Experimental Comparison of Radiant Ceiling Panels and Ceiling Panels Containing Phase Change material (PCM)

Two commercially available ceiling panels, one metal and one gypsum incorporating microencapsulated PCM were compared experimentally to determine their limitations and ability to provide an adequate indoor thermal environment. The experiments took place from February to May 2018 in a climate chamber...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bogatu, Dragos-Ioan, Bourdakis, Eleftherios, Kazanci, Ongun Berk, Olesen, Bjarne W.
Format: Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Subjects:
Ceilings
Cooling rate
Flow rates
Flow velocity
Gypsum
Heat
Heat storage
Indoor environments
Occupancy
Panels
Phase change materials
Storage capacity
Temperature
Thermal conductivity
Thermal environments
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Two commercially available ceiling panels, one metal and one gypsum incorporating microencapsulated PCM were compared experimentally to determine their limitations and ability to provide an adequate indoor thermal environment. The experiments took place from February to May 2018 in a climate chamber at the Technical university of Denmark. In total, seven scenarios were evaluated, five with active cooling, where the flow rate and solar heat gains were varied, and two without. Results showed that according to EN 15251:2007, the RCPs maintained the best indoor thermal environment for 91% of occupancy time in Category III – operative temperature between 22oC and 27oC, and 75% in Category II – operative temperature between 23oC and 26oC, for a 140 kg/h flow rate and the reference solar heat gains. Alternatively, the PCM panels maintained Category III for only 48% of the time, while only 30% in Category II for a 220 kg/h flow rate and the reference solar heat gains. The PCM panel presented the ability to store the heat for a later time. However, the PCM panels’ solution proved inadequate in terms of heat storage capacity, pipe positioning and thermal conductivity while improvements are required in order to employ them in new and renovated buildings.
ISSN:2267-1242
2555-0403
2267-1242
DOI:10.1051/e3sconf/201911101072