methodological object of the paper; not a new physical substance. Independent evidence would require field deployment metrics; only simulation is given.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 25709 in / 4212 out tokens · 84096 ms · 2026-07-31T12:23:12.287275+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Latent heat thermal energy storage (LHTES) using phase change materials (PCMs) is a promising solution to shifting heat supply and reducing peak demand in district heating (DH). However, the combined impacts of PCM thermophysical properties and practical control strategies on DH system-level operational and economic performance remain insufficiently understood. To bridge the research gap, this study investigates a PCM-integrated DH system with heat pump assisted waste heat recovery under an adaptive demand-driven (ADD) control strategy to enhance operational flexibility. A dynamic simulation model was developed and the system performance was evaluated against a baseline case and a rule-based control (RBC) approach based on peak-load reduction, operational cost, heat pump performance, and indoor thermal comfort. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the influence of PCM thermophysical properties on system performance. The results showed that the RBC can shift peak demand but tends to generate secondary peaks during charging periods. In contrast, the ADD strategy effectively smoothed the heat demand profile and achieved up to 5.3% peak-load reduction while maintaining thermal comfort. Sensitivity analysis revealed that a phase-change temperature of 80$^\circ$C and thermal conductivity above 2 W/(m$\cdot$K) achieved a higher peak-load reduction and improved economic performance. Despite the enhanced peak-shaving capability achieved by the proposed control strategy, the system exhibited a payback period of 25.3 years, indicating that further cost reductions and supportive market incentives are required. Nevertheless, the proposed approach provides significant potential for enhancing DH flexibility and supporting the transition toward future low-carbon energy systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28280 by Chunjun Huang, Natasa Nord, Pei Huang, Xin Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the campus district heating system: (a) existing primary district heating system and (b) PCM-integrated district heating system. 2.2. PCM storage configuration To enhance demand-side flexibility and facilitate peak-load shifting, a PCM-based TES system is integrated into the campus DH network, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the PCM storage tank. 2.3. Dynamic modelling of the district heating system The entire modelling framework was developed in Python, where the DH system, PCM storage model, HP, building model, and control strategy were fully integrated into a dynamic simulation environment. Weather data for Trondheim were obtained from the PVGIS database developed by the European Commission [24]. In the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 3 0 3 5 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 3 00 600 900 Power Power fit function P o w e r ( k W ) 0 2 4 6 COP COP fit function C O P Temperature (°C) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic diagram of the control schemes: (a) baseline control of the existing district heating system and (b) schedule-based rule-based thermal storage control. When the controller enters the charging mode, the charging command is limited by both the available network headroom and the instantaneous charging capability of the PCM tank: 𝑄̇ cmd PCM,ch(𝑡) = min [ 𝑄̇ hd(𝑡), 𝑄̇ ch,ava(𝑡) ] , (27) Jin et al.: Pr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flowchart of the adaptive demand-driven PCM thermal storage control strategy. 3.4. Techno-economic evaluation method The DH operating cost is calculated by combining the total energy cost and the peak-demand cost: 𝐶op = 𝐶energy + 𝐶peak = ∑ 𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑄̇ DH(𝑡)Δ𝑡 + 𝑝peak𝑄̇ peak (29) where 𝐶op is the total operating cost over the evaluation period, 𝐶energy is the energy cost, 𝐶peak is the peak-demand cost, 𝑝𝑒 is the… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Indoor air temperature compared against scheduled setpoint for (a) the baseline system, (b) the PCM-integrated district heating system under rule-based control, and (c) the PCM-integrated district heating system under adaptive demand-driven control. Jin et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evaporator outlet temperature, COP, and power use of the HP for (a) the baseline system, (b) the PCM￾integrated district heating system under rule-based control, and (c) the PCM-integrated district heating system under adaptive demand-driven control. Jin et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 16 of 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heat rate supplied from the district heating network of the baseline system, the PCM-integrated system under rule-based control, and the PCM-integrated system under adaptive demand-driven control. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PCM-ADD PCM-RBC E n e r g y (G W h) Baseline (a) Total energy use (b) Peak load (c) Total cost 0 6 1 2 1 8 Baseline PCM-ADD PCM-RBC P e a k lo a d (M W) 0 3 50 400 450 500 PCM-ADD PCM-RBC Baseline… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of district heating performance between the baseline system and the PCM-integrated system: (a) total energy use, (b) peak load, and (c) cost. 4.2. Sensitivity analysis of PCM thermophysical properties for ADD control case The ADD control strategy offers a promising approach to reducing peak load and improving economic performance in PCM-integrated DH applications. An appropriate selection of PCM… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Peak load and operating cost of PCM-integrated systems employing PCMs with different phase-change temperatures under adaptive demand-driven control. As seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average PCM temperature distribution of the storage unit employing PCMs with different phase-change temperatures. 215 240 265 290 315 0 400 425 450 (b) Cost (k€) Phase-change enthalpy (kJ/kg) Peak cost Energy cost Total cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Peak load and total energy cost of PCM-integrated systems employing PCMs with different latent heats under adaptive demand-driven control. energy was required for the PCM to fully transition into the liquid phase, causing a larger fraction of the material to remain below or within the phase-change temperature interval. For the given phase-change temperature and thermal conductivity, the charging and disch… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Average PCM temperature distribution of the storage unit employing PCMs with different phase-change enthalpies. can be observed for the total cost. The total cost decreases from 424.92 k€ to 424.16 k€ as the thermal conductivity increases from 0.25 to 2.25 W/(m⋅K). Beyond this point, the total cost only exhibits a slight decrease of approximately 0.07% under further increases in thermal conductivity. 0.25… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Peak load and total energy cost of PCM-integrated systems employing PCMs with different thermal conductivities under adaptive demand-driven control. The corresponding temperature distributions of PCMs with different thermal conductivities are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Average PCM temperature distribution of the storage unit employing PCMs with different thermal conductivities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Sensitivity analysis of the economic performance of the PCM-integrated DH system: (a) NPV under varying peak tariff factors and discount rates; (b) NPV under varying PCM price factors and discount rates; (c) DPP under varying peak tariff factors and discount rates; and (d) DPP under varying PCM price factors and discount rates. Although the proposed PCM-integrated DH system demonstrated significant improv… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Moser, M

