Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available
ScienceDirect
Availableonline
onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia161 (2019) 000–000
00 (2017) 352–359
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

2nd 2nd International

International Conference
Conference on Sustainable
on Sustainable Energy
Energy and Resource
and Resource Use Use in Food
in Food Chains,
Chains, ICSEF
2nd International Conference
ICSEF 2018,on17-19
Sustainable
OctoberEnergy and Resource
2018, Paphos, Use in Food Chains,
Cyprus
2018,
ICSEF 17-19
2018, October
17-19 2018,
October Paphos,
2018, Cyprus
Paphos, Cyprus
Experimental study
The 15th on theSymposium
International performance ofHeating
on District a new encapsulation
Experimental study on the performance of a newandencapsulation
Cooling
panel for PCM’s to be used in the PCM-Air heat exchanger
panel for PCM’s
Assessing to be used
the feasibility ofin the PCM-Air
using heat exchanger
the heat demand-outdoor
Thiago Santos , Maria Kolokotroni , Nick Hopper , Kevin Yearleyc
a,b,* a c
temperature function
Thiago Santos a,b,* for Kolokotroni
, Maria a long-terma district
, Nick Hopperheat
c demand
, Kevin Yearleyforecast
c
Brunel University London, Institute of Energy Futures, RCUK Centre for Sustainable Energy use in Food chains (CSEF),
a

