Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Experimental study of breathable and heterogeneous phase change material

(B&H-PCM) wall for all-season thermal performance enhancement
Man Fan a, Guanyuan Feng a, Leilei Wang b, Xiangfei Kong a, *, Han Li a
a
School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin, 300401, China
b
Tianjin Building Science Energy Efficiency Co. Ltd, China

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

Keywords: Physical parameters of existing building walls are relatively stable, making it difficult to meet the thermal re­
All-season thermal performance quirements under different seasons. In this study, phase change materials (PCMs) with different thermal con­
Comparative experiment ductivities and melting points were adopted to form a breathable heterogeneous phase change material (B&H-
Heterogeneous phase change material wall
PCM) wall to achieve the year-round heating and cooling load reduction. The effects of operation parameters on
Parametric analysis
B&H-PCM and ventilated block (VB) wall were experimentally analyzed. As the hot air inlet temperature rose
from 30 to 80 ◦ C in winter, the heat storage capacity and liquefaction ratio continuously increased. The PCM heat
storage rate was maximized at 50 ◦ C with 26.7 %, and the liquefaction ratio of internal PCM was 100 % at 60 ◦ C.
As the air inlet velocity went up in winter/summer, the heat storage/dissipation capacity increased and the heat
storage/dissipation rate changed oppositely. The maximum heat storage rate was 36 % at 0.5 m/s in winter, and
the maximum heat dissipation rate was 58.7 % at 3 m/s in summer. The external/internal heat capacity and
thermal resistance of B&H-PCM wall were 5.9/7.2 and 1.1/0.8 times of VB wall respectively, indicating that
B&H-PCM wall had a better heat storage and resistance capacity both in winter and summer.

1. Introduction
The construction industry is the largest energy consuming sector,
accounting for 40 % of global energy consumption and contributing to
1/3 of global greenhouse gas emissions [1]. The thermal performance of
building envelopes directly affects the heating and cooling loads [2],
making the development of energy-saving technologies for building
envelopes crucial.
Specifically, walls play a significant role in building envelopes, as
they are responsible for the main heat exchange between indoor and
outdoor environments, accounting for approximately 25 % of the
buildings’ energy consumption [3]. Phase change materials (PCMs)
possess high heat storage density and near-isothermal exotherm char­
acteristics [4], wherefore integrating them into building walls can in­
crease the heat storage capacity [5,6], smooth out the fluctuations in
heating and cooling load [7] and maintain a suitable indoor temperature
[8]. At the same time, the combination of PCMs with walls can serve as
the integrated heat storage and supply component, which can be com­
bined with solar energy [9,10] or low-temperature industrial waste heat
[11], to alleviate the mismatch between heat supply and demand.
Previous studies have proven that buildings with PCM walls can
reduce the energy consumption and improve the indoor thermal envi­
ronment in different seasons [12–14]. In summer, PCM walls can
effectively block outside heat. Rathore and Shukla [15]
macro-encapsulated PCM using aluminum pipes and integrated them
into the building envelope, demonstrating a 40.6 %–59.79 % reduction
in heat flow through the wall, a 7.19 %–9.18 % reduction in peak
temperature, a maximum time delay of 2 h and a 38.76 % reduction in
cooling load. Tian et al. [16] tested the heat transfer characteristics of
PCM walls under simulated outdoor conditions in summer. Compared
with traditional brick wall, the maximum inner surface temperature of
outer PCM wall was reduced by 0.2 ◦ C, the surface heat flux density was
reduced by 19.6 %, and the insulation time was extended by 1.3 h. In
winter, PCM walls can be used to prevent the heat loss to the outside.
Devaux et al. [17] revealed that adding PCMs to walls and ceilings could
improve the indoor comfort in buildings, saving 42 % in costs and 32 %
in energy. Lu et al. [18] proposed a novel heating system integrating
solar air heaters and ventilated PCM walls. The thermal storage and
release efficiency of the system were in the range of 76.3 %–87.6 % and
75.2 %–83.2 % respectively, and the indoor temperature of experi­
mental room was about 6.3–10 ◦ C higher than that of control room.
While due to the obvious difference in indoor/outdoor temperatures
during winter and summer, a single kind of PCM only works at a specific

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xfkong@hebut.edu.cn (X. Kong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.130461
Received 17 September 2023; Received in revised form 11 December 2023; Accepted 22 January 2024
Available online 23 January 2024
0360-5442/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Nomenclature int Internal surface

l Liquid phase
a Length of ventilation hole (m) lat Latent heat
cp Specific heat capacity at constant pressure (kJ/(kg⋅K)) m,low Initial melting
C Heat capacity (kJ/m2⋅K) m,high Final melting
d Equivalent diameter (m) r Radiant heat transfer
f Friction coefficient of flow in ventilation hole (− ) rel Heat release
h Heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2⋅K)) s Solid phase
I Solar irradiance intensity (W/m2) sto Heat storage
IA Aggregate discomfort degree (h)
k Absolute roughness (mm) Greek symbols
L Latent heat of phase change (kJ/kg) δ Thickness of wall layer (m)
m Mass flow rate (kg/s) ζ Decay factor
M Total mass (kg) λ Coefficient of thermal conductivity (W/m⋅K))
Pr Prandtl number ρ Density (kg/m3)
q Heat flow density (W/m2) τ Time (s)
Q Cumulative heat exchange capacity (kJ) φ Delay time (h)
R Thermal resistance (m2⋅K/W) η Heat storage/release rate (%)
S Surface area of wall (m2) Abbreviations
St Stanton number B&H Breathable and heterogeneous
T Temperature (◦ C) EG Expanded graphite
v Air flow rate (m/s) PCM Phase change material
Subscripts PS Porous silica
amb Ambient PW Paraffin wax
ext External surface VB Ventilated block

