Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Thermal performance analysis of PCM wallboards for building application T

based on numerical simulation
⁎
Jingchao Xie , Wei Wang, Jiaping Liu, Song Pan
Key Laboratory of Green Built Environment and Energy Efficient Technology, Beijing, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of phase change materials (PCMs) in buildings is an efficient way to reduce the building energy con-
Phase change material sumption. PCM wallboards used in buildings have been widely studied and optimized in many studies; however,
Thermal performance further thermal performance analysis needs to be performed. To utilize the PCM more efficiently in practical
Heat ratio engineering, five PCM wallboards used in the exterior wall of an air-conditioning room in Beijing were studied
Relative thermal conductivity
using numerical simulation, and four new aspects of the thermal performance analysis of PCM wallboards were
presented. It was found that the energy consumption of the building using the PCM wallboard with a higher
phase change range was 103 kJ less than the referenced wallboard in June, while 72 kJ more in December.
Therefore, the thermal performance of the PCM wallboard might be adverse in different seasons, and the thermal
performance analysis during an entire year was necessary. Using the heat ratio, the months in which the phase
change had a significant effect on the thermal performance of the wall were found, and only in these months, the
optimization of the thermal performance was effective. The heat transfer coefficient of the PCM wall was de-
fined, and it was used to justify that the PCM met the design standard for energy efficiency of buildings. Using
relative thermal conductivity, the effective months of the phase change for different areas of China were de-
termined. The optimization of the thermal performance of the PCM wallboard should focus on these months. For
Beijing, the months were June and September. For Harbin, the months were July and August. For Shanghai, the
months were June, July, and September. For Guangzhou and Haikou, the months were May and April, re-
spectively.

1. Introduction
Excessive energy consumption, which has led to an energy shortage
worldwide, is an urgent problem to be solved. As a lot of energy is
consumed in the building stock, an essential part of the solution must be
found there. The utilization of solar energy is an efficient way of col-
lecting natural energy to meet the demand for thermal comfort of hu-
mans and energy conservation (Xie et al., 2016). The use of solar energy
includes converting it into electricity and heat (Das et al., 2015; Edgar
et al., 2017; Bullich-Massagué et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017; Gill et al.,
2016; Vakili et al., 2016; Duomarco, 2015; Nikoofard et al., 2014).
Thermal energy storage (TES) is an important method of converting
solar energy to heat. The main advantage of using TES in solar systems
for buildings is the success of converting an intermittent energy source
in meeting the demand, which may be intermittent and/or have a time
shift (Navarro et al., 2016a). Among many TES methods quite often the
latent heat storage using phase change materials (PCMs) is more pre-
ferable (Kenisarin and Mahkamov, 2016). PCMs can store passive solar
energy and other heat gains as latent heat within a specific temperature
range, leading to a reduction in energy usage, an increase in thermal
comfort by smoothing out temperature fluctuations throughout the day,
and a reduction and/or shift in peak loads. In the latent heat storage,
much work has been performed. Navarro et al. (2016b), Pomianowski
et al. (2013), Akeiber et al. (2016), and Kalnæs and Jelle (2015) re-
viewed the application methods of PCMs integrated in building com-
ponents, and classified them depending on their component integration.
Ma et al. (2016), Khadiran et al. (2016), Konuklu et al. (2015), and
Memon (2014) reviewed the phase change materials used in buildings
for effective thermal management and improved energy performance.
Dutil et al. (2011, 2014), AL-Saadi and Zhai (2013), and Mirzaei and
Haghighat (2012) reviewed the different modeling methods generally
used for PCM simulations, including the enthalpy method, heat capacity
method, temperature transforming model, and heat source method.
Besides, these studies compared and highlighted the advantages, dis-
advantages, and limitations of these models and methods.
Over the years, a systematic review of latent heat storage in building