a,b,cLondon, Instituteaof EnergyUxbridge, a RCUK

UB8 3PH, Centre
United for b
Kingdom Energy use in cFood chains (CSEF), c
I. Andrić
Brunel University
*, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Corre
Futures, Sustainable
a
b
Federal Institute of Uxbridge,
Pernambuco,
UB8Av. ProfUnited
3PH, Luiz Freire,
Kingdom500, Recife/PE –Brazil
Monodraught
c b
Ltd. Halifax
Federal Institute house, Halifax
of Pernambuco, Road, High Wycombe, United Kingdom
a
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research -Av. Prof
InstitutoLuiz Freire,
Superior 500, Recife/PE
Técnico, –Brazil
Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
bMonodraught Ltd. Halifax house, Halifax Road, High Wycombe, United Kingdom
c
Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
c
Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
Abstract
Abstract
The experimental work evaluated the thermal performance of a new panel design to encapsulate Phase Change Material (PCM)
and
The compare
experimental
Abstract this with
workanevaluated
existing the panel commercially
thermal performance available
of a and
new incorporated
panel designwithin a PCM-Air
to encapsulate heatChange
Phase exchanger system.
Material The
(PCM)
analysis
and was focused
compare this withonanthe meltingpanel
existing and solidifying
commercially timeavailable
of the PCM within each panel
and incorporated within design. It also heat
a PCM-Air focused on the thermal
exchanger system. load
The
of the ‘Latent
analysis
District was
heating Thermal
focused onEnergy
networksthe are Storage’
melting (LTES)
and solidifying
commonly of time
addressed a thermal
in of battery
thetheliterature module,
PCM within as one each
each thebattery
ofpanel module
design.
most It alsoconsisting
effective focused
solutionson offor
multiple
the thermal
decreasingpanels
loadthe
stacked together
ofgreenhouse
the ‘Latent with
Thermal
gas anEnergy
emissions air from
gap Storage’
between each panel.
(LTES)
the building of aThe
sector. existing
thermal
These battery
battery
systems modules
module,
require each
high consisted of which
9 panels
battery module
investments arewhile
consisting the
returnedof new module
multiple
through has
panels
the heat
7stacked
panels,Due
sales. withtoallthe
together panel
with anfilled with
air gap
changed an industry
between
climate recognised
each panel.
conditions andThe PCM. The
existing
building new modules
battery
renovation design battery
consisted
policies, module
heat of 9 is
demand now
panels ablefuture
while
in the tothe
hold
new 17.5 kg
module
could more
has
decrease,
PCM thanwith
7prolonging
panels, thethe existing
all panel one, resulting
filledreturn
investment with period. in 30% more
an industry material
recognised PCM. thanThethenewexisting
design module.
batteryThe air temperature
module is now able used
to hold for17.5
melting and
kg more
solidifying
PCMThe main was
than the
scope 30°C
existingand
of this 15°C
one,
paper isrespectively,
resulting thewith
in 30%
to assess more a constant
material
feasibility airflow theofheat
than the
of using 75 demand
l/s. Tests
existing –were
module. carried
The
outdoor air out first with
temperature
temperature onefor
used
function battery
heatmodule
for melting and
demand
and then with
solidifying
forecast. was
The andistrict
additional
30°C and battery
of15°C module
respectively,
Alvalade, in with
located seriesa and
in Lisbon compared
constant airflow
(Portugal), with
of
wasa75three-layer-calorimeter
l/s. Tests
used as awere study.test
casecarried The(3LC).
out first Theone
with
district isresults
battery
consistedof theofnew
module 665
design
and then battery
buildings withthat indicated
an in an
additional
vary bothincrease
battery in time in
module
construction to series
melt and
period and
andsolidify
compared
typology. theThree
PCMaweather
with due to thescenarios
additional
three-layer-calorimeter material
(low, test withinhigh)
(3LC).
medium, each
The battery
results
and of module.
threethedistrict
new
design batteryscenarios
renovation indicatedwerean increase
developed in time to melt intermediate,
(shallow, and solidify the PCMTo
deep). dueestimate
to the additional
the error,material
obtained within
heat each
demandbattery module.
values were
©compared
2018 Thewith Authors.
resultsPublished by Elsevier
from a dynamic heatLtd.
demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
© 2018
This 2019an The Authors. Published by
by Elsevier Ltd.
© Theisresults
open
The accessthat
Authors.
showed article
Published
when underonly the CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier
weather Ltd. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection
This
(the an and
iserror
open
in peer-review
accessdemand
annual under
article under
was responsibility
the CCthan
lower of the
BY-NC-ND
20% for2nd
all International
license Conference on Sustainable
However,Energy
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
weather scenarios considered). and Resource
after introducing Use in
renovation
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Resource Use in
Food Chains,
Selection
scenarios, and ICSEF2018.
thepeer-review
Food Chains, ICSEF2018 error value under responsibility
increased up to 59.5% of the 2nd
(depending International
on the Conference
weather and on Sustainable
renovation Energy
scenarios and
combinationResource Use in
considered).
Food
The Chains,
value ofICSEF2018.
slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
decrease Thermal
Keywords: energy storage;
in the number of heatingPhasehours
changeofmaterial;
22-139h Thermal
duringperformance;
the heatingPCM-Air
season heat exchanger;
(depending on the combination of weather and
Keywords:
renovation Thermal energy
scenarios storage; Phase
considered). Onchange material;
the other hand, Thermal performance;
function interceptPCM-Air
increased heatfor
exchanger;
7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review
* under
Corresponding responsibility
author. Tel.: +55 81 of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
97221574
Cooling.
* E-mail address: thiagosantos@ipojuca.ifpe.edu.br
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 81 97221574
E-mail address: thiagosantos@ipojuca.ifpe.edu.br
Keywords:©Heat
1876-6102 2018demand; Forecast;
The Authors. Climatebychange
Published Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open
1876-6102 access
© 2018 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection
This is an and
openpeer-review under
access article responsibility
under of the 2ndlicense
the CC BY-NC-ND International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Resource Use in Food Chains,
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ICSEF2018.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Resource Use in Food Chains,
ICSEF2018.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1876-6102 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Resource Use in Food
Chains, ICSEF2018.
10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.105
 Thiago Santos et al. / Energy Procedia 161 (2019) 352–359 353
2 Santos T. et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

