Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorBarreneche, Camila
dc.contributor.authorDe Gracia, A.
dc.contributor.authorSerrano Rodríguez, Susana
dc.contributor.authorElena Navarro, M.
dc.contributor.authorBorreguero, A. M.
dc.contributor.authorInés Fernández, A.
dc.contributor.authorCarmona, M.
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez, J. F.
dc.contributor.authorCabeza Fabra, Luisa Fernanda
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-01T07:52:03Z
dc.date.available2026-07-01T07:52:03Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationBarreneche, C., De Gracia, A., Serrano Rodríguez, S., Elena Navarro, M., Borreguero, A. M., Inés Fernández, A., Carmona, M., Rodríguez, J. F., y Cabeza Fabra, L. F. (2013). Comparison of three different devices available in Spain to test thermal properties of building materials including phase change materials. Applied Energy, 109, 544-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061es
dc.identifier.issn0306-2619
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12251/5361
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. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.es
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherElsevier Ltdes
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.titleComparison of three different devices available in Spain to test thermal properties of building materials including phase change materialses
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.061
dc.journal.titleApplied Energyes
dc.page.initial544es
dc.page.final552es
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses
dc.subject.keywordEnvolvente de edificioes
dc.subject.keywordAlmacenamiento de energíaes
dc.subject.keywordYesoes
dc.subject.keywordMateriales de cambio de fase (PCM)es
dc.subject.keywordAlmacenamiento térmicoes
dc.subject.unesco3305 Tecnología de la Construcciónes
dc.subject.unesco3305.90 Transmisión de Calor en la Edificaciónes
dc.subject.unesco3312 Tecnología de Materialeses
dc.subject.unesco3322 Tecnología Energéticaes
dc.volume.number109


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional