Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

A numerical model to evaluate the thermal behaviour of PCM glazing

system configurations
Francesco Goia a,b,∗ , Marco Perino a , Matthias Haase b
a
TEBE Research Group, Energy Department, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
b
The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The adoption of Phase Change Materials (PCMs) in building components is an up-to-date topic and a
Received 11 June 2012 relevant number of research activities on this issue is currently on the way. A particular application
Received in revised form 20 July 2012 of PCMs in the building envelope focuses on the integration of such a kind of material into transpar-
Accepted 28 July 2012
ent envelope components. A numerical model that describes the thermo-physical behaviour of a PCM
layer in combination with other transparent materials (i.e. glass panes) is developed to perform numer-
Keywords:
ical analyses on various PCM glazing systems configurations. The paper illustrates the structure of the
Building envelope
model, the main equations implemented and the hypotheses adopted for the model development. The
Numerical model
Thermal simulation
comparison between numerical simulations and experimental data of a simple PCM glazing configura-
Responsive building element tion is also presented to show the potentials and the limitations of the numerical model. While a good
Advanced glazing agreement between simulations and experimental data can be shown for the surface temperature of the
PCM glazing, the comparison between simulated and measured transmitted irradiances and heat fluxes does
not always reach the desired accuracy. However, the numerical tool seems to predict well the thermo-
physical behaviour of the system and may therefore represent a good starting point for simulations on
different configurations of PCM glazing systems.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction common strategy, less material is necessary to store the same

1.1. State of the art
Thermal Energy Storage (TES) is gaining a growing popularity
in the building sector in recent times. The capability of storing
(and releasing) a certain amount of thermal energy is considered a
crucial feature of the net Zero Energy Building (nZEB).
In conventional buildings, mainly massive elements (e.g. heavy
walls, floors, structural elements in general) contribute to the ther-
mal inertia of the building, and the heat storage strategy is based on
the use of the mass – i.e. the specific storage capability of the used
materials is relatively low. The adoption of Phase Change Materi-
als (PCMs) may represent a good option to enhance the building’s
ability to smooth the peak loads and to reduce the thermal energy
needs [1,2]. The working principle of the PCMs is to exploit the
considerable capacity of these materials of accumulating heat when
they subdue a phase transition. Therefore, compared with the most
∗ Corresponding author at: TEBE Research Group, Energy Department, Politecnico
di Torino, Torino, Italy/Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts, Norwegian University
of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Tel.: +39 011 090 4519/+47 73 55 02 75; fax: +39 011 090 4499/+47 73 59 50 94.
E-mail addresses: francesco.goia@polito.it, francesco.goia@ntnu.no (F. Goia).
amount of thermal energy. Furthermore, if a PCM layer is placed
into a building envelope component, it may allow a better con-
trol of the heat flows from/to the outdoor environment and may
increase the exploitation of solar energy at a building scale. A par-
ticular application of PCMs in the building envelope, that enhances
the possibility to charge/discharge the PCM layer, focuses on the
integration of such a material into a transparent element, so that
the PCM is exposed to the solar radiation and interacts with the
solar energy in a direct way.
Research activities on PCMs in combination with transpar-
ent/translucent components date back to about twenty years ago,
and some examples of research activities in this field can be found
in the literature [3–6]. The first concepts of PCM glazing systems
were developed mainly for cold climates, but more recent analy-
ses [7] show that the adoption of PCM glazing systems may have
a positive effect in warmer climates too. The general aim of the
technology, both in cold climates and in warmer climates, is to
reduce the energy fluctuations (heating vs. cooling demand) along
the time, by acting as thermal energy storage device that is charged,
mainly, by solar energy. In other words, this concept is aimed at
better managing the direct solar gain (that can cause overheating
problems) and at minimizing the heat loss, thanks to the buffer
effect provided by the PCM layer, but still allowing the exploitation
of daylighting. The PCM layer is used to absorb and store (thanks

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.036
142 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153

