10.07.2015   EUROSUN 2008

Results of test 1

Figure 5 (a) and (b) shows the reference sandwich panel of the test 1. It is possible to see small cracks that do not contain PCM. Figure 5 (c) and (d) shows the sample with PCM, without the zoom (left) it was possible to see the cracks that contain PCM. The distribution of the PCM was visible in some areas in the middle of the sandwich panel as small cracks and sometimes close to the metal sheet.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 5 Test 1 (a) Reference sandwich panel sample (b) Zoom of the reference sample (c) Sandwich panel with PCM (d) Zoom of the sample with PCM

Figure 6 shows its results of thermal performance (test 1), comparing the reference sample results and the sample with PCM results it can be observed a similar behaviour of the free surface and, comparing the insulated surfaces sample with PCM does not show the effect expected (higher thermal inertia). This result is possible due to poor distribution of the PCM and the possibility of sample tested does not contain PCM. It was tested two new samples and the results were: one similar to figure 6 and the second one with a better effect of the sample with PCM (shows a delay in the temperature evolution).

Figure 6 Thermal performance test of the reference sandwich panel and sandwich panel with PCM (Test 1)

For this test, adhesion results between metal sheet and polyurethane foam are out of the limits (see table 2). During the performance of the adhesion test, it could be seen that the reference sandwich panel always breaks in the insulated surface, but the panel sandwich with PCM breaks in the middle.

Adhesion results (Test 1)

Adhesion results (Test 2)

Adhesion results ( Test 3)

[MPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

Reference sandwich panel

0.1

0.08

0.13

Sandwich panel with PCM

0.02

0.01

0.16