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiejc@bjut.edu.cn (J. Xie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.069
Received 25 January 2017; Received in revised form 15 January 2018; Accepted 19 January 2018
0038-092X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Xie et al.
elements was conducted by Mavrigiannaki and Ampatzi (2016). Evi-
dence was collected, which showed that with appropriate design, PCM
elements could contribute to reducing loads and achieving energy
savings in buildings, while securing a comfortable indoor environment.
Key design factors to this end were found to be the climate and target
season, the design of appropriate controls for active and passive systems
used in combination with the PCM elements, and cost-related factors.
Kenisarin and Mahkamov (2016) analyzed the state of the art on in-
tegration of PCMs into building structures for their passive thermal
control. The results of comparative tests on fifteen full-size buildings
containing elements with PCMs were summarized. Experiments con-
ducted by many researchers on passive solar buildings demonstrated
that the application of phase change heat storage materials decreased
the variation in the air temperature in the rooms, shifted the peak en-
ergy consumption for heating and cooling of lightweight buildings by
several hours, and decreased energy consumption for maintaining
comfortable temperature levels in buildings. Yuan et al. (2014) sum-
marized the preparation and characteristics of fatty acid composites as
PCMs and analyzed the thermal reliability and stability of fatty acids as
PCMs and their heat transfer characteristics in a unit. In addition, they
pointed out the future research direction of fatty acids as PCMs as a
solution of the insufficiency and flaws of current studies. In the research
of Mi et al. (2016), the effect of PCMs on the energy consumption of a
typical multistory office building located in five different cities of
China, was simulated for a whole year. Test results showed that the
energy savings resulting from PCM application were more prominent
for office buildings located in cold regions as well as in hot summer and
cold winter regions. The application of PCMs in Shenyang, Zhengzhou,
and Changsha proved to be economically beneficial. Lee et al. (2015)
placed the thin PCM layer into the wall via a thermal shield, whereby
the PCM was contained in thin sealed polymer pouches, arranged in
sheets laminated with aluminum foil on both sides. The optimal loca-
tion for the PCM layer in the wall was obtained and the peak heat flux
reductions of the south wall were 51.3%. Álvarez et al. (2013) pre-
sented innovative solutions to overcome the drawbacks of the night
cooling ventilation using PCMs. Compared with existing solutions, in-
novative solutions proposed increased the contact area between the
PCM and air by a factor of approximately 3.6, increased the convective
heat transfer coefficient significantly, and improved the utilization
factor owing to the inclusion of active control systems. In the study of
Barzin et al. (2015a) on PCM underfloor heating in combination with
PCM wallboards for space heating, an experimental study was carried
out using two identical test huts at the Tamaki Campus, University of
Auckland. Results using a price-based method showed electricity sav-
ings in both consumption and cost of up to 35% and 44.4%, respec-
tively. In another study of Barzin et al. (2015b), the application of night
ventilation in combination with PCM-impregnated gypsum boards for
cooling purposes was experimentally investigated. Two identical test
huts equipped with ‘‘smart” control systems were used for testing the
concept. An air conditioning (AC) unit, without night ventilation, was
used in both huts to charge the PCM during the low peak period,
showing very little savings in electricity. However, when night venti-
lation was used to charge the PCM instead, a weekly electricity saving
of 73% was achieved.
The essential way to reduce the building energy consumption ef-
fectively is the reasonable design of the PCM wall. The key point is the
selection of the wall material, which depends on the comprehensive
thermal performance analysis of the PCM. Although the performance of
the PCM used in walls has been widely studied and optimized, further
thermal performance analysis needs to be performed. In current studies,
for the PCM used in the wall of an air-conditioned room, the compre-
hensive effect of the thermal resistance, thermal capacity, and phase
change of the material on energy saving is shown through the calcu-
lation of the heat transferred from the PCM wall to the indoor air.
However, the single role of the factors mentioned has never been
showed. Some researchers pointed out that many studies regarding the
534
Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540
applications of PCMs in building envelope just focused on their thermal
performance in a specific season, and the whole-year performance
should be analyzed (Cheng et al., 2014). However, the method for the
year-round thermal analysis of PCMs has never been presented. The
focus of the application effect of PCMs used in the air-conditioned room
is always the reduction in energy consumption, and meeting the design
standard for energy efficiency of buildings in the studied period or the
other seasons has never been considered. Furthermore, the application
effectiveness of PCMs should be evaluated in different areas, and that
can help the researcher to find the proper area and period to apply the
PCM.
Considering the four points mentioned above, a numerical simula-
tion was conducted using the software MATLAB, and thermal perfor-
mance of PCM wallboards used in the exterior wall of an air-condi-
tioned room in Beijing was analyzed considering four aspects: (1)
difference of the thermal performance in different seasons; (2) the
period in which the phase change significantly affects the thermal
performance; (3) the satisfaction of the design standard for energy ef-
ficiency of buildings by the PCM; and (4) the thermal performance of
the same PCM wallboard in different climate regions. Further, the
convective heat transferred from the wall to the indoor air, heat ratio,
and relative thermal conductivity was calculated and defined for the
thermal performance analysis.
2. Model of the PCM wallboard
2.1. Building description
The PCM wallboard is used in the exterior wall of an air-conditioned
room in Beijing. The room studied is on the second floor of a building
with dimensions of 5 m × 5 m × 3 m. Only the south wall is the exterior
wall. The construction of the PCM wall is shown in Fig. 1. From out-
doors to indoors, the wall layer is the insulation layer, followed by the
brick layer and the PCM wallboard, and thicknesses of the three layers
are 4 cm, 30 cm and 3 cm respectively. Five PCM wallboards with dif-
ferent thermal properties are studied for the thermal performance
analysis. PCM wallboard I is made with the mixture of the PCM and
building material (Castell and Farid, 2014). The difference among I, II,
III, and IV is the phase change temperature, and the difference between
I and V is the latent heat capacity. To study the effect of the phase
change, a gypsum board (Yahay and Ahmad, 2011) with the same di-
mensions as the PCM wallboard is chosen as the compared wall layer.
Physical property parameters of wall layers are given in Table 1.
The boundary conditions of the PCM wall are shown in Fig. 1. The
external wall surface is affected by solar radiation and convective heat
transfer. The internal surface is affected by convective heat transfer and
the radiation heat transfer is neglected. The convective heat transfer
coefficients for the external and internal wall surface are respectively
18.6 W/(m2·°C) and 8.7 W/(m2·°C) (Zhang et al., 2008). Indoor air
Fig. 1. Structure and boundary conditions of the wall.
J. Xie et al. Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540

Table 1 numerically, a finite-difference method needs to be used (Kuznik et al.,

Thermophysical parameters of wall layers. 2008).
The spatial discretization is second-order finite-differences scheme:
ρ (kg/m3) cp (J/ λ (W/ L (kJ/ ts∼tl (°C)
(kg·°C)) (m·°C)) kg)
∂ 2T Ti −j 1−2Ti j + Ti +j 1
= + o (Δx 2)
Insulation layer 30 1500 0.04 – – ∂x 2 i,j Δx 2 (7)
Brick layer 1800 900 0.80 – –
Gypsum 1000 1000 0.50 – – The time discretization uses a first-order backward difference ex-
wallboard pression:
PCM wallboard I 893 1340 0.20 34 18–23
PCM wallboard II 893 1340 0.20 34 22–27 ∂H Hi j−Hi j − 1
PCM wallboard III 893 1340 0.20 34 25–28
= + o (Δt )
∂t i,j Δt (8)
PCM wallboard IV 893 1340 0.20 34 24–26
PCM wallboard V 893 1340 0.20 102 18–23 Using Eqs. (7) and (8), the heat transfer equation can be expressed
as:
temperature is set at 25 °C in the whole year to simplify the simulation. Hi j−Hi j − 1 T j −2Ti j + Ti +j 1
ρi = λi i − 1
Δt Δx 2 (9)
2.2. Heat transfer control equation of the wall
where the indexes i, i − 1, and i + 1 concern the space coordinate and j
and j-1 concern the time coordinate.
To simplify the numerical calculation, the following assumptions
are made (Zhou et al., 2008): (1) heat transfer process through the wall
2.4. Validation of the numerical method
is one-dimensional; (2) wall materials are homogeneous except PCMs;
(3) convective heat transfer coefficient on wall surfaces is constant; and
To validate the numerical method, a thermal performance testing
(4) radiation heat on wall surface is identical.
equipment (Xie et al., 2016) is made and a PCM wallboard heat storage
The enthalpy method is used to solve heat transfer problems re-
experiment is performed. The PCM wallboard with the initial tem-
garding PCMs. The transient heat transfer control equation of the wall
perature of 18 °C is placed in the equipment. Then the wallboard is
is:
heated by the hot air with the temperature of 34 °C. The temperature of
∂H ∂ 2T the wallboard center is monitored by the thermal resistance. The ex-
ρ =λ 2
∂t ∂x (1) perimental result and the numerical result are shown in Fig. 2. The two
For the PCM layer: curves are similar and the coefficient of association of the two results is
0.955, demonstrating that the numerical model is reliable.
Tsolid Tliquid T1
H= ∫T 0
c p,s dT + ∫T
solid
c p,m dT + ∫T
liquid
c p,l dT
(2) 2.5. Environmental conditions
For normal material layer:
Beijing, Harbin, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Haikou are chosen to
T1
H= ∫T 0
c p dT
(3)
study the application effectiveness of the PCM in different climate re-
gions. The five cities are located in four different architectural climatic
where ρ is the density, H is the latent heat, t is the time, T is the tem- zones of China, and they are shown in Fig. 3. Harbin is in severe cold
perature, x is the coordinate through the thickness, cp is the specific area. Beijing is in cold area. Shanghai is in hot-summer and cold-winter
heat capacity, and cp,s and cp,l are the specific heat capacities of PCMs in area. Guangzhou and Haikou are in hot-summer and warm-winter area.
the solid state and liquid state, respectively, and cp,m is the equivalent The outdoor meteorological data is measured by China Meteorological
specific heat capacity in the two-phase region. Administration. Monthly average ambient temperature in a year of the
The initial condition is: five cities and monthly average solar radiation in a year are shown in
Fig. 4 and Table 2. The ambient temperature and the solar radiation
T (x ,t )|t = 0 = Tinit (4)
vary considerably in different areas.
The boundary condition outdoors is:
∂T
qr,out + hout (Tout−Ts,out ) = λ s,out
∂x x=0 (5)
The boundary condition indoors is:
∂T
h in (Tin−Ts,in ) = λ s,in
∂x x=δ (6)
where Tinit is the initial temperature, qr,out is the radiant heat flux
outdoors, hout is the convective heat transfer coefficient for the external
wall surface, Tout is the outdoor air temperature, Ts,out is the exterior
wall surface temperature, λs,out is the thermal conductivity of the out-
ermost material, hin is the convective heat transfer coefficient for in-
ternal wall surface, Tin is the indoor air temperature, Ts,in is the interior
wall surface temperature, λs,in is the thermal conductivity of the in-
nermost material, and δ is the thickness of the wall.