temperature, making it difficult to achieve year-round energy savings. of different air inlet temperatures and velocities on PCM liquefaction
Consequently, double-layer PCM walls provide a promising solution. ratios, internal and external surface temperatures and heat storage/
Zhang et al. [19] proposed a reversible multiple-glazing roof filled with release amount of the wall were investigated, and compared with those
two kinds of PCMs and found that the energy saving rate could reach of the ventilated block (VB) wall to demonstrate its superiority in the all-
14.08 % in summer and 33.74 % in winter. Zhu et al. [20] studied the season thermal performance.
energy performance of a wall containing two 30 mm PCM layers, of
which energy efficiency increased by 6.4 % in summer and 17.8 % in 2. Materials preparation and characterization
winter.
Despite the benefits of double-layer PCM wall in increasing the 2.1. Selection of raw materials
thermal capacity and thermal inertia, and extending the transmission
time of heat fluctuations, it still suffers from challenges in heat regula­ Paraffin wax (PW) is safe, non-toxic and stable. The PW-based
tions [21,22]. For example, PCM walls struggle with heat release to the composite phase change materials (CPCMs) exhibit excellent thermal
outdoor environment at night in summer, while experience significant storage capacity and can be used in buildings [28,29]. According to
heat loss to the outdoor environment in winter. Fortunately, ventilation Jiang et al. [30], the optimum phase change temperature of inner layer
can dynamically adjust the heat storage and release performance of was about 1.1–3.3 ◦ C higher than the lower limit of thermal comfort
walls [23], further affecting the indoor environment and reducing the temperature range required in room (20 ◦ C). Besides, Yu et al. [31]
cooling and heating load [24,25]. Mechouet et al. [26] tested the effects showed that the optimal phase change temperature of outer layer fluc­
of combining mechanical ventilation with PCM facades. In summer, this tuated within the range of ±1 ◦ C of the summer outdoor air conditioning
structure reduced the room temperature and cooling energy consump­ calculation dry bulb temperature (33.9 ◦ C in Tianjin). Consequently, PW
tion by 1.9–2.3 ◦ C and 19.5 %–62.9 %, respectively. In winter, PCM with phase change points of 22.48 ◦ C and 34.20 ◦ C are chosen in this
facades could be used for heating in combination with solar collectors. study, and the specific parameters are shown in Table 1.
Navarro et al. [27] proposed a system for integrating PCM into floor
panels. The heat from solar air collectors was stored in PCMs during the
daytime, and released to the indoor space at night, which could save 21
Table 1
% of heating energy in winter.
Specific parameters of raw PW.
In summary, previous studies have demonstrated that the addition of
PCMs changed the thermal inertia and increased the thermal capacity of Paraffin Phase Latent Specific Thermal Density
type change heat heat conductivity (kg/m3)
walls. Combining PCMs with ventilations further increased the thermal point (◦ C) (kJ/kg) capacity (W/(m⋅K))
mass of walls and enhanced the controllability of phase transition pro­ (kJ/(kg⋅K))
cesses. However, the operating mechanism and strategies of ventilated
PW-22 22.48 181.01 Solid: 1.55 Solid: 0.20 Solid:
double-layer PCM wall were not clear yet, and its thermal performance Liquid: 2.19 Liquid: 0.14 897.23
in different seasons needed to be further investigated and synthetically Liquid:
considered. Hence in this study, a breathable heterogeneous phase 786.49
change material (B&H-PCM) wall was proposed, which was consisted of PW-32 34.20 199.36 Solid: 1.54 Solid: 0.26 Solid:
Liquid: 2.18 Liquid: 0.18 983.55
two kinds of PCMs with different phase transition points and thermal Liquid:
conductivities, making the wall suitable for year-round use. The effects 825.36

2
M. Fan et al.
2.2. CPCM preparations
Using expanded graphite (EG) adsorbed PW-22 to prepare the
composite PW/EG with high thermal conductivity, and using porous
silica (PS) adsorbed PW-32 to prepare the composite PW/PS with low
thermal conductivity. The preparation process is shown in Fig. 1. For the
preparation process of PW/EG, the flask is firstly placed in a thermo­
static heater, EG is then placed in the flask and a proportion of liquid PW
is slowly poured in. Subsequently, the flask is evacuated (0.5 MPa) and
held for 1 h. After 2 h, the adsorption process is completed. After cooling
to room temperature, the composite PW/EG is made. PW/PS is prepared
in the same way as PW/EG.
Referring to the adsorption of PCM by EG in Refs. [32,33], the
permeation rate of PW:EG is tested in the mass ratio range of
3.0:1~8.0:1. When the PW:EG mass ratio is lower than 6.0:1, the
permeation ring percentage is less than 15 % [13]. Further refinement of
the ratio yields no leakage at a PW:EG mass ratio of 5.4:1. Therefore, the
optimum mass ratio of PW:EG is determined to be 5.4:1, as shown in
Fig. 2(a). Referring to the previous research on PW/PS by the authors
[13], the permeability of PW:PS is tested in the mass ratio range of
2.0:1~3.0:1. There is no leakage observed when the PW:PS mass ratio is
2.2:1. Therefore, the optimum mass ratio of PW:PS is determined to be
2.2:1, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
2.3. CPCM characterizations
The latent heat and phase change temperature of PW/EG and PW/PS
samples are measured using differential scanning calorimeter (TA DSC
25, accuracy: ±0.1 %) at a rate of 2 ◦ C/min over a temperature range of
0~50 ◦ C and 0–60 ◦ C, respectively. The test results are shown in Fig. 3.
The thermal properties of PW/EG, PW/PS and other wall materials are
tested and summarized in Table 2.
3. Experimental description
3.1. Structures of B&H-PCM and VB walls
To construct B&H-PCM wall, PW/EG and PW/PS materials are firstly
pressed into PCM units of 49 mm × 33 mm × 28 mm (Length × Width ×
Height) using the fixed molding method. Then PW/EG and PW/PS units
are filled into the inner and outer holes of porous bricks respectively, as
shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The dimension of porous blocks is 240 mm × 110
mm × 50 mm (Length × Width × Height). The porous brick size for VB
wall is the same as that for B&H-PCM wall, except that the diameter of
circular ventilation hole is 40 mm. Besides, both walls are built by two
rows of blocks, and the wall dimensions are 1240 mm × 240 mm × 1000
mm (Length × Width × Height).
Fig. 1. Preparation process of PW/EG and PW/PS composite.
3
Energy 291 (2024) 130461
3.2. Measurement points and instruments
The schematic of operating principle and measurement points layout
for B&H-PCM and VB wall are shown in Fig. 6. In winter, the hot air
firstly enters the outer vent from the bottom, then sequentially flows
over the inner PW/EG layer and outer PW/PS layer to store heat, and
finally exits the other outer vent from the bottom. In summer, cool air
enters the outer vents from the bottom, then synchronously flows over
the inner PW/EG layer and outer PW/PS layer, and finally flows out
vents from the top to remove heat from the wall.
For the B&H-PCM wall, there are six layers of temperature mea­
surement points arranged from the external to internal side, i.e. located
on external surface, in PW/EG units, in external ventilation layer, in
internal ventilation layer, in PW/PS units and on internal surface. For VB
wall, there are four layers of temperature measurement points arranged
from the external to internal side, i.e. on external surface, in external
ventilation layer, in internal ventilation layer and on internal surface.
The vertical distance between the first measurement point and the
ground is 180 mm, and that between the remaining adjacent measure­
ment points is 240 mm. There are two heat flow density measurement
points arranged on the inner and outer surfaces of the two types of walls.
Besides, the temperature and air velocity at the inlet and outlet of each
wall, and the outdoor environmental parameters (including outdoor
temperature, solar irradiance intensity and outdoor wind speed) are
synchronously monitored. All data is recorded at a time interval of 10 s.
The specific parameters of main experimental instruments are shown in
Table 3.
3.3. Experimental systems and conditions
The schematic and photograph of experimental system are shown in
Fig. 7. Polystyrene panels with a thickness of 50 mm are attached to the
inside of walls to minimize the effect of outdoor environment on inner
surface measurement results. An industrial heater is used to provide
heat, which can control the air inlet temperature up to 300 ◦ C and the air
flow rate up to 310 m3/h. The hot/cool air enters two duct branches via
a tee, flows through two bellows and then enters the vents of walls. By
referring to the working medium temperature from solar air collectors
and industrial waste heat [11,34], the hot air temperature range is set to
30–80 ◦ C and the air velocity range is set to 0.5–1.5 m/s in winter. The
cool air temperature is set the same as outdoor air temperature and the
air velocity range is set to 1.0–3.0 m/s in summer. The specific param­
eters are shown in Table 4.
4. Thermal performance evaluation method
4.1. Heat transfer process analysis
Before analyzing the heat transfer process of walls, the assumptions
are made as follows [35].
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Fig. 2. Leakage testing of PW/EG and PW/PS composite.