1. Introduction

PCM-Air heat exchangers are one of many Thermal Storage Systems (TES) application under constant study and
development [1–4]. The TES consists of a phase change material thermal storage usually integrated into a mechanical
ventilation system; to be referred to as MVS in this study. The equipment uses the principle of thermal storage to store
latent heat in climates where the nights are cold enough to charge (or solidify) the PCM and use it to cool the
environment during the day. In MVS, the Latent Thermal Energy Storage (LTES) is the key of the equipment, which
makes the selection of the appropriate PCM and the encapsulation vital to reach the best performance. Recent reviews
[2–4] point out that a critical component in the PCM-Air heat exchanger is the design of an encapsulation panel and
in particular, the heat transfer channels. One solution is to increase the PCM material but this will result in larger space
requirements or develop a material with higher conductivity but this will increase the final cost of the MVS. Another
solution is to increase the heat transfer rate of the existing encapsulation panel as PCM materials have a lower thermal
conductivity. Santos et al. [5] proposed an optimised design based on heat transfer, pressure drop, cost of production
and ease of manufacturing based on CFD analysis backed by experimental validation. The optimised design was
fabricated and the present paper intends to evaluate the thermal performance of the PCM-air heat exchanger unit with
the new design battery module and compare it with the existing module. The experimental study comprises of the
charging and discharging test and the thermal load test.

2. Experimental setup

The experimental rig consists of a duct with components used from a commercial MVS. The airflow was measured
with an airflow meter (Sensing Precision Balance Master 4250, [6]) and a ventilation system with water heater was
used to provide stable inlet temperatures. The airflow of 75 l/s was used because it is the maximum airflow used by
the MVS during its operational charging period. Datataker DT 80 with the extension CEM20 was used to log inlet,
surface, and outlet temperatures. To ensure that the PCM was fully charged or discharged, 12 thermocouples were
attached on the panel surface (six on the top and six on the bottom) located at the middle of the thermal battery. For
the first thermal battery, three thermocouples were also attached to the bottom and upper panel to analyse if the thermal
battery is charging and discharging uniformly. The results of the first test for both new and existing battery module
confirmed the uniformity in temperature. Due to that, the second thermal battery module have thermocouples attached
only on the middle panel. Fig. 1 shows the test rig with all components used and the configuration of 1 and 2 thermal
batteries used for both existing and new panel test. Fig. 2 presents the test rig mounted.

2.1. Experimental procedure

To estimate cooling and heating load and melting/solidifying time of the existing and new thermal battery,
thermocouples were attached on panels’ surface with a logging interval of 15 seconds. The thermal battery (TB) was
considered fully charged or discharged when temperatures were stable and close to the set point (30 oC for discharging
and 15 oC for charging). The cooling source was the outside air and the charging period takes place from 00:00
(midnight) until 12:00 (noon). The discharging period was from 12:00 (noon) until 00:00 (midnight).
354 Thiago Santos et al. / Energy Procedia 161 (2019) 352–359
Santos T. et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

Outside air Upper surface thermocouples

Bottom surface thermocouples

HTM
LTHW
Air temperature thermocouples
Duct

Fan
Duct 1st TB 2nd TB Airflow meter

Upper panel

1st Thermal battery

Middle panel
Bottom panel

2nd Thermal battery

 

Fig. 1. Test configuration of 1, 2 and 3 thermal batteries for both existing and new panel
(HTM/LTHW: Hybrid Thermal Mixing/Low Temperature Hot Water)

Fan

Test section
HTM LTHW
Air flow meter

Thermal battery with

new panels stacked Boilers
 

Fig. 2. Test rig for melting and solidifying tests

 Thiago Santos et al. / Energy Procedia 161 (2019) 352–359 355
4 Santos T. et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

To analyse the cooling/heating load of the phase change, a control volume was applied for the air (Fig. 3), thus:

Thermal batteries  Panel        Control volume 

���� ���� � �����

   ����� ���� � �����  
 

Fig. 3. Control volume for cooling/heating load for 1 and 2 thermal batteries

�
�� � �� ����� ������ ����� � ��� ���� �� (1)

�
�� � �� ����� ������ ����� � ��� ���� �� (2)

Where �� is the cooling load provided by the thermal battery during the melting period (12:00 – 24:00) and �� is
the heating load during the solidifying period (00:00 – 12:00). ��� and ���� is the inlet and outlet temperature for each
time step �� (15 seconds); ����� is the airflow measured by the airflow meter (in kg/s) and ������ the heat capacity of
the air. The air properties used were the same as the one applied during the design process (300 K) by Santos et al [5].
For this test, thermal losses were neglected. This procedure is in agreement with several studies in this field [7–12].