2.3. Numerical method

The problem of the heat transfer with PCMs in wallboards cannot be Fig. 2. Temperature of the wallboard center in the experiment and the numerical simu-
lation.
solved algebraically because of the non-linearity. To solve the problem

535
J. Xie et al. Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540

Fig. 5. Convective heat and heat ratio of the five different wallboards in June.

the PCM wallboard. More convective heat means more energy con-
Fig. 3. Location of the five cities in China from south to north: Harbin, Beijing, Shanghai, sumption for air conditioning. The convective heat of the five PCM
Guangzhou, and Haikou.
wallboards surface per square meter in June is shown in Fig. 5. To
evaluate the effect of the phase change, heat ratio is defined as:
t
Qp ∫0 h in (Ts,p−Tin)dτ
n= = t
Qg ∫0 h in (Ts,g−Tin)dτ (10)

where Qp is the convective heat transferred from the PCM wallboard to

the indoor air, Qg is the convective heat transferred from the gypsum
wallboard to the indoor air in the same period with the PCM wallboard,
Ts,p is the PCM wallboard surface temperature, and Ts,g is the gypsum
wallboard surface temperature.
The thermal performance of different PCM wallboards in June can
be seen in Fig. 5. The convective heat of wallboard I is the maximum,
meaning its capacity for resisting heat gain is the weakest. The con-
vective heat value of wallboard V is the same as wallboard I, and both
of them are 5229 kJ. This means the increase in the latent heat cannot
improve the thermal performance of the PCM wallboard in June if the
phase change range is lower than the indoor air temperature. The
convective heat of wallboard III is 146 kJ more than wallboard I. This
means the phase change wallboard with a higher phase change tem-
perature has less convective heat and can reduce the energy con-
Fig. 4. Monthly average ambient temperature in a year of the five cities. sumption. Therefore, increasing the phase change temperature from the
range below the indoor air temperature to the range over the indoor air
Table 2 temperature can improve the thermal performance of the PCM wall-
Monthly average solar radiation in a year of the five cities. board in June. The solid temperatures of wallboards II and IV are lower
than the indoor air temperature, and the liquid temperatures of wall-
Month Solar radiation (MJ/m2)
boards II and IV are higher than the indoor air temperature; however,
Beijing Harbin Shanghai Guangzhou Haikou the phase change range of wallboard II is larger than the phase change
range of wallboard IV. The convective heat of wallboard II is 192 kJ
Jan. 12.67 8.11 7.11 6.42 6.37 more than wallboard IV. Thus, it can be inferred that if the indoor air
Feb. 14.50 8.79 8.77 4.69 6.83
Mar. 11.14 12.39 5.73 3.52 5.53
temperature is in the phase change range, the PCM wallboard with a
Apr. 9.04 8.98 5.82 4.06 5.04 smaller phase change range has less convective heat and better thermal
May 6.80 7.74 5.29 4.71 5.30 performance in June.
Jun. 6.14 6.97 4.54 4.10 8.82 The thermal performance of different PCM wallboards in December
Jul. 6.18 6.89 4.81 5.07 6.61
can be seen in Fig. 6. The convective heat of wallboard V is 524 kJ less
Aug. 7.31 8.65 5.42 4.86 5.49
Sep. 8.46 10.74 7.78 6.19 6.32 than wallboard I. This means the increase in the latent heat can increase
Oct. 11.31 11.98 9.74 8.58 7.47 the capacity for resisting heat loss, thus improving the thermal per-
Nov. 12.72 11.10 8.10 9.31 6.63 formance of the PCM wallboard in December if the phase change range
Dec. 11.22 7.84 9.83 9.17 7.11 is lower than the indoor air temperature. The convective heat of wall-
board III is 219 kJ more than wallboard I. This means the phase change
wallboard with lower phase change temperature has less convective
3. Results and discussion
heat, and can reduce the energy consumption. Therefore, decreasing
the phase change temperature from the range over the indoor air
3.1. Thermal performance analysis in a month
temperature to the range below the indoor air temperature can improve
the thermal performance of the PCM wallboard in December. The
The convective heat transferred from the surface of the PCM wall-
convective heat of wallboard IV is 147 kJ more than wallboard II.
board to the indoor air is used to evaluate the thermal performance of
Therefore, it can be inferred that if the indoor air temperature is in the