As mentioned, some experimental and numerical tests can be

found in the literature. Manz et al. [3] investigated both by experi-
c specific heat capacity (J kg−1 K−1 ) mental and numerical analysis a wall system made of a Transparent
c* equivalent specific heat capacity (J kg−1 K−1 ) Insulation Material (TIM) and a PCM (facing the indoor environ-
ej experimental value ment). A solar shading device (placed on the outer surface) was also
E24 h daily energy (kWh m−2 ) part of the system and allowed the “charge” of the PCM by means
F view factor of solar radiation to be actively controlled. The developed mathe-
hc specific convective heat exchange coefficient matical model was one-dimensional (side effects were neglected)
(W m−2 K−1 ) and heat conduction was the only energy transport mechanism
H height of the façade taken into account. Particular attention was made to model the
h specific enthalpy of fusion (J kg−1 ) optical behaviour of the system by means of Monte Carlo simu-
h* total specific enthalpy (J kg−1 ) lations (to properly account for the scattering effects of the PCM
I specific solar irradiance (W m−2 ) in solid state). Ismail et al. tested, by means of numerical and
n nth layer or node or number of readings experimental analyses, the heat transmittance, optical and ther-
PRMSE percentage root mean square error (%) mal properties of some double glazed units whose cavity was filled
q̇ specific heat flux (W m−2 ) with a PCM. Details on the mathematical models can be found in
RMSE root mean square error (◦ C) or (W m−2 ) [4,5]. In these works a one dimensional formulation is adopted and
s thickness (m) the side effects are neglected. A moving grid procedure is used
sj   simulated value to simulate the melting/re-solidification process within the PCM
STD  standard deviation of the absolute difference layer. Lastly, Weinläder et al. [6] also investigated a PCM-based
T temperature (K) glazing system (PCM confined in a plastic container). An explicit
t time (s) or (h) finite difference method was used to calculate the heat transfer
z z-dimension (m) (conduction and radiation) within the system. A particular focus
was again placed on the modelling of the optical properties of the
Greek symbols PCMs [8]: in solid state, the three-flux approximation was adopted
 Stefan–Boltzmann constant (W m−2 K−4 ) to solve the equation of radiative transfer.
Th temperature range of the phase change (◦ C) As outlined by some of the above mentioned research activi-
˛ solar absorptance (–) ties, the characterization of the optical properties of the PCM layer,
ˇ attenuation factor (–) which affect considerably the performance of the system, is by far
ı  façade inclination angle (• ) not a trivial task. In fact, when in solid state, PCMs behave like a
 absolute difference random and diffusive media, and relevant scattering effects take
ε emissivity (–) place. In liquid state the PCM is highly transparent, the direct trans-
 thermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1 ) mission is dominant, and no relevant scattering effects take place.
 temperature (◦ C) As result of this behaviour, the modelling of the propagation and
 solar reflectance (–)/density (kg m−3 ) absorption of radiation (shortwave range) within the solid-state
 solar transmittance (–) PCM layer would require a far more complex approach than the one
used for conventional transparent components (e.g. a glass pane).
Subscripts An exhaustive description of the solution of the equation of the
air air radiative transfer in random particles media can be found in Ishi-
eg external glass maru [9] and an application of such an approach is adopted in [6,8].
fi final (phase transition) However it must be stated that the solution of the radiative trans-
ground ground (view factor and temperature) fer equations under transient conditions is very complex. On the
i indoor contrary, the optical behaviour of a PCM layer in liquid state can
ig internal glass usually be tackled with a simpler approach since the medium does
in initial (phase transition) not cause a relevant scattering effect.
l liquid state
m melting peak (phase transition) 1.2. Aim of the modelling activity
n nth layer or nth node
o outdoor Considering the already developed tools [3–6], and the nature
pcm related to the PCM of the intricate optical and thermal behaviour of the PCM, that
s solid state make the modelling activity of such a material intrinsically com-
sky sky (view factor and temperature) plex, a new model is developed and validated. The aim of the
sol solar physical–mathematical model presented in this paper is to produce
surf surface (view factor and temperature) an easy and simplified calculation tool that may help in bridging the
tot total gap between the research products and concepts (as PCM glazing
tr transmitted systems) and their development and implementation into the built
environment. In fact, the availability of a robust and reliable, but yet
Superscripts simplified, numerical model is crucial to assess the real benefits of
+ positive (entering the indoor environment) these advanced glazing systems in different climates and for dif-
− negative (leaving the indoor environment) ferent building types. The implementation in the real construction
is indeed not straightforward: indeed, it must be observed that the
optimization of a PCM glazing is not a trivial task and the problem
to the latent heat) the large part of the short-wavelength infrared presents several degrees of freedom (e.g. the position of the PCM
(SWIR) radiation, near infrared (NIR) radiation and part of the vis- layer, its thickness, the melting temperature range of the PCM, the
ible (VIS) radiation, and to let part of the VIS radiation enter the multi-layered structure of the glazing) and non-linear phenomena
indoor environment in order to provide daylighting. occur.
 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153
Fig. 1. Scheme of the computational grid (glass panes and PCM layer).
The model herewith illustrated is expected to be used to perform
preliminary and sensitivity analyses on the application of PCM glaz-
ing systems in different building types and climates. The final aim
is to evaluate the effectiveness of such a class of technologies in
