Abstract

This study presents an experimental comparison of three characterization methods for phase change materials (PCM). Two methods were carried out with a calorimeter, the first with direct scanning (DSC) and the second with step scanning (STEP). The third method is a fluxmetric (FM) characterization performed using a fluxmeter bench. For the three methods, paraffin RT58 and polymer PEG6000, two PCM suitable for domestic hot water (DHW) storage, were characterized. For each PCM, no significant difference was observed on the latent heat and the total energy exchanged between the three characterization methods. However, DSC and STEP methods did not enable the accurate characterization of the supercooling process observed with the FM method for polymer PEG6000. For PEG6000, the shape of the enthalpy curve of melting also differed between the experiments on the calorimeter—DSC and STEP—methods, and the FM method. Concerning the PCM comparison, RT58 and PEG6000 appeared to have an equivalent energy density but, as the mass density of PEG6000 is greater, more energy is stored inside the same volume for PEG6000. However, as PEG6000 experienced supercooling, the discharging temperature was lower than for RT58 and the material is therefore less adapted to DHW storage operating with partial phase change cycles where the PCM temperature does not decrease below 52 °C.

Highlights

  • In residential buildings, the share of the final energy consumption dedicated to domestic hot water (DHW) production is estimated to be between 15% and 30% [1,2,3]

  • This study presents an experimental comparison of three characterization methods for two phase change materials (PCM) suitable for DHW storage

  • The objective of this study is to investigate and compare, with the three characterization methods, the thermal performances of a well known paraffin-based material (RT58) with a less common polymer (PEG6000), which has a great potential for DHW storage

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The share of the final energy consumption dedicated to domestic hot water (DHW) production is estimated to be between 15% and 30% [1,2,3]. This share will likely rise in coming years as stricter regulations will lead, in many countries, to a reduction of space heating consumption, especially with the development of net zero energy building [3]. Hot water tanks, using only sensible heat, were the most common TES systems used to store heat production from solar collectors. The size of the storage is a crucial factor as the building was not initially designed to leave space for a DHW storage dedicated to solar production

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.