536
J. Xie et al.
Fig. 6. Convective heat and heat ratio of the five different wallboards in December.
phase change range, the PCM wallboard with a larger phase change
range has less convective heat and better thermal performance in De-
cember.
By comparing the thermal performance of PCM wallboards in June
with the thermal performance in December, it can be found that the
thermal performance changes significantly in different months. PCM
wallboard V has the worst thermal performance in June, while it has
the best thermal performance in December. PCM wallboard IV has the
best thermal performance in June, while it has the worst thermal per-
formance in December. The convective heat of wallboard I is 103 kJ
more than wallboard II in June, and is 72 kJ less in December. The
convective heat of wallboard II is 43 kJ more than wallboard III in June
and 147 kJ less in December. If the phase change range is lower than
the indoor air temperature, the increase in the latent heat cannot im-
prove the thermal performance of the PCM wallboard in June, while the
increase in the latent heat can improve the thermal performance in
December. In June, increasing the phase change temperature from the
range below the indoor air temperature to the range over the indoor air
temperature can improve the thermal performance of the PCM wall-
board, while in December, increasing the phase change temperature
cannot improve the thermal performance. In June, if the indoor air
temperature is in the phase change range, the PCM wallboard with a
smaller phase change range has better thermal performance, while in
December, the PCM wallboard with a larger phase change range has
better thermal performance. It can be inferred that the comparison of
the thermal performance among different PCM wallboards shows dif-
ferent results in different months, and the thermal performance analysis
for a whole year is necessary.
3.2. Thermal performance analysis in a year
To avoid the difficulty of the comparison of the thermal perfor-
mance in different months resulting from the different order of mag-
nitude of the convective heat in different months, the heat ratio is used
for the thermal performance analysis in a whole year. The heat ratio is
the ratio between the convective heat value of the PCM wallboard and
the convective heat value of the gypsum wallboard. If the PCM wall-
board has no phase change, which means the wallboard is a normal
wallboard, the heat ratio changes a little in a year, and the heat ratio
value depends on the thermal conductivity and thermal capacity. For
the PCM wallboard, the heat ratio value depends on the thermal con-
ductivity, thermal capacity, latent heat and phase change range. The
thermal conductivity and thermal capacity of the five PCM wallboards
are same, so the difference in the heat ratio depends on the latent heat
and phase change temperature. The heat ratio of PCM wallboards in a
year is shown in Fig. 7. The heat ratio has obvious changes in several
months. This means the phase change of the wallboard significantly
affects convective heat in these months. In March and May, the heat
537
Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540
Fig. 7. Monthly variation of the heat ratio of the five PCM wallboards in a year.
ratio of the five PCM wallboards is very close, implying that phase
change has little effect in these months. In other words, the thermal
performance of the PCM wallboard cannot be improved considerably by
changing the latent heat and phase change temperature in March and
May because the phase change has little effect on reducing convective
heat or energy consumption. In June and September, the heat ratio of
the five PCM wallboards is very different. The maximum of the heat
ratio is 0.08 higher than the minimum. Hence, phase change sig-
nificantly reduces energy consumption in the two months and the
thermal performance of the PCM wallboard can be improved sub-
stantially by changing the latent heat and phase change temperature.
Therefore, the improvement in thermal performance depends on the
change in the latent heat and phase change temperature in some
months, and in other months, the improvement depends on the change
in thermal conductivity and thermal capacity.
In January, February, November, and December, the heat ratio of
PCM wallboard V is the lowest, so the PCM wallboard with more latent
heat has better thermal performance in these months. In June, July,
September, and October, the heat ratio of PCM wallboard IV is smaller
than PCM wallboard II, but in April, August, November, and December,
the heat ratio of PCM wallboard IV is larger than PCM wallboard II. For
example, the heat ratio of wallboard II is 0.01 lower than wallboard IV
in April, and 0.03 higher in June. Therefore, if the indoor air tem-
perature is in the phase change range, in June, July, September, and
October, the PCM wallboard with a smaller phase change range has
better thermal performance, while in April, August, November, and
December, the PCM wallboard with a larger phase change range has
better thermal performance. In September and October, the heat ratio
of PCM wallboard II and PCM wallboard IV is smaller than the heat
ratio of other PCM wallboards, meaning that the PCM wallboard with
the phase change range that covers the indoor air temperature has
better thermal performance. Thus, the effect of improving the thermal
performance of the PCM wallboard can be seen only in some months,
not all months. Maybe in other months, the effect is adverse.
The thermal performance of PCM wallboards in different seasons is
presented in Table 3. The sign “√” means the thermal performance is
good, and the sign “×” means the thermal performance is not good. In
Table 3, the PCM wallboard has good thermal performance only in
some seasons, not all seasons. For PCM wallboard I, thermal perfor-
mance in all seasons is average. For PCM wallboard II and PCM wall-
board IV, the thermal performance in Summer and Autumn is good,
while the thermal performance in Spring is not good. For PCM wall-
board III, the thermal performance in Summer is good, and the thermal
performance in other seasons is normal. For PCM wallboard V, the
thermal performance in Winter is good.
J. Xie et al. Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540

Table 3 follows:
Thermal performance of the five PCM wallboards in different seasons. (The sign “√”
means the thermal performance is good, and the sign “×” means the thermal perfor- 1
Kp = δg
mance is not good.) 1 δi δb 1
h out
+ λi
+ λb
+ RTC
+ hin (16)
I II III IV V
Using Eqs. (16), (11), and (14), RTC can be calculated using Eq.
Spring × × (17):
Summer √ √ √
1
Autumn √ √ RTC =
Winter √ 1
n ((
1
δg
1
h out
+
1
hin
+
δi
λi
+
δb
λb ) +
1
λg )− (
1
δg
1
h out
+
1
hin
+
δi
λi
+
δb
λb )
(17)
3.3. Heat transfer performance analysis
A and B are defined as:

