Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBarreneche Güerisoli, Camila
dc.contributor.authorGracia Cuesta, Alvaro de
dc.contributor.authorSerrano, Susana
dc.contributor.authorNavarro, Maria E.
dc.contributor.authorBorreguero, Ana María
dc.contributor.authorFernández Renna, Ana Inés
dc.contributor.authorCarmona, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorRodriguez, Juan Francisco
dc.contributor.authorCabeza, Luisa F.
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-03T11:29:33Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn0306-2619
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/47838
dc.description.abstractThermal 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.ca_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThe 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.isoengca_ES
dc.publisherElsevierca_ES
dc.relationMICINN/PN2008-2011/ENE2011-28269-C03-02
dc.relation.isformatofVersió postprint del document publicat a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061ca_ES
dc.relation.ispartofApplied Energy, 2013, núm. 109, p. 421–427ca_ES
dc.rightscc-by-nc-nd (c) Elsevier, 2013ca_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectPhase change materialsca_ES
dc.subjectThermophysical characterisationca_ES
dc.subjectThermal energy storageca_ES
dc.titleComparison of three different devices available in Spain to test thermal properties of building materials including phase change materialsca_ES
dc.typearticleca_ES
dc.identifier.idgrec019266
dc.type.versionacceptedVersionca_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessca_ES
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

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