reducing the energy consumption in buildings. Furthermore, due
to the structure of the model and its implementation in the Mat-
lab/Simulink environment, combinations of PCM layers with other
glazing-related technologies (e.g. solar shading devices, smart win-
dows, airflow in window cavities) can be investigated in the next
future.
The aim of the model is therefore not to exactly replicate the
physical phenomena, taking place at micro-, meso- and macro-
scale inside the PCM. In fact, the exact replication would be quite
complex, because of the nature of the material, that is highly non
homogeneous, and of the different phenomena that occur at very
different scales. Most of the these phenomena own their com-
plexity to the non-linearity of many of the thermal and optical
properties. The non-linear behaviour makes the modelling of the
system extremely complicated. Some of the most complex aspects
that should be taken into account to reach the fully replication
of the thermo-physical and optical phenomena are: the change
in the state of aggregation with some super-cooling effects, the
possible creation of macroscopic crystals after the re-solidification,
the non homogeneity when in solid state, convective mass move-
ment, the absorption of solar radiation characterized by scattering
effects, and the shortwave radiative transfer through a random
medium. Quite complex calculation tools, e.g. CFD/FEM codes,
would be necessary to reach the target of the “exact modelling”.
However, these tools are mostly suitable for simulations under
steady state conditions, due to the considerable calculation load
that they require. Furthermore, they are not suitable to perform
system analyses (that is the coupled behaviour of the component
with the building), as well as sensitivity analyses, since they are
not trivial and quick to use. Analyses of the component’s perfor-
mance under transient conditions, or under real climatic conditions
and/or the operative conditions would be extremely complex and
time-consuming.
2. Physical–mathematical model
2.1. Calculation scheme and hypotheses
The developed numerical procedure is based on a 1D nodal
model (heat and shortwave radiation transmission along x and
y axis are not considered). In the standard model, three nodes
are associated to each glass pane, while the PCM layer is repre-
sented by means of five nodes. The number of nodes for both the
glass pane and the PCM layer can be increased, but the discretized
scheme herewith presented (Fig. 1) is a good compromise between
accuracy and computational time. Heat and shortwave radiation
transport equations are implemented for the glass pane and the
PCM layer. Energy conservation equations are written for each node
and numerically solved to obtain the thermal field. Obviously, the
143
heat capacity of the components (glass panes and PCM layer) is
taken into account, so that the model can simulate the behaviour
of the system under dynamic conditions.
The following hypotheses have been adopted for the develop-
ment of the model:
• each node represents a layers that is supposed to be homoge-
neous;
• the glass surface is considered a grey body in the IR range;
• the surfaces of the outdoor and indoor environment are consid-
ered as black and/or grey body;
• the convection within the PCM layer (when in liquid state) is
neglected, due to the cavity geometry (thickness: 15 mm);
• the radiative exchange between the two glass surfaces facing the
cavity filled with PCM is neglected too, being the PCM, both when
in liquid state and in solid state, highly non-transparent to the
long-wave radiation;
• the optical properties of the glass panes are only function of the
incidence angle of solar radiation;
• the thermal properties of the glass are temperature independent;
• the optical and thermal properties of the PCM depend on the
temperature (state of the PCM).
In Fig. 1, the schematic representation of the node grid is shown.
For the “basic” element of a PCM glazing system (i.e. two panes of
glass and a cavity filled with PCM), a total of 11 nodes have been
used. Seven nodes (1 each glass pane, 5 for the PCM layer) have
buffer (i.e. heat capacity) and absorption (in the shortwave range)
properties. The nodes at the interfaces between the glass panes
and the indoor/outdoor environment, as well as the nodes at the
interface between the glass panes and the PCM layer, do not possess
heat capacity and do not absorb solar energy. If a more complex
glazing configuration needs to be simulated (e.g. a triple glazing
with a cavity filled with PCM and the another cavity filled with
air/gas), no nodes are associated to the air/gas layer and the heat
transfer process (radiation and convection) is computed between
the two surface nodes that face each other through the cavity itself
(node Teg,i and Tig,o in Fig. 2). The two schemes (Figs. 1 and 2) can
be combined together to create multi-layered PCM glazing systems
that contain both PCM layer and non-ventilated cavities.
Each PCM node (nodes Tpcm,1 to Tpcm,5 in Fig. 1) represents a
slice of PCM. Each slice of PCM can be in a solid state, in the melt-
ing phase, or in liquid state, depending on the temperature of the
node itself. This approach, which is different from the moving grid
procedure, allows the PCM layer to melt and re-solidify without
selecting a priori the direction of the melting/re-solidification front.
In fact, during an experimental campaign [7], it was observed that
the melting process of the PCM layer does not necessarily occur
from the outer region and proceeds towards the inner ones (or
vice versa). The dynamics of the melting process (as well as the
one of the re-solidification process) is more complex and depends
on the boundary conditions. A grid moving procedure is not able
to replicate this phenomenon. The adopted discretization allows a
144 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153
Fig. 2. Scheme of the cavity modelling in the case of more complex PCM glazing systems.
higher degree of freedom with respect to the melting process, but
still it presents some limitations in replicating the behaviour of the
system (e.g. patches of solid parts casually dispersed in the liquid).
At each time step, the algorithm reads the input data (some of
