Comparison of three different devices available in Spain to test thermal properties of building materials including phase change materials

Thumbnail
View/Open
Issue date
2013
Author
Barreneche Güerisoli, Camila
Gracia Cuesta, Alvaro de
Serrano, Susana
Navarro, Maria E.
Borreguero, Ana María
Fernández Renna, Ana Inés
Carmona, Manuel
Rodriguez, Juan Francisco
Cabeza, Luisa F.
Suggested citation
Barreneche Güerisoli, Camila; Gracia Cuesta, Alvaro de; Serrano, Susana; Navarro, Maria E.; Borreguero, Ana María; Fernández Renna, Ana Inés; ... Cabeza, Luisa F.. (2013) . Comparison of three different devices available in Spain to test thermal properties of building materials including phase change materials. Applied Energy, 2013, núm. 109, p. 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061.
Impact

Google Scholar logo  Google Scholar
Share
Export to Mendeley
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
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.
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/47838
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061
Is part of
Applied Energy, 2013, núm. 109, p. 421–427
Collections
cc-by-nc-nd (c) Elsevier, 2013
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as cc-by-nc-nd (c) Elsevier, 2013