Fig. 3. DSC curves of PW/EG and PW/PS composite.

Table 2
Thermal properties of wall materials.
Materials Phase transition temperature (◦ C) Latent heat (kJ/kg) Specific heat capacity (kJ/(kg⋅K)) Thermal conductivity (W/(m⋅K)) Density (kg/m3)

PW/EG Melting: Melting: Solid: Solid: 955

22.9–29.8 157.8 1.36 2.18
Solidification: Solidification: Liquid: Liquid:
14.7–21.2 156.5 1.80 2.36
PW/PS Melting: Melting: Solid: Solid: 1061
26.3–34.5 131.9 1.24 0.50
Solidification: Solidification: Liquid: Liquid:
24.9–29.2 130.8 1.66 0.56
Clay porous brick – – 1.05 0.58 1400
Cement mortar – – 1.05 0.93 1800

(i) The temperature distributions of different layers are uniform.
(ii) The thickness of cement mortar layer is relatively thin, and
thereby its heat storage capacity is calculated based on the brick
layer.
(iii) The heat dissipated through sides of the wall is neglected.
(iv) The radiative heat transfer coefficient in the ventilation hole is a
constant value of 5.43 W/m2⋅ K [40].
The heat transfer process of B&H-PCM wall is shown in Fig. 8,
including convection heat transfer through external and internal sur­
faces, convection heat transfer inside ventilation holes and conduction
heat transfer in PCMs and bricks. The heat balance equation is expressed
in Eq. (1).
Qair + Qext + Qint = Qbrick + QPCM (1)

4
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Fig. 4. Preparation process of phase change ventilation blocks.

Fig. 5. Horizontal section of B&H-PCM and VB walls.

The heat exchange amount from ventilation hole to the wall (Qair) is ⎧ ( )
calculated from Eq. (2) [36]. ⎪
⎪ ( PCM cp,s TPCM,end − T
M ) PCM,begin
⎪
⎪ if TPCM,end < Tm,low
∫ τend ⎪
⎪ ( ) ( )
⎪
⎪
⎪ MPCM cp,s Tm,low − TPCM,begin )+ MPCM,s cp,s TPCM,end − Tm,low
Qair = mair cp,air (Tinlet − Toutlet )dτ (2) ⎪
⎨
+M c T
(
− Tm,low + MPCM,l L )
τbegin QPCM = ( PCM,l p,l PCM,end (6)
⎪ if TPCM,begin
⎪
⎪ ( ≤ Tm,low ≤ TPCM,end
) ≤ Tm,high
The heat passing through external surface (Qext) and internal surface ⎪
⎪
⎪ MPCM cp,s T( m,high − TPCM,begin )+ MPCM L
⎪
(Qint) of the wall is calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4) respectively, where a ⎪
⎪
⎪ +M c T
⎩ ( PCM p,l PCM,end
− Tm,high )
positive value denotes heat transmitting into the wall and a negative if TPCM,end > Tm,high &TPCM,begin < Tm,low
value denotes heat transmitting from the wall.
Furthermore, MPCM,s and MPCM,l can be obtained by the liquid frac­
∫ τend
tion fl and MPCM, which are expressed as follows [38]:
Qext = S⋅qext,τ dτ (3)
τbegin ⎧ ( )
⎪
⎪ 0 if TPCM,end < Tm,low
⎪(
⎪ )
∫ τend ⎪
⎨ T
PCM,end − Tm,low ( )
Qint = S⋅qint,τ dτ (4) fl = ( ) if Tm,low ≤ TPCM,end ≤ Tm,high (7)
τbegin ⎪
⎪ T m,high − Tm,low
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ ( )
The heat stored in bricks (Qbrick) is calculated by Eq. (5). 1 if TPCM,end > Tm,high
( )
Qbrick = Mbrick cp,brick Tbrick,end − Tbrick,begin (5) MPCM,s = (1 − fl )MPCM (8)
The heat stored in PCMs (QPCM) can be calculated from Eq. (6) [37].
MPCM,l = fl MPCM (9)

4.2. Thermal resistance and heat capacity analysis

The ability of a wall to resist heat flow and store/release heat can be
expressed in terms of thermal resistance and heat capacity, respectively

5
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Fig. 6. Schematic of operating principle and measurement points layout.

6
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Table 3 The convection heat transfer coefficient (hc) between the air flow and
Specific parameters of main experimental instruments. hole surface can be calculated in Eq. (16)~(19) [46].
Devices Types Ranges (accuracies)
hc = St⋅ρair cair v (16)
Thermocouple T-type − 120~150 ◦ C (±0.1 ◦ C)
Heat Flow Densitometer JZRL-2 − 500~500 W/m2 (±3 %) f
Solar irradiance meter TBQ-2 0~2000 W/m2 (±2 %) St = Pr− 2/3
(17)
8
Anemometer Testo 480 hot-line 0~20 m/s (±0.05 m/s)
anemometer
Temperature and TH20R Temperature: 20~70 ◦ C
humidity sensor (±0.2 ◦ C)
Humidity: 0–100 % rh Table 4
(±2.0 % rh)
Descriptions of experimental working conditions.
Data acquisition 34972A –
instrument Seasons Working Inlet temperatures (◦ C) Inlet velocities (m/s)
conditions

Winter 1 30 1.0
[39]. B&H-PCM wall can be divided into the block layer, PCM layer and 2 40
air layer. VB wall can be divided into the block layer and air layer. Hence 3 50
the thermal resistance and heat capacity of block layer are expressed in 4 60
Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively. The thermal resistance and heat ca­ 5 80
6 40 0.5
pacity of PCM layer vary with the PCM state and are calculated by Eqs. 7 1.0
(12) and (13), respectively. 8 1.5
Summer 9 Outdoor air temperature 1.0
Rbrick = δbrick /λbrick (10) 10 2.0
11 3.0
Cbrick = δbrick ⋅ρbrick ⋅cp,brick (11)