them are time-dependent, some of them are time independent) and
iteratively solves the energy conservation equations until conver-
gence is assured.
The model is divided in two sub-models. The main one is dedi-
cated to solve the heat transfer process and the other one is aimed
at computing the solar irradiance transmitted and absorbed by the
glazing. The absorbed energy calculated by the second sub-model
is fed to the first sub-model – i.e. it becomes an input data for the
main sub-model. It is important to mention the high coupling that
occurs between the two sub-modules in the case of a PCM glaz-
ing. In fact, in the case of a conventional glazing system, the two
sub-modules can be solved in sequence (the second one first, and
then the main one), since the optical properties of the glazing (that
affect the amount of energy absorbed by the fenestration) can be
considered temperature independent. On the contrary, the opti-
cal properties of the PCM layer depend on the temperature of the
PCM itself (solid or liquid). Therefore, the two sub-models must be
solved simultaneously since they are mutually influenced.
2.2. Short-wave (UV–VIS–NIR) transport modelling
The solar radiation plays a crucial role in the behaviour of a
glazed system and its importance is even more enhanced in case of
a PCM glazing system. In this last case, the energy storage effect
obtained within the PCM layer is mostly due to the interaction
between the PCM and the solar radiation. Direct and diffuse radia-
tion must be separately processed, because their angles of incidence
are different (and thus it is different their interaction with the glass
panes and PCM layer). In case of a PCM glazing system, an additional
complexity arises: the PCM layer (when in solid state) “converts”
a direct incident solar radiation in a transmitted/reflected diffuse
radiation.
The conventional modelling approach for the short-wave reflec-
tion in semitransparent media makes use of the Fresnel and Snell
laws (to assess the reflection coefficient), while the solar absorp-
tion and transmission coefficients can be modelled by making use of
the Bouguer–Beer Law, cf. [10,11]. As mentioned, the correct optical
modelling of a PCM layer presents additional difficulties due to the
scattering effects that occur when the PCM layer is in solid state. The
incorporation of a numerical method that computes the short-wave
radiation transport of such a material within the main heat trans-
fer model is a non-trivial task. As shown by different authors [3,6],
it is highly preferable to independently determine, by means of a
separate model (e.g. Monte Carlo simulations of photons and their
interaction with the matter) or by experimental measurements, the
reflection, transmission and absorption coefficients of a PCM layer
as a function of its thickness and state of aggregation.
In the present paper the latter approach is chosen. A detailed
experimental campaign on the optical properties of the PCM layer
is underway, making use of a large integrating sphere (diameter:
0.75 m) because of the elevate scatter phenomenon caused by the
material when in solid state. The optical properties of the PCM are
analysed for either the solid state or liquid state [12], but not for a
PCM that is undergoing a phase change – i.e. when the PCM layer is
not completely solid or completely liquid. The preliminary results
show that the solar and light transmittance of glazing prototype
when the PCM is in liquid state (0.75 and 0.85, respectively) are
considerably higher than the solar and light transmittance when
PCM in solid state (0.46 and 0.55, respectively). This reduction of
the solar and light transmittance is due to the increase of both the
absorptance and reflectance.
Due to the structure of the model, each PCM sub-layer makes use
of a reflection , transmission  and absorption ˛ coefficient that
represent the optical behaviour of a PCM layer with a thickness
that is equal to the one of the sub-layer (i.e. 3 mm, when the total
PCM thickness is 15 mm). Because of the non-linearity of the opti-
cal phenomena, it was not possible to obtain these data from the
experimental campaign on a 15 mm thick PCM layer. Instead, the
calibration of the physical–mathematical model on a set of inde-
pendent experimental data was eventually preferred. Additional
information on this activity can be found Section 3.
As far as the glass pane is concerned, reflection , transmis-
sion  and absorption ˛ coefficients are computed by making use
of parametric curves (obtained with the software WIS) that pro-
vide the ,  and ˛ coefficients as functions of the glass thickness
and the incident angle of the solar radiation. The parametric curves
implemented in the models are not here reported for the sake of
brevity.
The total amount of solar energy that enters the indoor envi-
ronment, that is absorbed in each layer and that is exchanged with
the outdoor environment depends on the properties of the layers
that compose the glazing system and on their interaction. These
amounts can be found, once the impinging solar radiation, ,  and
˛ coefficients of each layer and the amount of shortwave radiation
that is reflected by the indoor environment are known, by solving
iteratively the energy balance of the radiative heat fluxes [13] for
each layer (node):
q̇sol,n = (In−1→n + In+1→n ) − (In→n+1 + In→n−1 ) (1)
where q̇sol,n is the absorbed solar radiation in the nth layer [W m−2 ]
and the Ix→y variables are the short-wave radiative fluxes [W m−2 ]
that enter/leave the nth layer, as shown in Fig. 3.
As far as the ,  and ˛ coefficients of each PCM sub-layer are
concerned, two values for each coefficient are determined: a value
that describes the behaviour of the PCM sub-layer when in solid
state and a value that is associated to the liquid state. A sub-layer in
phase transition (Tmelt,low < T(t) < Tmelt,high ) is still considered within
the solid state and the coefficients used in the calculation are
those for the solid state. Only when the PCM sub-layer completes
the phase transition (T(t) > Tmelt,high ) the values that describe the
behaviour of the PCM sub-layer in liquid state are used instead.
 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153 145