In some cases, even if the PCM wall has good thermal performance 1⎛ 1 1 δ δ 1
A= ⎜ + + i + b⎞ + ⎟

to store solar energy or to resist the heat gain, it may not satisfy the δg ⎝ hout h in λi λb ⎠ λg (18)
design standard for energy efficiency of buildings considering the heat
transfer performance. Therefore, a method of evaluating the heat 1⎛ 1 1 δ δ
B=− ⎜ + + i + b⎞ ⎟

transfer performance of PCM walls needs to be determined. δg ⎝ h out h in λi λb ⎠ (19)

In the design standard for energy efficiency of buildings, the upper
limit of heat transfer coefficient Kmax for the building envelope is given Therefore, the RTC can be calculated using Eq. (20):
and used to evaluate the heat transfer performance. For the walls with 1
RTC = A
the gypsum wallboard, its heat transfer coefficient Kg is: +B
n (20)
1
Kg = δg It can be seen that A and B are constant if the construction of the
1 δi δb 1
+ + + + wall is invariable. Therefore, the difference in the RTC among different
h out λi λb λg hin (11)
PCM wallboards depends on the difference in the heat ratio among
where δi and λi are respectively the thickness and the thermal con- different PCM wallboards. Obviously, RTC can reflect the effect of the
ductivity of the insulation layer, δb and λb are the thickness and the phase change, and it is related to the latent heat, the thermal con-
thermal conductivity of the brick layer, δg and λg are the thickness and ductivity and the thermal capacity of the PCM wallboard. Higher RTC
the thermal conductivity of the gypsum wallboard, respectively. means weaker heat transfer capacity of the PCM wallboard, so the
To satisfy the design standard, the heat transfer coefficient of the convective heat is more, meaning that the heat ratio is higher.
wall should satisfy Eq. (12):
K g ⩽ Kmax (12) 3.4. Thermal performance analysis in different areas

The assumption of the method to evaluate the heat transfer per- The thermal performance of PCM wallboard I used in different areas
formance of the wall is considering the heat transfer process in a long of China can be obtained in Figs. 8 and 9. Heat ratio of the PCM
period as a steady state heat transfer process. If the heat transfer wallboard is shown in Fig. 8, and the relative thermal conductivity of
coefficient of the PCM wall is Kp, and the heat transfer process in a long the PCM wallboard is shown in Fig. 9. The variation tendencies of the
period is a steady state process, Eq. (13) can be derived: line in Figs. 8 and 9 are similar, so RTC is used to analyze the thermal
Qp Kp performance.
= If the PCM wallboard has no phase change, RTC changes a little in a
Qg Kg (13)
year. However, in Fig. 9, for all areas, RTC of the PCM wallboard has a
The heat transfer coefficient of the PCM wall Kp can be calculated significant change in certain months. For the PCM wallboard in Beijing,
using Eq. (14): RTC becomes lower in June and September obviously compared with
Qp the value in other months, meaning that in the two months, the phase
Kp = K g = nK g
Qg (14)

To satisfy the design standard, the heat transfer coefficient of the

PCM wall should satisfy Eq. (15):
Kp ⩽ Kmax (15)

The thermal performance of the PCM wall in different months

various a lot, so Kp values for 12 months should be calculated and all of
them should satisfy Eq. (15). Kmax in the design standard for energy
efficiency of buildings in Beijing is 0.5 W/(m2·K). After calculating Kp of
five PCM walls in twelve months, all the PCM walls do not meet the
design standard. However, if the thickness of the insulation layer is
increased to 4.5 cm, the design standard can be met.
For the walls with the PCM wallboard, its heat transfer coefficient
should not be calculate only considering the convective heat transfer
coefficient for the wall surface and the thermal conductivity of the wall
layer, just like Eq. (11), because the phase change in the PCM wallboard
can affect the heat transfer process and the influence of the latent heat
should be considered. To evaluate the influence of the phase change in
the heat transfer process in a long period, relative thermal conductivity
Fig. 8. Monthly variation of the heat ratio of PCM wallboard I in the five cities of China.
(RTC) of the PCM wallboard is defined, and Kp can be expressed as

