| Literature DB >> 32354110 |
Antonella Sarcinella1, José Luìs Barroso De Aguiar2, Mariateresa Lettieri3, Sandra Cunha4, Mariaenrica Frigione1.
Abstract
Increasing concerns about climate change and global warming bring about technical steps for the development of several energy-efficient technologies. Since the building sector is one of the largest energy users for cooling and heating necessities, the incorporation of a proper energy-efficient material into the building envelopes could be an interesting solution for saving energy. Phase change material (PCM)-based thermal energy storage (TES) seems suitable to provide efficient energy redistribution. This is possible because the PCM is able to store and release its latent heat during the phase change processes that occurs according to the environmental temperature. The purpose of this paper was the characterization of the thermal properties of a composite PCM (i.e., Lecce stone/poly-ethylene glycol, previously developed) incorporated into mortar compositions based on different binders (i.e., hydraulic lime and cement). The study was carried out using an experimental set up through which it was possible to simulate the different seasons of the years. It was observed that the addition of PCM in mortars leads to a decrease of the maximum temperatures and increase of the minimum temperatures. Furthermore, the results shown a reduction of the heating and cooling needs, thus confirming the capability of this material to save energy.Entities:
Keywords: Mortars; cement; hydraulic lime; phase change material (PCM); sustainable materials for buildings; thermal energy storage (TES); thermal properties
Year: 2020 PMID: 32354110 PMCID: PMC7254294 DOI: 10.3390/ma13092055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Mortar compositions (reported as kg/m3 of produced mortar).
| System | Binder/Content | Aggregates | SP | Water Saturation | Water | Water/Binder | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecce Stone (LS) Content | Poly Ethylene Glycol (PEG) Content | ||||||
| HL800LS | Hydraulic Lime/800 | 1092 | 0 | 15 | 275 | 320 | 0.40 |
| HL800LS/PEG | Hydraulic Lime/800 | 1729 | 398 | 15 | 0 | 375 | 0.47 |
| C800LS | Cement/800 | 1070 | 0 | 15 | 269 | 296 | 0.37 |
| C800LS/PEG | Cement/800 | 1347 | 310 | 15 | 0 | 360 | 0.45 |
Figure 1Set up to investigate the thermal performance of the different mortars: (a) six faces to build a small-scale test cell; (b) mortar layer of 1 cm; (c) small-scale test cell with a thermocouple in the center; (d) small-scale test cells placed inside a climatic chamber with temperature control.
Figure 2Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of (a) hydraulic lime-based mortar without phase change material (PCM) (HL800_LS (Lecce stone)); (b) hydraulic lime-based mortar with PCM (HL800_LS/PEG (poly(ethylene glycol))); (c) cement-based mortar without PCM (C800_LS) and (d) cement-based mortar with PCM (C800_LS/PEG).
Figure 3Porosimetric features by image analysis of the SEM micrographs in Figure 2: (a) percentage of pores as a function of their diameter; (b) number of pores per classes of pore-size.
Total pores as a percentage and the most frequent pore size obtained by image analysis of SEM micrographs taken on the investigated mortars.
| System | Total Pores (%) | Most Frequent Pore Size (μm) |
|---|---|---|
| HL800_LS | 33.57 ± 3.53 | 0.761 ± 0.062 |
| HL800_LS/PEG | 36.57 ± 3.18 | 0.894 ± 0.075 |
| C800_LS | 14.57 ± 1.35 | 0.832 ± 0.057 |
| C800_LS/PEG | 19.66 ± 3.24 | 0.794 ± 0.076 |
Figure 4Temperature programs used to simulate the different season of the year.
Figure 5Thermal behavior in summer of the developed mortars: (a) hydraulic lime-based mortar and (b) cement-based mortar. The thermal comfort zone is between 20–25 °C.
Figure 6Thermal behavior in spring of developed mortars: (a) hydraulic lime-based mortar and (b) cement-based mortar. The thermal comfort zone is between 20–25 °C.
Figure 7Thermal behavior in autumn of developed mortars: (a) hydraulic lime-based mortar and (b) cement-based mortar. The thermal comfort zone is between 20–25 °C.
Lag time between the maximum and minimum temperatures in summer climate.
| Summer | Lag Time (min) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cooling Stage | Heating Stage | |
| Cement | 0 | 60 |
| Hydraulic Lime | 0 | 60 |
Figure 8Thermal gradient between unmodified and PCM-based mortars: (a) hydraulic lime-based mortars and (b) cement-based mortars.
Lag time between the maximum and minimum temperatures in spring climate.
| Spring | Lag Time (min) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cooling Stage | Heating Stage | |
| Cement | 60 | 0 |
| Hydraulic Lime | 60 | 0 |
Lag time between the maximum and minimum temperatures in autumn climate.
| Autumn | Lag Time (min) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cooling Stage | Heating Stage | |
| Cement | 60 | 0 |
| Hydraulic Lime | 60 | 0 |
Cooling and heating needs during one day.
| Formulation | Cooling Needs (J/m3) | Heating Needs (J/m3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summer | Spring | Autumn | Summer | Spring | Autumn | |
| HL800LS | 265,855 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 254,044 | 255,321 |
| HL800LS/PEG | 265,702 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 253,572 | 254,947 |
| C800LS | 266,003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 254,017 | 255,266 |
| C800LS/PEG | 265,230 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 253,636 | 255,051 |
Energy savings per day for mortars containing PCM composite.
| Formulation | Cooling Needs (J/m3) | Heating Needs (J/m3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summer | Spring | Autumn | |
| Hydraulic Lime | 152.7 | 472.0 | 374.8 |
| Cement | 772.9 | 381.1 | 214.8 |