Fig. 3. Scheme of the energy balance of radiative short-wave heat fluxes in multi-layered glazing systems.

Regardless the layer which is crossed by the income short-wave
radiation (i.e. glass pane or PCM sub-layer), the first step of the
calculation procedure is aimed at assessing the component that is
reflected by the layer. The second step calculates the amount of
shortwave radiation that is absorbed by the layer. The amount of
shortwave energy that is eventually transmitted by the layer is then
obtained by difference between the total impinging radiation and
the reflected and absorbed parts.
2.3. Long-wave radiative heat exchange
is far larger than the one of the façade, the radiative exchange, per
unit of surface q̇rad,in , can be written as (10):
4 4
q̇rad,in =  · εig,i · (Tig,i − Tsur,i ) (10)
where εs,i is the emissivity of the inner glass surface of the PCM
glazing system.
The IR radiative exchange, per unit of surface q̇rad,cav , between
the two glass slabs that face a cavity is given by (11), being εeg,i and
εig,o the emissivity of the outer and inner glass surfaces, respec-
tively.

Radiative energy exchange in the IR region occurs between the 1 4 4

q̇rad,cav =  · · (Tog,i − Tig,o ) (11)
outer surface of the glazing system and the outdoor environment, 1/εog,i + 1/εig,o − 1
between the inner surface of the glazing system and the indoor
environment and, in case of a glazing system with a cavity filled 2.4. Convective heat exchange
with air/gas, between the two surfaces that face the cavity. This
exchange is considered negligible in a cavity that is filled with PCM The convective heat exchange takes place at the interface
instead. between the outer surface of the glazing system and the outdoor
The radiative heat exchange with the outdoor environment [14], air, between the inner surface of the glazing system and the indoor
per unit of surface q̇rad,o [W m−2 ], with the outdoor is obtained (cf. air, and in case of gas filled cavities, between the two glass surfaces
Fig. 1) as: and the air/gas that is contained into the cavity itself. The general
formulation of the convective heat exchange is give by (12):
q̇rad,o = q̇rad,sky + q̇rad,air + q̇rad,ground (2)
4 4 q̇conv = hc · (Tsurf − Tliq,∞ ) (12)
q̇rad,sky =  · εs,o · Fsky · ˇ · (Tsky − Teg,o ) (3)
For the assessment of the convective heat transfer coefficient,
4 4
q̇rad,air =  · εs,o · Fsky · (1 − ˇ) · (Tout − Teg,o ) (4) hc the following semi empirical correlations are used.
4 4
q̇rad,ground =  · εs,o · Fground · (Tsur,o − Teg,o ) (5)
• Between the outdoor air and the glass (hc,o ):
where  is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, εs,o is the emissivity
of the outer glass surface of the PCM glazing system, Fsky (6) is hc,o = max(hc,1 , hc,2 )
the view factor between the façade (which is vertical) and the sky  1/3
dome, Fground (7) is the view factor between the façade and the sur- hc,1 = 1.52 ·  T  (13)
rounding surfaces (assuming that all the surfaces are at the same
hc,2 = 5.62 + 3.9 · v
temperature; in the model, it is supposed that Tsur,o = Tout ), and
ˇ (8) is a factor that splits the heat exchange with the sky dome where T is the temperature difference between the outer glazing
between sky and air radiation. Fsky , Fground and ˇ are functions of surface and the outdoor air, and v is the wind speed [16].
ı, i.e. the angle between the façade and the ground (for a verti-
cal façade, ı = 90◦ ). The sky dome temperature (9) is obtained as a • Between the indoor air and the glass (hc,i ):
function of Tair,o [15]. In particular, it holds:

1 + cos(ı) It is supposed that only natural convection occurs within the

Fsky = (6) room, therefore hc,in can be then determined using the following
2
equation (Eq. (14)) [17]:
1 − cos(ı)
Fground = (7)  1/6
2  T 1/4 6
 hc,i = 1.5 · + [1.23 · ( T )
1/3 6
] (14)
1 + cos(ı) H
ˇ= (8)
2
1.5
where T is the temperature difference between the inner glazing
Tsky = 0.0552 · Tair,o (9)
surface and the indoor air, and H is the façade height.
The assessment of the radiative exchange with the indoor envi-
ronment can be quite complex, since a detailed approach would • In non ventilated cavities of a glazed unit:
require the calculation of the view factors between the façade and
the other surfaces. However, assuming that the other surfaces of the The assessment of the convective heat transfer coefficient in
room are all at the same temperature (that is the indoor air temper- case of a non ventilated cavity is very complex. For the sake of
ature) and that the total area given by the sum of the other surfaces brevity, the details of the calculation procedure are not shown here.
146 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153

The equations implemented in the model are based on correla-

tions originally determined by Wright [18]. They are thoroughly
presented and summarized in [19].
It is worthwhile to mention that during the solution of the
numerical model the values of hc are re-assessed every iteration.
As far as the PCM layer is concerned, it can be observed that part
of the heat is actually exchanged by convection, during the melting
process and when in liquid state. However, due to the complex-
ity of this phenomenon, and assuming that conduction is still the
dominant mechanism (during most of the time the PCM is not com-
pletely in the liquid state), the convection in the PCM layer is always
neglected in the proposed model.
∗
Fig. 4. cpcm as a function of the temperature of the PCM layer.

2.5. Conductive heat exchange (in single phase components)

The heat transmission within the glass panes can be described

where h∗ is the total specific enthalpy between the initial T1 and
by the general equation for conduction, that is, for one dimension:
final T2 temperature. In particular, it holds:
∂T ∂2 T q̇
=· + sol (15)

∂t ∂z 2 ·c Tpcm,i  T2
1
where, in the proposed model, the heat source q̇sol is given by the h∗ = ms cpcm,s dT + (mtot − ms − ml )hpcm + ml cpcm,l dT (19)
mtot
absorbed solar radiation (calculated with the short-wave transport T1 Tpcm,f

model),  is the thermal conductivity,  is the density, and c the

specific heat capacity of the material. As previously mentioned, Eq.
where mtot is the total mass of the PCM, ms is the mass of the PCM
(15) is spatially discretized, for a glass pane, so that each glass pane
in solid state, ml is mass of PCM in liquid state, cpcm,s is specific heat
has one node with heat capacity (accounting for the entire heat
capacity of the PCM in solid state, cpcm,l is the specific heat capacity
capacity of the glass layer), an internal heat source (absorbed solar
of the PCM in liquid state, hpcm is the specific enthalpy of fusion,
radiation) and two nodes without heat capacity and solar absorp-
and Tpcm,in and Tpcm,fi are the temperature initial and final temper-
tion. The spatially discretized equation for the external glass pane
ature of the phase change, respectively. Ideally, the phase change
(cf. Fig. 1) is therefore (16):
of a pure material should be isothermal (if the transformation is