RPCM (T) = δPCM /λPCM (T) (12)

CPCM (T) = δPCM ⋅ρPCM ⋅cp,PCM (T) (13)

where the equivalent thermal conductivity λPCM(T) and equivalent

specific heat capacity cPCM(T) are defined by Eqs. (14) and (15),
respectively.
⎧ ( )
⎪
⎪ λs if T < Tm,low
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ( )
(λl − λs ) T − Tm,low ( )
λPCM (T) = λs + if Tm,low ≤ T ≤ Tm,high (14)
⎪
⎪ Tm,high − Tm,low
⎪
⎪
⎩ λ ( if T > T
⎪ )
l m,high

⎧ ( )
⎪
⎪ cp,s if T < Tm,low
⎪
⎪
⎨c + c L ( )
(15)
p,s p,l
cp,PCM (T) = + if Tm,low ≤ T ≤ Tm,high
⎪
⎪ 2 Tm,high − Tm,low
⎪
⎪ ( )
⎩
cp,l if T > Tm,high Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of heat transfer process for B&H-PCM wall.

Fig. 7. Schematic and photograph of experimental system.

7
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

[ ( )
d
]− 2 study) [44], as shown in Eq. (26). Generally, the lower the aggregate
f = 2 lg + 1.74 (18) discomfort degree, the higher the comfort level of the room.
2k
∫
( )
2aδair IA = τTint − τTcomfort dτ (26)
d= (19)
a + δair 13h

where, k is the absolute roughness and its value is taken as 0.04 mm; a is where Tcomfort denotes the comfort temperature range for the internal
the length of ventilation hole and its value is taken as 0.74 m. surface, and its value is taken as 18–28 ◦ C.
The thermal resistance and heat capacity of the air layer can be
calculated from Eqs. (20) and (21), respectively [41]. 5. Results and discussion
( )
1
hc1
+ h1c2 ⋅h1r 5.1. Operating parameters analysis of B&H-PCM wall
Rair = ( ) (20)
1
hc1
+ h1c2 + h1r 5.1.1. Similarities of weather conditions
To investigate the effect of hot air inlet temperatures on the thermal
performance of B&H-PCM wall, five sets of experiments in Mar. 2023
Cair = δair ⋅ρair ⋅cp,air (21)
with similar weather conditions are selected. The air inlet velocity is
As a result, through summing the thermal resistance and heat ca­ kept constant at 1 m/s and the air inlet temperature increased from
pacity of each wall layer, the total thermal resistance and heat capacity 30 ◦ C to 80 ◦ C. The ambient temperature (Tamb) and solar irradiance
of B&H-PCM and VB wall can be obtained and analyzed in the following intensity (I) are shown in Fig. 9.
sections. To ensure the similarities of different weather conditions, the coef­
ficient of variation (σ) is used to evaluate the dispersion degree of
environmental parameters, and the specific values are shown in Table 5.
4.3. Thermal performance indicators
Where, 0<σ ≤5 % corresponds to a weak level of variability, 5<σ≤10 %
corresponds to a medium level of variability and σ>10 % corresponds to
The thermal performance of walls has a direct impact on the indoor
a high level of variability [45]. For ambient temperature, solar irradi­
thermal environment and thus on the energy consumption for heating
ance intensity and wind speed, the average values are 7.9 ◦ C, 253.0
and cooling in buildings. Hence in this section, the thermal performance
W/m2 and 0.94 m/s, and the coefficients of variation are 1.2 %, 4.6 %
of walls is evaluated in terms of heat storage capacity and thermal
and 5.1 %, respectively. This demonstrates that the weather conditions
inertia of the wall, and thermal comfort of the room.
over the five days are highly consistent and can be adopted in the
following analysis on the effects of different air inlet temperatures.
4.3.1. Heat storage/release rate
To investigate the effect of air inlet velocities on the heat transfer
The heat storage rate of PCM (ηPCM,sto) is defined as the ratio of heat
performance of the wall, experiments are conducted in three days with
storage amount by PCM to the heat transfer amount from air, and the
similar weather conditions, as shown in Fig. 10. In winter, the air inlet
heat dissipation rate of air (ηair) is defined as the ratio of heat dissipated
temperature is set as 40 ◦ C and air inlet velocity rises from 0.5 m/s to 1.5
through ventilation to the heat dissipated by PCM, as shown in Eqs. (22)
m/s. In summer, the air inlet temperature equals to the outdoor air
and (23), respectively.
temperature and air inlet velocity rises from 1.0 m/s to 3.0 m/s.
QPCM,sto In winter, the coefficient of variation for solar irradiance intensity is
ηPCM,sto = × 100% (22)
Qair the maximum, with the value of 6.4 %. In summer, the coefficient of
variation for ambient wind speed is the maximum, with the value of 4.6
ηair =
Qair
× 100% (23) %. As shown in Table 6, the coefficient of variation for all variables is
QPCM,rel less than 10 %, demonstrating that the weather conditions for winter
and summer experiments are consistent and can be adopted in the
4.3.2. Delay time following analysis on the effects of different air inlet velocities.
The delay time (φ) is defined as the time difference of the maximum
temperature at the internal surface and the maximum outdoor temper­
ature [42], as shown in Eq. (24). Generally, the greater the delay time,
the longer it takes for the outdoor temperature wave to be transmitted to
the internal surface of the wall, and the better the thermal inertia of the
wall.
φ = τTint,max − τText,max (24)

4.3.3. Decay factor

The decay factor (ζ) is defined as the ratio of internal surface tem­
perature amplitude to the external one [43], as shown in Eq. (25).
Generally, the smaller the decay factor, the less the wall is affected by
outdoor temperature fluctuations, and the better the insulation of the
wall.
Tint,max − Tint,min
ζ= (25)
Text,max − Text,min

4.3.4. Aggregate discomfort degree

The aggregate discomfort degree (IA) is defined as the cumulative
hours when the internal surface temperature is out of the comfort
temperature range during the whole experimental period (13 h in this Fig. 9. Ambient parameters under different air inlet temperatures.

