| dc.contributor.author |
Barreneche Güerisoli, Camila |
| dc.contributor.author |
Gracia Cuesta, Alvaro de |
| dc.contributor.author |
Serrano, Susana |
| dc.contributor.author |
Navarro, Maria E. |
| dc.contributor.author |
Borreguero, Ana María |
| dc.contributor.author |
Fernández Renna, Ana Inés |
| dc.contributor.author |
Carmona, Manuel |
| dc.contributor.author |
Rodriguez, Juan Francisco |
| dc.contributor.author |
Cabeza, Luisa F. |
| dc.date |
2015-02-03T11:29:33Z |
| dc.date |
2013 |
| dc.identifier |
0306-2619 |
| dc.identifier |
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/47838 |
| dc.identifier |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061 |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/47838 |
| dc.description |
Thermal properties of materials used in building envelopes must be analysed in order to evaluate the
thermal response of the constructive system. This thermal characterisation is a key point during the
design phase of a building. However, thermal characterisation of constructive systems at laboratory scale
is difficult to be carried out under real environment conditions. In this paper, three devices developed by
three different research groups in Spain were used to compare in an inter-laboratory test the performance,
capabilities and thermal properties of construction systems at lab scale. Tested materials were
gypsum blocks containing phase change materials (PCMs) and made by three different ways: using
microencapsulated materials Micronal DS5001, a suspension water/PCM and impregnation with
RT21. The effective thermal conductivity, the total amount of heat accumulated, and the specific heat
were measured using these homemade devices. k results followed same trend but there was a drift
between them due to the samples porosity and thickness. Moreover, the k decreased when adding
PCM but this behaviour was not followed by impregnated samples; due to the PCM filling gypsum pores
instead of air. The Cp results followed same trend CpBlank < CpSuspension < CpMicroencapsulated < CpImpregnated
but a gap between results was observed due to different amount of incorporated PCM. |
| dc.description |
The work is partially funded by the Spanish government
(ENE2011-28269-C03-02) and the European Union (COST Action
TU0802 and NMP4-SL-2010-260056). The authors would like to
thank the Catalan Government for the quality accreditation given
to their research group GREA (2009 SGR 534) and research group
DIOPMA (2009 SGR 645). |
| dc.language |
eng |
| dc.publisher |
Elsevier |
| dc.relation |
MICINN/PN2008-2011/ENE2011-28269-C03-02 |
| dc.relation |
Versió postprint del document publicat a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061 |
| dc.relation |
Applied Energy, 2013, núm. 109, p. 421–427 |
| dc.rights |
cc-by-nc-nd (c) Elsevier, 2013 |
| dc.rights |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| dc.rights |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.subject |
Phase change materials |
| dc.subject |
Thermophysical characterisation |
| dc.subject |
Thermal energy storage |
| dc.title |
Comparison of three different devices available in Spain to test thermal properties of building materials including phase change materials |
| dc.type |
article |
| dc.type |
acceptedVersion |