538
J. Xie et al.
Fig. 9. Monthly variation of RTC of PCM wallboard I in the five cities of China.
Table 4
Thermal performance of PCM wallboard I in different seasons. (The sign “√” means the
thermal performance is good, and the sign “×” means the thermal performance is not
good.)
Beijing Harbin Shanghai Guangzhou Haikou
Spring √ √
Summer √ √
Autumn
Winter
change has a significant effect and the heat transfer capacity becomes
high. For the PCM wallboard in Harbin, RTC reduces in July and Au-
gust. For the PCM wallboard in Shanghai, RTC becomes low in June,
July, and September. For the PCM wallboard in Guangzhou, RTC re-
duces in May, and for the PCM wallboard in Haikou, RTC decreases in
April. Therefore, significant changes in the heat transfer capacity and
thermal performance of the PCM wallboard in different areas appear in
different months. The thermal performance of PCM wallboard I in dif-
ferent seasons is presented in Table 4. In Beijing, the PCM wallboard
has normal thermal performance in all seasons. In Harbin and
Shanghai, the PCM wallboard has good thermal performance in
summer. In Guangzhou and Haikou, the PCM wallboard has good
thermal performance in spring.
4. Conclusions
To utilize the PCM more efficiently in practical engineering, five
PCM wallboards used in the exterior wall of an air-conditioned room in
Beijing were studied using numerical simulation, and four new aspects
of thermal performance analysis of PCM wallboards were presented.
The convective heat transferred from the wall to the indoor air, the heat
ratio and relative thermal conductivity were calculated and defined for
the thermal performance analysis. The PCM wallboard with less con-
vective heat, low relative thermal conductivity, or low heat ratio was
considered as the wallboard with good thermal performance.
(1) The convective heat of wallboard I is 103 kJ more than wallboard II
in June, while it is 72 kJ less in December. Hence, the PCM wall-
board with good thermal performance in some seasons may show
average thermal performance in other seasons, and the thermal
performance analysis during an entire year is necessary.
(2) The effect of phase change on the thermal performance during a
whole year is analyzed using the heat ratio. In March and May, the
heat ratio of the five PCM wallboards is very close, meaning that the
phase change has little effect, and the thermal performance of the
539
Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540
PCM wallboard cannot be improved considerably by changing the
latent heat and phase change temperature in the two months. In
June and September, the maximum of the heat ratio is 0.08 higher
than the minimum, meaning that the phase change has a significant
effect and the thermal performance of the PCM wallboard can be
improved considerably by changing the latent heat and phase
change temperature.
(3) The thermal performance of the PCM wallboards during an entire
year is analyzed. The effect of improving the thermal performance
of the PCM wallboard can be seen only in some months, not all
months. Maybe in other months, the effect is adverse. For example,
the heat ratio of wallboard II is 0.01 lower than wallboard IV in
April, while it is 0.03 higher in June. Hence, in June, the PCM
wallboard with a smaller phase change range has better thermal
performance, while in April, the PCM wallboard with larger phase
change range has better thermal performance.
(4) The heat transfer coefficient of the PCM wall is defined to evaluate
its heat transfer performance. After calculating the heat transfer
coefficient of five PCM walls in twelve months, all the PCM walls do
not meet the design standard for energy efficiency of buildings.
After increasing the thickness of the insulation layer to 4.5 cm, the
design standard can be satisfied.
(5) RTC is defined to evaluate the heat transfer performance of the PCM
wallboard. It is used to analyze the thermal performance of the PCM
wallboard used in different areas of China. For all areas, RTC has a
considerable change in certain months meaning that in these
months, the phase change significantly affects the heat transfer
capacity. For the PCM wallboard in Beijing, RTC decreases in June
and September dramatically. In Harbin, RTC decreases in July and
August. In Shanghai, RTC decreases in June, July, and September.
In Guangzhou, RTC reduces in May, and in Haikou, RTC decreases
in April. Hence, the months in which the phase change considerably
affects the heat transfer capacity or energy consumption in different
areas are different.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was supported by National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Major Program), No. 51590912, National
Natural Science Foundation of China (General Program), No.
51578013.
References
Akeiber, H., Nejat, P., Majid, M.Z.A., Wahid, M.A., Jomehzadeh, F., Zeynali Famileh, I.,
Calautit, J.K., Hughes, B.R., Zaki, S.A., 2016. A review on phase change material
(PCM) for sustainable passive cooling in building envelopes. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 60, 1470–1497.
AL-Saadi, S.N., Zhai, Z.J., 2013. Modeling phase change materials embedded in building
enclosure: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 659–673.
Álvarez, S., Cabeza, L.F., Ruiz-Pardo, A., Castell, A., Tenorio, J.A., 2013. Building in-
tegration of PCM for natural cooling of buildings. Appl. Energy 109, 514–522.
Barzin, R., Chen, J.J.J., Young, B.R., Farid, M.M., 2015a. Application of PCM underfloor
heating in combination with PCM wallboards for space heating using price based
control system. Appl. Energy 148, 39–48.
Barzin, R., Chen, J.J.J., Young, B.R., Farid, M.M., 2015b. Application of PCM energy
storage in combination with night ventilation for space cooling. Appl. Energy 158,
412–421.
Bullich-Massagué, E., Aragüés-Peñalba, M., Sumper, A., Boix-Aragones, O., 2017. Active