8
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Table 5 heat storage rate as the air inlet temperature increases. When the air
Similarities results of weather conditions under different air inlet temperatures. temperature increases from 30 ◦ C to 80 ◦ C, the heat transfer amount
Air inlet Average ambient Average solar Average from hot air increases from 6468.7 kJ to 22547.9 kJ. However, the PCM
temperature temperature (◦ C) irradiance intensity ambient wind heat storage rate firstly increases and then decreases, and the maximum
(◦ C) (W/m2) speed (m/s) PCM heat storage rate is 26.7 % at 50 ◦ C. This is due to that PCM cannot
30.2 7.9 232.7 0.95 be completely melted at a lower air inlet temperature, while more heat is
40.3 8.0 261.8 1.00 wasted at a higher air inlet temperature.
50.1 8.0 261.7 0.88
60.4 8.1 247.2 0.98
80.2 7.8 261.5 0.89
5.1.3. Effect of air inlet velocities
Average values 7.9 253.0 0.94 Under different air inlet velocities, the internal and external surface
Coefficient of 1.2 % 4.6 % 5.1 % temperatures in winter are shown in Fig. 15 (a)~(b) and those in sum­
variation mer are shown in Fig. 15 (c)~(d). The external surface temperature is
mainly influenced by the outdoor environment and the similarities of
weather conditions have been verified in Section 5.1.1, wherefore there
5.1.2. Effect of air inlet temperatures
is less difference in the external surface temperature in different con­
Under different air inlet temperatures, the trend of external and in­
ditions. In winter, more heat is stored in the PW/PS layer under high air
ternal surface temperature over time is shown in Fig. 11 (a) and (b),
velocities. As the air velocity rises from 0.5 m/s to 1.5 m/s, the tem­
respectively. As the air inlet temperature rises from 30 ◦ C to 80 ◦ C, the
perature of external surface goes up by 4.9 ◦ C at the end of the test, and
heat amount transferred from the hot air to the wall increases, and the
the internal surface temperature rise rate increases from 1.5 ◦ C/h to
peak temperature of external surface rises from 26.6 ◦ C to 36.6 ◦ C. The
3.8 ◦ C/h during the heating period. In summer, when the air velocity
heat amount transferred to the internal surface is also enhanced and the
increases from 1.0 m/s to 3.0 m/s, the internal surface temperature drop
peak temperature of internal surface increases from 22.9 ◦ C to 40.3 ◦ C.
rate rises from 0.8 ◦ C/h to 1.0 ◦ C/h.
However, excessively high internal surface temperature may cause the
Fig. 16 (a) and (b) show the temperature of PCM layers at different
energy waste and uncomfortable indoor environment. As the air inlet
air inlet velocities in winter. As the air velocity increases from 0.5 m/s to
temperature rises, the aggregate discomfort degree firstly decreases and
1.5 m/s, the convection heat transfer coefficient increases from 38.3 W/
then increases, resulting in a minimum value range of 1.95–1.97 h at
m2⋅K to 115.0 W/m2⋅K. In the heating period, the temperature rise rate
40–50 ◦ C, and a maximum value of 9.67 h at 80 ◦ C.
of PW/EG rises from 1.7 ◦ C/h to 2.5 ◦ C/h, and that of internal surface
Fig. 12 shows the temperature changes of PW/EG and PW/PS as the
rises from 1.5 ◦ C/h to 3.8 ◦ C/h. In the heat release period, the temper­
air inlet temperature increases. When the air inlet temperature is 30 ◦ C,
ature of internal surface is mainly influenced by the heat release from
the peak temperature of PW/EG is merely 22.3 ◦ C, lower than the
minimum threshold of melting interval (23.0 ◦ C). When the air inlet
temperature rises to 40 ◦ C, PW/EG starts to melt, and the temperature of Table 6
PW/EG appears to be constant for about 25 min during the melting in­ Similarities results of weather conditions under different air inlet velocities.
terval. When the air inlet temperature increases to 60 ◦ C, PW/EG melts Season Air inlet Average ambient Average solar Average
completely and the peak temperature reaches 30.4 ◦ C. After the exo­ velocity (m/ temperature (◦ C) irradiance ambient
s) intensity (W/ wind speed
therm to PW/EG, the air flows through the external ventilation holes and
m2) (m/s)
releases heat to PW/PS. The higher the air inlet temperature, the higher
the temperature of PW/PS. As the air inlet temperature increases from Winter 0.5 13.6 215.9 0.76
1.0 12.4 208.0 0.77
30 ◦ C to 80 ◦ C, the duration of PW/PS in the melted state firstly increases
1.5 13.7 241.5 0.81
and then decreases, with a maximum value of 10.1 h at 60 ◦ C. Average 13.2 221.8 0.78
Fig. 13 shows the trend of sensible and latent heat and liquefaction values
ratio of PW/EG and PW/PS as the air inlet temperature increases. At Coefficient of 4.5 % 6.4 % 2.8 %
variation
30 ◦ C, the latent heat storage capacity and liquefaction ratio of PW/EG
Summer 1.0 30.5 342.6 0.98
and PW/PS are 0 due to that they are not melted. When the air inlet 2.0 29.9 321.2 0.92
temperature increases to 50 ◦ C, the rise rate of liquefaction ratio for PW/ 3.0 30.5 309.8 1.03
EG and PW/PS are the highest, with the liquefaction ratio of 97.6 % and Average 30.3 324.5 0.98
61.8 %, and the latent heat storage capacity of 1523.1 kJ and 890.0 kJ, values
Coefficient of 0.9 % 4.2 % 4.6 %
respectively.
variation
Fig. 14 shows the trend of heat transfer amount from hot air and PCM

Fig. 10. Ambient conditions under different air inlet velocities.

9
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Fig. 11. Surface temperature at different air inlet temperatures.

Fig. 12. Temperature of PCM layers at different air inlet temperatures.

Fig. 13. PCM heat storage capacity and liquefaction ratio at different air inlet Fig. 14. Heat transfer amount and PCM heat storage rate at different air inlet
temperatures. temperatures.

PW/EG. At the initial stage of heat release, PW/EG is in the melted state.
At the air velocity of 1.0 m/s and 1.5 m/s, PW/EG releases latent heat for
6.5 h. While at the air velocity of 0.5 m/s, PW/EG releases latent heat for
5 h. Different from PW/EG, the thermal characteristics of PW/PS are
mainly influenced by both convention heat transfer from the ventilation
holes and solar radiation on the external surface, and hence the tem­
perature rise rate of PW/PS is higher. When the air velocity is 0.5 m/s,
the temperature rise rate of PW/PS is 4.8 ◦ C/h, which is 3.3 ◦ C/h higher
than that of PW/EG. When the air velocity increases to 1.5 m/s, the
temperature rise rate of PW/PS rises to 6.4 ◦ C/h.
Fig. 16 (c) and (d) show the temperature of PCM layers at different
air inlet velocities in summer. At the beginning of ventilation, both PW/
PS and PW/EG are in a melted state. At the end of ventilation, both are in
a partially solidified state. When the ventilation speed increases from