    S. Moser, M. Pflügl, M. Knöbl, A. Volkova, Peak load provision in district heating networks: A survey on the status quo and decarbonisation options, Energy 344 (2026) 140006.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2026.140006

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Rahlf, D

    H. Rahlf, D. Divkovic, L. Knorr, F. Schlosser, H. Meschede, Flexible operation strategies for heat pumps in district heating systems using dynamic electricity prices, Energy Conversion and Management 364 (2026) 121714.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121714

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Y. Ding, T. O. Timoudas, Q. Wang, S. Chen, H. Brattebø, N. Nord, A study on data-driven hybrid heating load prediction methods in low- temperature district heating: An example for nursing homes in nordic countries, Energy Conversion and Management 269 (2022) 116163. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116163

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    URLhttps://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/energi/statistikk/fjernvarme-og-fjernkjoling

    Statistics Norway (SSB), District heating and district cooling, updated 12 May 2026, accessed 18 Jun 2026 (2026). URLhttps://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/energi/statistikk/fjernvarme-og-fjernkjoling

    2026

  5. [5]

    E.Guelpa,G.Barbero,A.Sciacovelli,V.Verda,Peak-shavingindistrictheatingsystemsthroughoptimalmanagementofthethermalrequest of buildings, Energy 137 (2017) 706–714.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.083

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.083 2017

  6. [6]

    J. Hou, H. Li, N. Nord, G. Huang, Model predictive control for a university heat prosumer with data centre waste heat and thermal energy storage, Energy 267 (2023) 126579.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.126579. Jin et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 23 of 25

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Serra, A

    A. Serra, A. Ortiz, P. J. Cortés, V. Canals, Explainable district heating load forecasting by means of a reservoir computing deep learning architecture, Energy 318 (2025) 134641.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2025.134641

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Ceruti, J

    A. Ceruti, J. Lambert, H. Spliethoff, Integrating renewable energy and thermal storage in district heating networks: A design optimization approach, Energy Conversion and Management 345 (2025) 120323.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120323