power control in a hybrid PV-storage power plant for frequency support. Sol. Energy
144, 49–62.
Castell, A., Farid, M.M., 2014. Experimental validation of a methodology to assess PCM
effectiveness in cooling building envelopes passively. Energy Build. 81, 59–71.
Cheng, R., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., 2014. Energy-efficient building envelopes with phase
change materials: new understanding and related research. Heat Transfer Eng. 35,
970–984.
Das, N., Wongsodihardjo, H., Islam, S., 2015. Modeling of multi-junction photovoltaic cell
using MATLAB/Simulink to improve the conversion efficiency. Renew. Energy 74,
917–924.
Duomarco, J.L., 2015. Figure of merit for solar domestic hot water systems. Sol. Energy
111, 151–156.
Dutil, Y., Rousse, D.R., Salah, N.B., Lassue, S., Zalewski, L., 2011. A review on phase-
J. Xie et al.
change materials: mathematical modeling and simulations. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 15, 112–130.
Dutil, Y., Rousse, D., Lassue, S., Zalewski, L., Joulin, A., Virgone, J., Kuznik, F., Johannes,
K., Dumas, J., Bédécarrats, J., Castell, A., Cabeza, L.F., 2014. Modeling phase change
materials behavior in building applications: comments on material characterization
and model validation. Renew. Energy 61, 132–135.
Edgar, R., Cochard, S., Stachurski, Z., 2017. A computational fluid dynamic study of PV
cell temperatures in novel platform and standard arrangements. Sol. Energy 144,
203–214.
Gill, L., Mac Mahon, J., Ryan, K., 2016. The performance of an evacuated tube solar hot
water system in a domestic house throughout a year in a northern maritime climate
(Dublin). Sol. Energy 137, 261–272.
Kalnæs, S.E., Jelle, B.P., 2015. Phase change materials and products for building appli-
cations: a state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities. Energy Build. 94,
150–176.
Kenisarin, M., Mahkamov, K., 2016. Passive thermal control in residential buildings using
phase change materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 371–398.
Khadiran, T., Hussein, M.Z., Zainal, Z., Rusli, R., 2016. Advanced energy storage mate-
rials for building applications and their thermal performance characterization: a re-
view. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57, 916–928.
Konuklu, Y., Ostry, M., Paksoy, H.O., Charvat, P., 2015. Review on using micro-
encapsulated phase change materials (PCM) in building applications. Energy Build.
106, 134–155.
Kuznik, F., Virgone, J., Roux, J., 2008. Energetic efficiency of room wall containing PCM
wallboard: a full-scale experimental investigation. Energy Build. 40, 148–156.
Lee, K.O., Medina, M.A., Raith, E., Sun, X., 2015. Assessing the integration of a thin phase
change material (PCM) layer in a residential building wall for heat transfer reduction
and management. Appl. Energy 137, 699–706.
Li, S., Liao, H., Yuan, H., Ai, Q., Chen, K., 2017. A MPPT strategy with variable weather
parameters through analyzing the effect of the DC/DC converter to the MPP of PV
system. Sol. Energy 144, 175–184.
Ma, Z., Lin, W., Sohel, M.I., 2016. Nano-enhanced phase change materials for improved
building performance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, 256–1268.
Mavrigiannaki, A., Ampatzi, E., 2016. Latent heat storage in building elements: a sys-
tematic review on properties and contextual performance factors. Renew. Sustain.
540
Solar Energy 162 (2018) 533–540
Energy Rev. 60, 852–866.
Memon, S.A., 2014. Phase change materials integrated in building walls: a state of the art
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 870–906.
Mi, X., Liu, R., Cui, H., Memon, S.A., Xing, F., Lo, Y., 2016. Energy and economic analysis
of building integrated with PCM in different cities of China. Appl. Energy 175,
324–336.
Mirzaei, P.A., Haghighat, F., 2012. Modeling of phase change materials for applications in
whole building simulation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 5355–5362.
Navarro, L., de Gracia, A., Colclough, S., Browne, M., McCormack, S.J., Griffiths, P.,
Cabeza, L.F., 2016a. Thermal energy storage in building integrated thermal systems:
a review. Part 1. active storage systems. Renew. Energy 88, 526–547.
Navarro, L., de Gracia, A., Colclough, S., Browne, M., McCormack, S.J., Griffiths, P.,
Cabeza, L.F., 2016b. Thermal energy storage in building integrated thermal systems:
a review. Part 2. Integration as passive system. Renew. Energy 85, 1334–1356.
Nikoofard, S., Ismet Ugursal, V., Beausoleil-Morrison, I., 2014. An investigation of the
technoeconomic feasibility of solar domestic hot water heating for the Canadian
housing stock. Sol. Energy 101, 308–320.
Pomianowski, M., Heiselberg, P., Zhang, Y., 2013. Review of thermal energy storage
technologies based on PCM application in buildings. Energy Build. 67, 56–69.
Vakili, M., Hosseinalipour, S.M., Delfani, S., Khosrojerdi, S., Karami, M., 2016.
Experimental investigation of graphene nanoplatelets nanofluid-based volumetric
solar collector for domestic hot water systems. Sol. Energy 131, 119–130.
Xie, J., Wang, W., Liu, J., Pan, S., 2016. Thermal performance analysis of PCM compo-
nents heat storage using mechanical ventilation: experimental results. Energy Build.
123, 169–178.
Yahay, N.A., Ahmad, H., 2011. Numerical investigation of indoor air temperature with
the application of PCM gypsum board as ceiling panels in buildings. Procedia Eng. 20,
238–248.
Yuan, Y., Zhang, N., Tao, W., Cao, X., He, Y., 2014. Fatty acids as phase change materials:
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 482–498.
Zhang, Y., Lin, K., Jiang, Y., 2008. Thermal storage and nonlinear heat-transfer char-
acteristics of PCM wallboard. Energy Build. 40, 1771–1779.
Zhou, G., Zhang, Y., Lin, K., 2008. Thermal analysis of a direct-gain room with shape-
stabilized PCM plates. Renew. Energy 33, 1228–1236.