10
M. Fan et al.
Fig. 15. Surface temperature at different air inlet velocities.
1.0 m/s to 3.0 m/s, the convection heat transfer coefficient increases
from 81.9 W/m2⋅K to 245.6 W/m2⋅K and the ventilation cooling capacity
is also enhanced. The internal PW/EG layer is mainly cooled by forced
ventilation with a cooling rate of 0.6–0.7 ◦ C/h. The external PW/PS
layer is cooled by both forced convection in ventilation holes and nat­
ural convection from the outside, with a cooling rate of 0.8–1.0 ◦ C/h.
During the cooling process, PCMs transform from a liquid state to a
solid-liquid coexisting state, and hence a detailed analysis of sensible
and latent heat is required to more accurately evaluate the heat dissi­
pation effect.
Fig. 17 (a) shows the trend of sensible heat, latent heat and lique­
faction ratio stored in PW/EG and PW/PS as the air velocity increases in
winter. At the air inlet velocity of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m/s, the heat amount
stored in PW/EG is 721.2, 831.3 and 1097.2 kJ, and that of PW/PS is
989.8, 1133.1 and 1341.9 kJ, respectively. When the air inlet velocity
goes up from 0.5 m/s to 1.5 m/s, the liquefaction ratio of PW/EG in­
creases from 41.4 % to 57.9 % and that of PW/PS increases from 49.4 %
to 69.6 %. PW/PS possesses a higher liquefaction ratio as its temperature
is also influenced by the solar radiation. Fig. 17 (b) shows the trend of
heat transfer amount from hot air and PCM heat storage rate with
increasing air velocity in winter. When the inlet velocity increases from
0.5 m/s to 1.5 m/s, the heat transfer amount from hot air increases from
4755.8 to 9387.8 kJ, and the PCM heat storage rate decreases from 36.0
% to 26.0 %. The maximum heat storage efficiency is achieved at the air
inlet velocity of 0.5 m/s, as although the PCM has the least heat storage,
the input heat from the hot air is also the least, resulting in a minimum
heat loss.
Fig. 18 (a) shows the heat dissipation and liquefaction ratio of PW/PS
and PW/EG as the air velocity increases in summer. At the air inlet ve­
locity of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 m/s, the heat dissipation of PW/PS is 448.9,
604.7 and 753.1 kJ and that of PW/EG is 91.4, 176.9 and 213.1 kJ.
11
Energy 291 (2024) 130461
When the air inlet velocity goes up from 1.0 m/s to 3.0 m/s, the lique­
faction ratio of PW/PS decreases from 71.6 % to 51.2 %, and that of PW/
EG decreases from 97.9 % to 90.0 %. The heat dissipation amount and
solidification ratio of PW/PS are larger than that of PW/EG, because the
former is located near the external side, which is more susceptible to be
affected by the outdoor environment. Fig. 18(b) shows the trend of
ventilation heat dissipation amount and rate with increasing air velocity
in summer. When the inlet velocity increases from 1.0 m/s to 3.0 m/s,
the convection heat transfer coefficient inside ventilation holes is
enhanced, the ventilation heat dissipation amount increases from 262.4
kJ to 549.5 kJ, and the ventilation heat dissipation rate increases from
48.6 % to 58.7 %.
5.2. Thermal performance comparison of different walls
In this section, the thermal performance of B&H-PCM and VB wall
are compared from the aspects of surface temperature, surface heat flow
density and comprehensive thermal performance. In winter, the inlet air
velocity is set to 1 m/s, and the inlet air temperature is set to 50 ◦ C and
60 ◦ C. In summer, the air inlet temperature is set to the outdoor air
temperature, and the air velocity is set to 2 m/s and 3 m/s.
5.2.1. Internal and external surface temperature
Fig. 19 (a) and (b) show the surface temperature of the two types of
walls with time in winter. The peak external surface temperature of VB
and B&H-PCM walls are close at the air inlet temperatures of 50 ◦ C and
60 ◦ C. The peak internal surface temperature of VB and B&H-PCM walls
are 28.6 ◦ C and 27.5 ◦ C respectively at air inlet temperature of 50 ◦ C,
and 34.6 ◦ C and 33.8 ◦ C respectively at air inlet temperature of 60 ◦ C.
When the air inlet temperature is 50 ◦ C and 60 ◦ C, the time of peak
surface temperature for B&H-PCM wall is 0.43 h and 0.87 h later than
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Fig. 16. Temperature of PCM layers at different air inlet velocities.

Fig. 17. Heat storage/release performance at different air velocities in winter.

that of VB wall, respectively. As PW/EG in the B&H-PCM wall absorbs
more heat transferred from the hot air and delays the transfer of tem­
perature fluctuations to the indoor side. The internal surface tempera­
tures of B&H-PCM wall at the end of the test time (22:00) are 1.5 ◦ C and
3.9 ◦ C higher than those of VB wall respectively, as more heat stored in
B&H-PCM wall is released to the indoor space through internal surface.
Fig. 19 (c) and (d) show the surface temperature of the two types of
walls with time in summer. When the ventilation air velocity is 2.0 m/s
and 3.0 m/s, the external surface temperature of B&H-PCM wall is 1.7 ◦ C
and 1.8 ◦ C lower than that of VB wall, and the internal surface tem­
perature is 2.1 ◦ C and 1.1 ◦ C lower than that of VB wall, respectively.
The PW/PS in the outer layer and PW/EG in the inner layer result in the
B&H-PCM wall owning a larger heat storage capacity, which reduces the
heat transfer from the outside to the inside. Furthermore, the ventilation
is switched on at 17:00, which reduces the heat transfer from PW/EG to
the inner surface. At the end of the test at 23:00, the internal surface
temperature of B&H-PCM wall is merely 0.1–0.2 ◦ C higher than that of
VB wall at the inlet air velocity of 2.0–3.0 m/s.
5.2.2. Internal and external surface heat flow density
Fig. 20 (a)~(d) show the variation of heat flow density on the in­
ternal and external surfaces in winter and summer. During the heating
period in winter, the peak heat flux at external surface of B&H-PCM wall
is 17.0 W/m2 and 15.6 W/m2 higher than that of VB wall at the air inlet
temperature of 50 ◦ C and 60 ◦ C, respectively. This indicates that B&H-
PCM wall absorbs more external heat compared to VB wall. During the

12
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Fig. 18. Heat storage/release performance at different air velocities in summer.