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    2025.126235

    W.Delgado-Díaz,W.Villasmil,M.Troxler,R.Hijwegen,R.Hendry,U.Schilt,P.Roos,R.Ravotti,A.Stamatiou,S.Haussener,J.Worlitschek, Optimization of hybrid sensible-latent seasonal heat storage systems, Applied Energy 399 (2025) 126235.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy. 2025.126235

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Trabert, F

    U. Trabert, F. Pag, J. Orozaliev, U. Jordan, K. Vajen, Peak shaving at system level with a large district heating substation using deep learning forecasting models, Energy 301 (2024) 131690.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2024.131690

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    H. Wan, Y. Gong, C. Dang, S. Wang, G. Huang, Power control of latent heat thermal energy storage units using a model-based predictive strategy, Applied Energy 382 (2025) 125220.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.125220

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    S.Agrebi,B.Tashtoush,A.Guizani,Performanceanalysisofhelicalcoilheatexchangersforlatentheatthermalstorageinsolarapplications, Energy Conversion and Management 343 (2025) 120205.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120205

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Kazaz, E

    O. Kazaz, E. Abu-Nada, Latent heat-assisted thermal management of a metal hydride hydrogen storage reactor using novel shape-stabilized composite phase change material slurry, Energy Conversion and Management 350 (2026) 121000.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025. 121000

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025 2026

  14. [14]

    2025.126757

    M.Kollmar,A.Bürger,M.Bohlayer,A.Altmann-Dieses,M.Braun,M.Diehl,Adetailedsimulationmodelforfifthgenerationdistrictheating andcoolingnetworkswithseasonallatentstorageevaluatedonfielddata,AppliedEnergy401(2025)126757.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy. 2025.126757

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Hlimi, B

    M. Hlimi, B. Lebrouhi, A. Belcaid, B. Lamrani, L. Balli, M. Ndukwu, T. El Rhafiki, T. Kousksou, A numerical assessment of a latent heat storage system for district heating substations, Journal of Energy Storage 57 (2023) 106210.doi:10.1016/j.est.2022.106210

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    2025.125688

    F.Calise,F.Cappiello,L.Cimmino,F.Cuomo,M.Vicidomini,A5thgenerationdistrictheatingcoolingnetworkintegratedwithaphasechange material thermal energy storage: A dynamic thermoeconomic analysis, Applied Energy 389 (2025) 125688.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy. 2025.125688

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    M. A. Pans, V. Popov, D. O’Connor, A methodology for integrating renewable energy and thermal energy storage technologies into fourth- generation district heating networks, Renewable Energy 220 (2023) 119847.doi:10.1016/j.renene.2023.119847

    arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Thomson, G

    A. Thomson, G. Claudio, The technical and economic feasibility of utilising phase change materials for thermal storage in district heating networks, Energy Procedia 159 (2019) 442–447.doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.12.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.12.042 2019

  19. [19]

    J.Karwacki,P.Leputa,R.Kwidzinski,M.Lackowski,Effectiveenthalpyoforganicphasechangematerialappliedinathermalenergystorage cooperating with a district heating system, Renewable Energy 243 (2025) 122519.doi:10.1016/j.renene.2025.122519

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    D. Lee, H. J. Jeong, H. Y. Ji, S. Y. Park, D.-Y. Chung, C. Kang, K. M. Kim, D. Park, Peak load shifting control on hot water supplied from district heating using latent heat storage system in apartment complex, Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 34 (2022) 101993. doi:10.1016/j.csite.2022.101993

    arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    G.Rinaldi,A.Lazaro,M.Delgado,J.M.Marin,V.Verda,Useofalow-costphasechangematerialemulsioninde-centralizedthermalenergy storage for district heating network enlargement, Energy 306 (2024) 132517.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2024.132517

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    E. Mura, C. Bay, E. Schito, P. Conti, D. Testi, M. Raugi, Comparative analysis of model predictive control and mpc-informed rule-based control for thermal storage operation in ultra-low temperature 4th generation district heating networks, Energy Conversion and Management 356 (2026) 121241.doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2026.121241