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Charging and discharging time

Fig. 4a presents the results for one thermal battery. It can be seen that more time is needed to charge and discharge
the new TB, this is due to the capability of the new TB to hold 17.5 kg (total latent heat of 3202.5 kJ) against 13.5 kg
(total latent heat of 2470.5 kJ) of the existing TB. This 30 % extra PCM made the surface temperature of the new TB
solidify and melt gradually while the phase change in the existing TB (which has a thinner panel) is more pronounced.
Due to that, Fig. 4a clearly shows the onset and endset for both melting and solidifying (20-18 oC and 24-26 oC,
respectively) for the existing TB. When two thermal batteries are used (Fig. 4b), a similar behaviour was found.
In terms of time required to melt and solidify, the TB is considered fully charged or discharged when the surface
temperature achieve stability. From Fig. 4, it is clear that the new TB needs more time to complete the cycle and this
is explained by the capacity that the new TB can hold. However, the time required to solidify is lower than the time
to melt due to the PCM properties. This is an interesting result as the MVS needs less time to charge the TB. For one
TB, 4h is necessary to solidify the existing TB while 5h30min is needed for the new TB, an increase of 38 %. For two
TB, 8h30min is needed to charge the new TB and while 5h is needed for the existing TB, representing 66 % more
time.
356 Thiago Santos et al. / Energy Procedia 161 (2019) 352–359
Santos T. et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 5

a 32
31  EP 1TB inlet b 32
31 NP 2TB inlet
30  EP 1TB outlet average 30 EP surf temp of first TB
29 NP 1TB inlet 29
28 28 EP surf temp of second TB
27 EP surface average 27  EP 2TB outlet avg
26

Temperature (ºC)
26 NP surface average 25 EP 2TB inlet
25  NP 1TB outlet average 24
Tempeature (ºC)

24 23 onset
23 onset 22 endset
22 21
21 20
20 endset 19
19 18
17
18 16
17 15
16 14
15 13
14 12

Time (h) Time (h)

Fig. 4. Solidifying temperature for the existing (a) and new panel (b) with one and two thermal batteries. 

When the discharging period is analysed, the new TB is capable of providing cooling for a longer period of time.
This is explained by the additional PCM it can hold. As it can be seen in Fig. 5a, the outlet temperature gradually
increases to reach the inlet temperature. For 1 TB with the existing panel, the TB is completely discharged after
3h30min while the new TB need approximately 6h30min to completely discharge, an increase of 86 %. When a MVS
with 2 TB is analysed (Fig. 5b), the existing TB is fully discharged after 4h30 min while the new TB needs the double
of the time.
This can be confirmed by Table 1 which summarizes the time required and the increase in percentage from new to
existing thermal battery.

Table 1. Melting and solidifying times for one and two thermal batteries

      Time (h)  Increase (in %) 

EP 1TB  3.5 
Melting  86 % 
NP 1TB  6.5 
1TB 
EP 1TB  4.0 
Solidifying  38 % 
NP 1TB  5.5 

EP 2TB  4.5 
Melting  100 % 
NP 2TB  9.0 
2TB 
EP 2TB  5.0 
Solidifying  70 % 
NP 2TB  8.5 