Fig. 19. Surface temperature of B&H-PCM and VB wall.

heat release period in winter, more heat is released into the indoor space
by B&H-PCM wall. Consequently, the average heat flow density on the
internal surface of B&H-PCM wall is 17.9 W/m2 and 15 W/m2 higher
than that of VB wall at the air inlet temperature of 50 ◦ C and 60 ◦ C,
respectively.
At the air velocity of 2.0 m/s and 3.0 m/s in summer, the peak heat
flow density on the external surface of B&H-PCM wall is 15.3 W/m2 and
14.9 W/m2 lower than that of VB wall, respectively. Compared to VB
wall, the time at which the heat flow density on the internal surface of
B&H-PCM wall becomes negative is delayed by 2.8–3.1 h, and the heat
flow density on the internal surface is lower by 1.8 W/m2, indicating
that B&H-PCM wall not only reduces but also delays the transfer from
outdoor to indoor.
5.2.3. Comprehensive thermal performance
Table 7 shows the heat capacity and thermal resistance of the in­
ternal and external layers (divided by the centerline of the wall thick­
ness) of two walls. The external layer thermal resistance and heat
capacity of B&H-PCM wall are 1.1 and 5.9 times that of VB wall
respectively, while the internal thermal resistance and heat capacity are
0.8 and 7.2 times that of VB wall respectively. This makes B&H-PCM
wall have a better ability to prevent heat loss of the room in winter and
and prevent overheating in the room in summer.
Different thermal performance indicators for the two walls are

13
M. Fan et al. Energy 291 (2024) 130461

Fig. 20. Surface heat flow density of B&H-PCM and VB wall.

Table 7 Table 8
Comparison of thermal resistance and heat capacity of different walls. Comparison of thermal performance indicators for different walls.
Walls External layer Internal layer Seasons Conditions Walls Delay Aggregate Decay Heat
time discomfort factor storage
Thermal Heat Thermal Heat
φ (h) degree IA ζ (− ) capacity
resistance capacity resistance capacity
(h) Q (kJ)
R (m2⋅K/W) C (kJ/m2⋅K) R (m2⋅K/W) C (kJ/m2⋅K)
Winter Tair = B&H- 2.15 1.82 0.36 11864.73
B&H- 0.17 691.03 0.12 843.87
50 ◦ C PCM
PCM
VB 1.72 3.37 0.46 7760.02
VB 0.15 117.64 0.15 117.64
Tair = B&H- 2.50 6.55 0.42 13927.52
60 ◦ C PCM
VB 1.63 7.17 0.55 11700.82
compared in Table 8. In winter under the hot air inlet temperature of Summer vair = 2.0 B&H- 1.67 10.98 0.35 10856.28
50~60 ◦ C, the average delay time of B&H-PCM wall is 0.65 h longer m/s PCM
than that of VB wall, and the average decay factor is 22.7 % lower than VB 0.67 11.01 0.42 6559.20
that of VB wall. Consequently, B&H-PCM wall stores more heat during vair = 3.0 B&H- 2.16 11.32 0.40 11319.88
m/s PCM
the day and releases more heat at night, keeping the indoor temperature VB 1.33 11.25 0.52 7133.60
more stable, improving the indoor thermal comfort, and reducing the
aggregate discomfort degree by 1.09 h. In summer under the cool air
inlet velocity of 2.0–3.0 m/s, the average delay time of B&H-PCM wall is (I) As the air inlet temperature rose from 30 to 80 ◦ C, the heat
0.92 h and the average decay factor of B&H-PCM wall is 19.9 % lower, storage capacity and liquefaction rate of internal/external PCMs
demonstrating that B&H-PCM wall owns a better thermal stability in continuously increased. The PCM heat storage rate was maxi­
reducing and delaying the heat transfer from outdoor to indoor. mized at 50 ◦ C with a value of 26.7 %, and the liquefaction rate of
internal/external PCM was 100 %/72.4 % at 60 ◦ C.
6. Conclusions (II) As the air inlet velocity went up, the heat storage/dissipation
capacity of PCM in winter/summer increased and the heat stor­
This study proposed a breathable and heterogeneous phase change age/dissipation rate in winter/summer changed oppositely. The
material (B&H-PCM) wall, which owned different melting points and maximum heat storage rate was 36 % at the lowest air velocity
thermal conductivities, making it suitable for year-round use. The effects (0.5 m/s) in winter, and the maximum heat dissipation rate was
of different air inlet temperatures and velocities on the thermal perfor­ 58.7 % at the highest air velocity (3 m/s) in summer.
mance of the wall were investigated in a real outdoor environment in (III) Compared to VB wall, the external/internal heat capacity and
winter and summer, and compared with a ventilated block (VB) wall. thermal resistance of B&H-PCM wall were 5.9/7.2 and 1.1/0.8
The main conclusions were as follows. times respectively, the average heat storage capacity was