 −1
also isobaric), so Tpcm,ni should be equal to Tpcm,fi . However, due to
∂Teg,c seg 1
(seg · eg · ceg ) · = · · (Teg,e − Teg,c ) the nature of the material adopted, a sensible increase of tempera-
∂t 2 eg
ture occurs during the phase change. For calculation purpose, it is

 −1 therefore possible to use an equivalent specific heat capacity cpcm ∗ ,

seg 1 that is defined as Eq. (20), where Th is the temperature range of

− · · (Teg,c − Teg,i ) + q̇sol,eg (16)
2 eg the phase change (21):

where seg is the thickness of the external glass, eg is the den- hpcm
∗
sity of the external glass, ceg is the specific heat capacity of the cpcm,m = (20)
Th
external glass, eg is the density of the external glass, q̇sol,eg is
the absorbed solar radiation in the external glass, Teg,c is the tem-
Th = Tpcm,fi − Tpcm,in (21)
perature of the node that represents the external glass, Teg,o and
Teg,i are the temperature at the outdoor and indoor surface of the
glass pane respectively, and t is the time. The ODE (16) is calcu- This approach allows the conductive heat transfer problem to be
lated in a continuous time domain by Matlab/Simulink, by means transformed into a “single-phase”, non-linear conduction problem
of the Dormand–Prince method, obtaining the temperature Tpcm,n in the entire calculation range (T1 to T2 ), where the non-linearity
by directly solving the integral equation (17). is given by the different value that the specific heat capacity can
  −1  assume, according to the state of aggregation of the PCM, or in other
1 s
n 1 words, according to the temperature of the PCM (22).
Teg,c = · · · (Teg,o − Teg,c )
dt
(seg · eg · ceg ) 2 n
 −1   ∗ (T
cpcm pcm ) = cpcm,s if Tpcm ≤ Tpcm,in
s n 1
− · · (Teg,c − Teg,i ) + q̇sol,eg dt (17) ∗ (T ∗
2 n cpcm pcm ) = cpcm,m if Tpcm,in < Tpcm < Tpcm,fi (22)
∗ (T
cpcm pcm ) = cpcm,l if Tpcm ≥ Tpcm,fi

2.6. Conductive heat exchange (in multi-phase components)

However, this approach creates a discontinuity in the specific
Eq. (15) can be used to describe the conductive heat transfer heat capacity function, that presents a poor agreement with the
problem in a glass pane, or in a PCM layer when the PCM is outside natural phenomenon – i.e. the ability of the material to store energy
the phase change. However, considering that the PCM layer may does not increase dramatically as the phase change begins, being
∗
cpcm  cpcm,s , cpcm,l , but it is a rather smooth process. To overcome
undergo a phase change along the time, Eq. (15) can be transformed
in the so-called the transient enthalpy equation in one dimension this problem, the specific heat capacity as a function of the temper-
∗ (T
ature cpcm
(18): pcm ) is modelled as a continuous function (23), which
is plotted in Fig. 4. To do this, it is necessary to provide the model
∂h∗ ∂2 T q̇ with an additional input data, i.e. the melting peak temperature
 =· + sol (18)
∂t ∂z 2 ·c (Tpcm,m ), that is the temperature in correspondence of the peak of
 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153 147

the melting/re-solidification process. The specific heat capacity as

a function of the temperature is given by:

∗ (T
cpcm pcm ) = cpcm,s if Tpcm ≤ Tpcm,in
∗
cpcm,m − cpcm,s ∗
cpcm,m − cpcm,s
∗ (T
cpcm pcm ) = · Tpcm +cpcm,s − · Tpcm,i if Tpcm,in < Tpcm ≤ Tpcm,m
Tpcm,m − Tpcm,in Tpcm,m − Tpcm,in
∗ ∗
(23)
∗ (T
cpcm,l − cpcm,m cpcm,l − cpcm,m
cpcm pcm ) = − · Tpcm +cpcm,l + · Tpcm,f if Tpcm,m < Tpcm < Tpcm,fi
Tpcm,fi − Tpcm,m Tpcm,fi − Tpcm,m
∗ (T
cpcm = cpcm,l if Tpcm ≥ Tpcm,fi
pcm )