Santos et al. [5] indicated that the new panel is capable to double the heat transfer when compared to the existing
one. This is an important feature when a faster thermal response is needed. However, Fig. 5 shows that the temperature
for the existing and new TB increase at the same rate until the PCM starts to melt. This could be explained by number
of panels the existing TB have. With two panels more when compared to the new TB, it has 28 % more surface area
and this reflects in an outlet temperature similar to the new TB. For the same reason, the outlet temperature during the
solidifying period in Fig. 4 shows a similar pattern.
6 Thiago
Santos T. et Santos et al.Procedia
al. / Energy / Energy Procedia
00 (2018)161 (2019) 352–359
000–000 357

a 32
31 b 32
31
30 30
29 29
28 28
27 27

Temperature (ºC)
Tempeature (ºC)

26 26
25 25
24 endset 24
23 23
22 22 onset endset
21 onset 21
20  EP 1TB inlet 20 NP 2TB inlet
19  EP 1TB outlet average 19 EP surf temp of first TB
18 18
NP 1TB inlet 17 EP surf temp of second TB
17
16 EP surface average 16  EP 2TB outlet avg
15 NP surface average 15 EP 2TB inlet
14 14 NP surf temp of first TB avg

Time (h) Time (h)

Fig. 5. Melting temperature for existing and new panel with (a) one and (b) two thermal batteries.

3.2. Thermal load

During the melting and solidifying process, the air was cooled down or heated up to a correspondent cooling (ܳܿ )
or heating load (݄ܳ ). To estimate those values, equations 1 and 2 were used. The heating and cooling cycle ceased
when outlet temperature stabilises and achieve values close to the inlet temperature. These results are presented in
Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b. Interestingly, the melting test of new thermal battery with one module provides a faster response
when compared to the existing thermal battery and the opposite occurs for two TB. This is probably caused by
fluctuations in temperature during the transition from charge to discharge mode and vice-versa.

a 400 b 600
Melting EP
Melting EP
300 1TB (W)
400 2TB (W)
Melting Melting
200 Melting NP Melting NP
1TB (W) 2TB (W)
200
Thermal load (W)

Thermal load (W)

100

00 00

‐100
‐200
‐200 Solidifying
Solidifying
‐400
‐300

‐400 ‐600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (h) Time (h)

Fig. 6. Thermal load for existing and new panel with one (a) and two (b) thermal batteries with error bar showing the uncertainty of 3.7 %.

From Fig. 6a, it can be seen that after 4h for 1 TB, the TB is fully melted or solidified as a small amount of energy
is released or absorbed by the TB. For the new TB, 6h30min is needed to complete the cycle and after this time, the
energy released or absorbed by the TB remains stable. A similar pattern occurs with 2 TB (Fig. 6b) where more time
358 Thiago Santos et al. / Energy Procedia 161 (2019) 352–359
Santos T. et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

for solidification was needed. This is explained by 8kg of extra PCM that the two TB are holding, which also results
in more energy stored.
To validate the melting and solidifying test, the results were compared with a 3LC (three-layer calorimetry) test
provided by the manufacturer. The results for both the heat up and cooling are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Typical properties of the PCM used in the experimental study

  Typical value (3LC)  Units 
Peak melting temperature  24  o
C 
Total stored heat, 15°C to 30°C (melting)  218  kJ/kg 
Peak crystallization temperature  21  o
C 
Total stored heat, 30 °C to 15 °C (solidifying)  221  kJ/kg 

The laboratory test with one and two thermal battery was well performed with results being compared with the
3LC test. In the 3LC, the energy stored during a heat up from 15 to 30 oC and cooling from 30 to 15oC are in agreement
to the laboratory tests as it can be seen in Table 3. The results present an average of 105.4 Wh (± 44.5 Wh) or 4.4 %
(± 6.9 %).