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Jayathunga, H

    D. Jayathunga, H. Karunathilake, M. Narayana, S. Witharana, Phase change material (pcm) candidates for latent heat thermal energy storage (lhtes) in concentrated solar power (csp) based thermal applications – a review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 189 (2024) 113904.doi:10.1016/j.rser.2023.113904

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    URLhttps://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/photovoltaic-geographical-information-system-pvgis_en

    European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Photovoltaic geographical information system (pvgis), accessed: 2026-06-20 (2026). URLhttps://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/photovoltaic-geographical-information-system-pvgis_en

    2026

  25. [25]

    N. Nord, M. Shakerin, T. Tereshchenko, V. Verda, R. Borchiellini, Data informed physical models for district heating grids with distributed heat sources to understand thermal and hydraulic aspects, Energy 222 (2021) 119965.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.119965

    arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Y. Tang, Q. Li, X. Zuo, H. Yang, Finite element analysis of composites for latent heat storage technology: A comprehensive review, Applied Energy 409 (2026) 127466.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2026.127466

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    H.Du,X.Zhou,N.Nord,Y.Carden,P.Cui,Z.Ma,Anewframeworkforevaluatingandenhancingtheperformanceofdistrictheatingsystems integratedwithdatacentresusingshort-termthermalenergystorage,Energy319(2025)134934.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2025.134934

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Z.Xu,X.Sheng,J.Chen,Y.Chen,J.He,X.Luo,Y.Liang,Industrial-gradehydratedsalt-basedpcmthermalenergystoragedevice:Thermal and economic performances, Applied Thermal Engineering 262 (2025) 125233.doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2024.125233

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Mekrisuh, P

    K. Mekrisuh, P. M. V. Subbarao, Annual performance and techno-economic assessment of pcm-based thermal management in photovoltaic systems, Journal of Energy Storage 138 (2025) 118520.doi:10.1016/j.est.2025.118520

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    R. D. Selvakumar, A. H. Mohammad, S. Dai, Y. Ding, A. K. Alkaabi, Economic feasibility analysis of lhtes integration with a nuclear power plant, Applied Energy 392 (2025) 126026.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.126026

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    X. Jin, F. Wu, T. Xu, G. Huang, H. Wu, X. Zhou, D. Wang, Y. Liu, A. C. Lai, Experimental investigation of the novel melting point modified phase-change material for heat pump latent heat thermal energy storage application, Energy 216 (2021) 119191.doi:10.1016/j.energy. 2020.119191

    arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    F. Wu, S. Cao, C. Qi, C. Sun, X. Wu, Design and evaluation of a pcm heat accumulator applied in heating substations to accommodate supply-demand mismatch in district heating system, Journal of Energy Storage 91 (2024) 111973.doi:10.1016/j.est.2024.111973

    arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Jin et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 24 of 25

    P.Yan,Z.Ding,W.Wu,Coststrategy-integratedgeometryselectionofphasechangematerialmacro-capsuleforlatentthermalenergystorage, Applied Energy 402 (2025) 126883.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.126883. Jin et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 24 of 25

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    R.Jayabal,B.Nagappan,S.P.Jena,A.Tiwari,V.K.Raju,A.Kushwah,G.Gulothungan,A.Smerat,K.Priya,Hybridsolar-pcmenergystorage systems: Design optimization, thermal management, performance benchmarking, and techno-economic perspectives, Results in Engineering 30 (2026) 111193.doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2026.111193

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    H. Wu, X. Hao, Economic optimization of heat transfer enhancement techniques in pcm-based solar–hydrogen storage systems, Journal of Energy Storage 171 (2026) 122494.doi:10.1016/j.est.2026.122494

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Llorach-Massana, J

    P. Llorach-Massana, J. Peña, J. Rieradevall, J. I. Montero, Analysis of the technical, environmental and economic potential of phase change materials (pcm) for root zone heating in mediterranean greenhouses, Renewable Energy 103 (2017) 570–581.doi:10.1016/j.renene. 2016.11.040. Jin et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 25 of 25

    doi:10.1016/j.renene 2017