∗
where cpcm,m is the maximum value of equivalent specific heat
capacity that can be reached. This value is reached when the
melting/re-solidification process reaches its peak (i.e. when Tpcm =
∗ • the time profiles of the temperature of each layer (glass and PCM,
Tpcm,m ). cpcm,m is automatically calculated by the code as a function
inner and surface temperatures);
of the PCM properties (cpcm,s , cpcm,l , Tpcm,in , Tpcm,fi , Tpcm,m , hpcm ),
• the time profile of transmitted shortwave heat fluxes (i.e. trans-
according to Eq. (24).
mitted irradiance);
• the time profile of the “longwave” heat fluxes exchanged between
∗
Tpcm,in − Tpcm,m Tpcm,m − Tpcm,fi 2hpcm
cpcm,m = · cpcm,s + · cpcm,l + (24) the various surfaces of the glazing system, and of the surface heat
Th Th Th
fluxes (that is radiative IR heat exchange plus convective heat
exchange) with the indoor and outdoor environment.
Therefore, the final differential equation describing the “single-
phase”, non-linear conduction problem, regardless the state of
aggregation of the PCM is Eq. (25) and the temperature Tpcm,n of
the node n of the PCM layer is obtained by Eq. (26): 3. Model calibration
 −1 
∂Tpcm,n s n
The optical properties (,  and ˛ coefficients) of each PCM sub-
∗
(sn · n · cpcm,n (Tpmc,n )) · = · (Tpcm,n−1 − Tpcm,n ) layer are needed to perform simulations. However, due to the fact
∂t n
 −1  that optical phenomena are not linear (e.g. the solar transmission
s n of a 6 mm thick PCM layer is not double the one of two 3 mm thick
− · (Tpcm,n − Tpcm,n+1 ) + q̇sol,n (25) PCM layers, and not the half of a 12 mm thick PCM layer), the deter-
n
mination of the values of these coefficients is not a trivial task.
Furthermore, highly non-linear phenomena are registered when
  −1  the PCM is in phase transition. Therefore, as far as the ,  and ˛
1 s n coefficients are concerned, the physical–mathematical model was
Tpcm,n = ∗ · · (Tpcm,n−1 − Tpcm,n )
dt
(sn · n · cpcm,n (Tpcm,n )) n calibrated on a set of experimental data (more information on the
 −1   experimental campaign are given in Section 4.1 and in Goia et al.
s n [7]). Data used to calibrate the model belongs to a different period
− · (Tpcm,n − Tpcm,n+1 ) + q̇sol,n dt (26)
n that the ones that are used to validate the model. Data used for
the calibration represent periods when the indoor air temperature
∗
where cpcm,n (Tpcm,n ) is then the equivalent specific heat capacity of was kept at the desired set-point, and periods when the indoor air
the PCM in the node n, as defined in Eq. (23), and sn is the thickness temperature was not controlled by means of a HVAC system and
of the PCM slice – the spatial discretization of the PCM layer is the test cell was in free running mode. Given this assumptions, the
obtained by dividing the total thickness of the PCM layer in 5 slices; independence between the calibration process and the validation
therefore, the PCM layer is represented by 5 nodes, which have both process is assured.
heat capacity and internal heat source (cf. Fig. 1). In particular, the calibration of the model was carried out con-
∗
It is worth mentioning that cpcm,n (Tpcm,n ) can assume different sidering a period of 14 days. ,  and ˛ coefficients of the PCM
values in the different computational nodes, at the same time step, sub-layers were searched ‘til a good agreement between the model
since each n node can be at a different temperature. Furthermore, and the experimental data concerning the transmitted solar irra-
it must be highlight that hysteresis phenomena occurring between diance was found. Fig. 5 shows the good agreement between the
the melting process and the re-solidification process are not taken measured values of transmitted solar irradiance and the numeri-
into account in this model. Therefore, cpcm ∗ (T cal simulation. A very satisfactory agreement was reached both in
pcm ) is independent
from the direction of the phase change process (i.e. from solid state days with high solar irradiation (when the PCM layer completes the
to liquid state or vice versa). melting process) and in days with low solar irradiation (when the
PCM layer remains in solid state). To assess the reliability of the cal-
ibrated optical properties, the comparison between measured and
2.7. Model input/output data simulated indoor surface temperature of the PCM glazing systems
was also analysed during the same period. The very good agreement
The model inputs are: the thermophysical properties of the between the measured and the simulated values of indoor surface
materials (glass and PCM) and the boundary conditions. As far as the temperature (Tig.i , in Fig. 1) is illustrated in Fig. 6. Therefore, it is pos-
boundary conditions are concerned, the indoor/outdoor air temper- sible to state that, after the good replication of the transmitted solar
ature time profiles, the profile of the incident solar irradiance and irradiance was achieved (first stage of the calibration), the model
of the incident angle of the solar radiation and the profile of the was also able to correctly simulate, using the optical properties that
wind speed are needed. were determined, the indoor surface temperature (second stage of
The model provides, as output data: calibration, validation of the calibration).
148 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153

Fig. 5. Calibration of the model: comparison between simulated and measured transmitted solar irradiance.