14
M. Fan et al.
1.36–1.62 times, the average decay factor was 19.9 %–22.7 %
lower and the average delay time was 0.65–0.92 h. Results
indicated that B&H-PCM wall had a better heat storage and
resistance capacity both in winter and summer.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Man Fan: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision,
Writing – review & editing. Guanyuan Feng: Data curation, Method­
ology, Writing – original draft. Leilei Wang: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis, Writing – review & editing. Xiangfei Kong: Conceptualization,
Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. Han Li: Conceptuali­
zation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Education Commission Research
Program Project of Tianjin (Grant No.: 2022KJ097).
References
[1] Amasyali K, El-Gohary NM. A review of data-driven building energy consumption
prediction studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:1192–205.
[2] Sadineni SB, Madala S, Boehm RF. Passive building energy savings: a review of
building envelope components. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3617–31.
[3] Sun XQ, Jovanovic J, Zhang Y, et al. Use of encapsulated phase change materials in
lightweight building walls for annual thermal regulation. Energy 2019;180:
858–72.
[4] Elias CN, Stathopoulos VN. A comprehensive review of recent advances in
materials aspects of phase change materials in thermal energy storage. Energy Proc
2019;161:385–94.
[5] Saffari M, Roe C, Finn DP. Improving the building energy flexibility using PCM-
enhanced envelopes. Appl Therm Eng 2022;217:119092.
[6] Alshuraiaan B. Efficient utilization of PCM in building envelope in a hot
environment condition. International Journal of Thermofluids 2022;16:100205.
[7] Izadi M, Taghavi SF, Neshat Safavi SH, et al. Thermal management of shelter
building walls by PCM macro-encapsulation in commercial hollow bricks. Case
Stud Therm Eng 2023;47:103081.
[8] Mourid A, Alamia ME, Kuznik F. Experimental investigation on thermal behavior
and reduction of energy consumption in a real scale building by using phase change
materials on its envelope. Sustain Cities Soc 2018;41:35–53.
[9] Gholamibozanjani G, Farid M. A comparison between passive and active PCM
systems applied to buildings. Renew Energy 2020;162:112–23.
[10] Kusama Y, Ishidoya Y. Thermal effects of a novel phase change material (PCM)
plaster under different insulation and heating scenarios. Energy Build 2017;141:
226–37.
[11] Rahimi A, Farrokhi M, Hatamipour MS, et al. Mathematical modeling and
experimental study of a two-stage fixed-bed heat storage system for heat recovery
of flue gases. Int J Heat Mass Tran 2020;159:120125.
[12] Wang L, Guo LH, Ren JL, et al. Using of heat thermal storage of PCM and solar
energy for distributed clean building heating: a multi-level scale-up research. Appl
Energy 2022;321:119345.
[13] Kong XF, Jiang LN, Yuan Y, et al. Experimental study on the performance of an
active novel vertical partition thermal storage wallboard based on composite phase
change material with porous silica and microencapsulation. Energy 2022;239:
122451.
[14] Chen C, Ling H, John Z, Zhai, et al. Thermal performance of an active-passive
ventilation wall with phase change material in solar greenhouses. Appl Energy
2018;216:602–12.
[15] Singh Rathore PK, Shukla SK. An experimental evaluation of thermal behavior of
the building envelope using macro encapsulated PCM for energy savings. Renew
Energy 2020;149:1300–13.
[16] Tian GH, Lv HL, Huang JN, et al. Experimental study on the heat transfer
characteristics of different walls with phase change materials in summer. J Build
Eng 2021;44:103354.
15
Energy 291 (2024) 130461
[17] Devaux P, Farid MM. Benefits of PCM underfloor heating with PCM wallboards for
space heating in winter. Appl Energy 2017;191:593–602.
[18] Lu SL, Zheng JH, Wang R, et al. Thermal performance research on a novel coupled
heating system combined solar air heater with ventilation PCM wall. Sol Energy
2023;265:112100.
[19] Zhang S, Ma YX, Li D, et al. Thermal performance of a reversible multiple-glazing
roof filled with two PCM. Renew Energy 2022;182:1080–93.
[20] Zhu N, Liu PP, Liu FL, et al. Energy performance of double shape-stabilized phase
change materials wallboards in office building. Appl Therm Eng 2016;105:180–8.
[21] Suresh C, Hotta TK, Saha SK. Phase change material incorporation techniques in
building envelopes for enhancing the building thermal Comfort-A review. Energy
Build 2022;268:112225.
[22] Leite da Cunha SR, Barroso de Aguiar JL. Phase change materials and energy
efficiency of buildings: a review of knowledge. J Energy Storage 2020;27:101083.
[23] Xu LJ, Ji J, Cai JY, et al. A hybrid PV thermal (water or air) wall system integrated
with double air channel and phase change material: a continuous full-day seasonal
experimental research. Renew Energy 2021;173:596–613.
[24] Guo JW, Dong JK, Zou B, et al. Experimental investigation on the effects of phase
change material and different ventilation modes on the thermal storage, space
heating and energy consumption characteristics of ventilated mortar blocks.
J Energy Storage 2021;41:102817.
[25] Evola G, Marletta L, Sicurella F. Simulation of a ventilated cavity to enhance the
effectiveness of PCM wallboards for summer thermal comfort in buildings. Energy
Build 2014;70:480–9.
[26] Mechouet A, Oualim EM, Mouhib T. Effect of mechanical ventilation on the
improvement of the thermal performance of PCM-incorporated double external
walls: a numerical investigation under different climatic conditions in Morocco.
J Energy Storage 2021;38:102495.
[27] Navarro L, de Gracia A, Castell A, et al. Experimental study of an active slab with
PCM coupled to a solar air collector for heating purposes. Energy Build 2016;128:
12–21.
[28] Cao L, Zhang D. Application potential of graphene aerogel in paraffin phase change
composites: experimental study and guidance based on numerical Simulation. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cell 2021;223:110949.
[29] Sevilla LT, Radulovic J. Investigation of low grade thermal energy storage systems
with phase changing materials. Energy and Built Environment 2021;2:366–73.
[30] Jiang F, Wang X, Zhang YP. A new method to estimate optimal phase change
material characteristics in a passive solar room. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:
2437–41.
[31] Yu JH, Yang QC, Ye H, et al. The optimum phase transition temperature for
building roof with outer layer PCM in different climate Regions of China. Energy
Proc 2019;158:3045–51.
[32] Yang YN, Pang Y, Liu Y, et al. Preparation and thermal properties of polyethylene
glycol/expanded graphite as novel form-stable phase change material for indoor
energy saving. Mater Lett 2018;216:220–3.
[33] Hao BY, Tao ZC, Yan X, et al. Synthesis and wave absorption characterization of
SiC nanowires/expanded graphite composites. Carbon 2022;196:540–51.
[34] Huang KL, Xu JT, Guan JX, et al. Optimization of a collector-storage solar air
heating system for building heat recovery ventilation preheating in the cold area.
Energy Build 2023;284:112875.
[35] Zhang Y, Jiang WX, Song JW, et al. A parametric model on thermal evaluation of
building envelopes containing phase change material. Appl Energy 2023;331:
120471.
[36] Guan Y, Wang T, Tang R, et al. Numerical study on the heat release capacity of the
active-passive phase change wall affected by ventilation velocity. Renew Energy
2020;150:1047–56.
[37] Kong XF, L Zhang L, Li H, et al. Experimental thermal and electrical performance
analysis of a concentrating photovoltaic/thermal system integrated with phase
change material (PV/T-CPCM). Sol Energy Mater Sol Cell 2022;234:111415.
[38] Fan M, Luan ZY, Yang H, et al. Charging and discharging characteristics of
cascaded latent heat storage (CLHS) tank for low-temperature applications. Appl
Therm Eng 2022;213:118698.
[39] Gouda MM, Danaher S, Underwood CP. Building thermal model reduction using
nonlinear constrained optimization. Build Environ 2002;37:1255–65.
[40] Yu T, Zhao JD, Zhou JR, et al. Experimental investigation of thermal performance
of a heating system combining solar air collector with hollow ventilated interior
wall. Renew Energy 2020;147:1825–35.
[41] Rahiminejad M, Khovalyg D. Numerical and experimental study of the dynamic
thermal resistance of ventilated air-spaces behind passive and active facades. Build
Environ 2022;225:109616.
[42] Fathipour R, Hadidi A. Analytical solution for the study of time lag and decrement
factor for building walls in climate of Iran. Energy 2017;134:167–80.
[43] Jiang B, Ji J, Yi H. The influence of PV coverage ratio on thermal and electrical
performance of photovoltaic-Trombe wall. Renew Energy 2008;33:2491–8.
[44] Xiao W, Xin W, Zhang Y. Analytical optimization of interior PCM for energy storage
in a lightweight passive solar room. Appl Energy 2009;86:2013–8.
[45] Calif R, Soubdhan T. On the use of the coefficient of variation to measure spatial
and temporal correlation of global solar radiation. Renew Energy 2016;88:192–9.
[46] Chen C, Ling HS, Yu N, et al. Numerical modelling of thermal performance of
active-passive ventilation wall with phase change material. Energy Procedia 2016;
103:22–7.