Table 3. Thermal load for melting and solidifying

1 Thermal Battery  2 Thermal Batteries   
  Melting  Solidifying  Melting  Solidifying   
EP  NP  EP  NP  EP  NP  EP  NP  Average (σ) 
Laboratory 
831.8  1015.8  ‐725.6  ‐1066.0  1472.3  2029.1  ‐1508.6  ‐2336.0   
test (Wh) 
3LC (Wh)  817.5  1059.7  828.8  1074.3  1635.0  2119.4  1657.5  2148.6   
Difference 
‐14.3  43.9  103.2  8.4  162.7  90.4  148.9  ‐187.4  105.4 (± 44.5) 
(Wh) 
Difference  ‐1.7 %  4.3 %  14.2 %  0.8 %  11.1 %  4.5 %  9.9 %  ‐8.0 %  9.4 %(± 6.7 %) 

4. Conclusions

Holding 30 % more material per thermal battery, each new panel needs more time to solidify and melt when
compared to the existing panel. With results backed up by a 3LC test, the new thermal battery needs 86% more time
to melt and 38% more time to solidify for 1 TB. For two TB, 100 % more time is necessary to melt and 70% to solidify.
This can be explained by the 30% more material each thermal battery can hold. Furthermore, the existing thermal
battery has 9 instead of 7 panels, representing a heat exchange area 28% bigger than the new thermal battery. This
reduction in panels per battery module will represent a reduction in cost and maintenance for the MVS.

Acknowledgements

Thiago Santos would like to thank the Science without Borders program of CNPq - Brazil, for the funding awarded
to carry out his PhD at Brunel University London (PDE: 200815/2014-8).
 Thiago Santos et al. / Energy Procedia 161 (2019) 352–359 359
8 Santos T. et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

References

[1] Alizadeh M, and Sadrameli S M., "Development of free cooling based ventilation technology for buildings : Thermal energy storage ( TES )
unit , performance enhancement techniques and design considerations – A review." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58(2016):
619–645. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.168.
[2] Kasaeian A, Bahrami L, Pourfayaz F, Khodabandeh E, and Yan Y-M., "Experimental studies on the applications of PCMs and nano-PCMs
in buildings: A critical review." Energy and Buildings 154(2017): 96–112. doi:10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2017.08.037.
[3] Souayfane F, Fardoun F, and Henry Biwole P-H., "Phase change materials (PCM) for cooling applications in buildings: A review." Energy
and Buildings 129(2016): 396–431. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.006.
[4] Zeinelabdein R, Omer S, and Gan G., "Critical review of latent heat storage systems for free cooling in buildings." Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 82(October) (2018): 2843–2868. doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2017.10.046.
[5] Santos T, Kolokotroni M, Hopper N, and Yearley K., A study of panel ridges effect on heat transfer and pressure drop in a ventilation duct,
in: 38th AIVC - 6th TightVent 4th Vent. Conf., 2017.
[6] Sensing Precision, . http://sensing-precision.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/BALANCE-MASTER-Data-Sheet.pdf (accessed June 15,
2017).
[7] Iten M, and Liu S., "Experimental Study on the Performance of RT 25 to be Used as Ambient Energy Storage." Energy Procedia 70(2015):
229–240. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.02.119.
[8] Iten M, Liu S, and Shukla A., "Experimental study on the thermal performance of air-PCM unit." Building and Environment 105(2016):
128–139. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.035.
[9] Dolado P, Lazaro A, Marin J-M, and Zalba B., "Characterization of melting and solidification in a real-scale PCM-air heat exchanger:
Experimental results and empirical model." Renewable Energy 36(11) (2011): 2906–2917. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.04.008.
[10] Osterman E, Hagel K, Rathgeber C, Butala V, and Stritih U., "Parametrical analysis of latent heat and cold storage for heating and cooling of
rooms." Applied Thermal Engineering 84(2015): 138–149. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.02.081.
[11] Turnpenny J.R. R., Etheridge D.W. W., and Reay D.A., "Novel ventilation system for reducing air conditioning in buildings. Part II: testing
of prototype." Applied Thermal Engineering 21(12) (2001): 1203–1217. doi:10.1016/S1359-4311(01)00003-5.
[12] Stritih U., and Butala V., "Experimental investigation of energy saving in buildings with PCM cold storage." International Journal of
Refrigeration 33(8) (2010): 1676–1683. doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2010.07.017.