4. Simulation and model validation value was adopted, conservatively, for all the thermocouples. The
heat flux meter sensors presented an accuracy of ±5%, with a confi-
In order to carry out a validation of the numerical model, a dence interval of 95%. Three hemispherical pyranometes were used
simple PCM glazing system is simulated. The obtained theoreti- for the experimental campaign. Their sensitivities were provided
cal results are compared against the experimental data collected by the producers and periodically verified. The hourly total mea-
during a test cell campaign [7]. surement uncertainty, declared by the producers, lies in the range
of 2–5%, including all the factors of influence that contribute to
4.1. Experimental data the measurement error (such as non-linearity sensitivity variation,
temperature dependency, directional error).
The PCM glazing prototype used for these tests was made of two
panes of clear glass (6 mm and 8 mm thickness) and a layer of paraf-
4.2. Numerical simulation and data analysis
fin wax (15 mm thickness) – cf. Fig. 1. The PCM glazing system was
1.40 m long and 1.15 m high. The used paraffin wax had a nominal
The same PCM glazing configuration tested during the experi-
melting temperature of 35 ◦ C and a melting range of about 10 ◦ C.
mental campaign [7] is then simulated by means on the numerical
The sample was installed on an outside test cell located in a humid
model herewith described. The boundary conditions (e.g. both
subtropical climate (Cfa – Köppen climate classification, cf. [20]).
indoor and outdoor air temperature, solar irradiance) used as input
The indoor air temperature of the test cell was maintained at the
data for the simulation are the ones measured during the exper-
desired set-point (tolerance ± 1 ◦ C) by means of an all air recircula-
imental campaign. In Fig. 7 the hourly profile of the boundary
tion system. The set-point temperature was set to 26 ◦ C in summer,
conditions used to validate the numerical model (7 summer days
20 ◦ C in winter and 23 ◦ C in mid-season. In addition, experiments
and 7 winter days) are shown. A total of 169 couple of values (mea-
were also carried out by letting the indoor air temperature to freely
sured data and simulated values) are used to validate the model,
float (free running mode). The measurement apparatus consisted of
each season. In Figs. 8–10 the comparisons between the experimen-
40 sensors (thermocouples, heat flux meters, pyranometers) con-
tal and numerical hourly profiles of the main physical quantities
nected to a data logger. It was designed to monitor both the physical
(indoor surface temperature, surface heat flux and transmitted
quantities of two glazed units (a conventional DGU was also instru-
solar irradiance, respectively) are shown, both for the summer and
mented for reference purpose) and the boundary conditions inside
the winter season. In Table 1 the material properties used during
and outside the test cell.
the simulation are summarized.
Data acquisition was performed on a 5 min basis and lasted for
Alongside with the comparison of the hourly profile of the
about 1 year. Data collected during the experimental campaign
indoor surface temperature, of the transmitted irradiance and of
were therefore representative of the behaviour of the PCM glaz-
the indoor surface heat flux, the simulated and measured daily
ing system under different boundary conditions and in different + −
energy (E24 h ) and the disaggregated daily energies (E24h , E24 ) are
seasons. h
calculated and compared. In particular, it holds:
The measurement accuracy of each thermocouple was assessed
after they were calibrated. As a result of this procedure, the highest
likely uncertainty, using the 95% confidence limit, was ±0.3 ◦ C. This q̇tot (t) = Itr (t) + q̇s,i (t) (27)

Fig. 6. Calibration of the model: comparison between simulated and measured indoor surface temperature of the PCM glazing.
 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153 149

Fig. 7. Boundary conditions (outdoor air temperature and solar irradiance on the outdoor vertical surface) used for the validation of the numerical model.

Fig. 8. Simulated and measured indoor surface temperature of the PCM glazing.

Fig. 9. Simulated and measured indoor surface heat flux of the PCM glazing.
150 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153

Fig. 10. Simulated and measured transmitted solar irradiance of the PCM glazing.

Table 1 4.3. Validation

Values of the relevant material properties used during the simulation.

Physical quantity Value The validation of the physical–mathematical model is carried

Paraffin wax out with a qualitative comparison between the hourly profile of
Densitya 800 kg m−3 the measured and of the simulated values of the indoor surface
Thermal conductivity 0.20 W m−1 K−1 temperature, the surface heat flux and transmitted solar irradiance.
Specific heat capacityb 2500 J kg−1 K−1 Furthermore, the percentage root mean square error (PRMSE) and
Latent heat of fusion 140 kJ kg−1
the root mean square error (RMSE) are also calculated to give a
Melting initial temperature 28 ◦ C
Melting nominal temperature 33 ◦ C quantitative estimation of the agreement between measured data
Melting final temperature 38 ◦ C and simulated values.
Glass pane The PRMSE is defined as:
2500 kg m−3
Density

Thermal conductivity 0.96 W m−1 K−1  n  2
Specific heat capacity 840 J kg−1 K−1 1  sj − ej
PRMSE =  · (31)
a
Change in paraffin density between liquid and solid state is neglected. n ej
b
Change in the specific heat capacity between liquid and solid state is neglected. j=1

where n is the total number of readings over a certain period (169

 00:00 + 1 day
each season, 338 when the two seasons are considered together),
and ej and sj are the experimental and simulated values, respec-
E24h = q̇tot (t)dt (28)
00:00
tively. However, the PRMSE can be unsuitable for assessing the
reliability of the simulation of the surface heat flux and of the trans-
 00:00 + 1 day mitted solar irradiance. In fact, when an elevate number of readings
+
E24h = q̇+
tot (t)dt (29) is close to the value 0 (W m−2 ) – i.e. during the night time or when
00:00 no substantial difference between indoor and outdoor air temper-
 00:00 + 1 day
ature is recorded – the PRMSE may indicate an elevate values even
−
E24h = q̇− thought the measured and simulated values are in good agreement.
tot (t)dt (30)
00:00 The RMSE is therefore used instead of the PRMSE to analyse the
surface heat flux and transmitted solar irradiance hourly profiles.
where q̇tot (t) is the total heat flux1 exchanged at the indoor surface The RMSE is defined as:
of the PCM glazing, q̇+ tot (t) is the positive (i.e. entering the indoor 
 
environment) total heat flux, q̇− tot (t) is the negative (i.e. leaving the 1 n
indoor environment) total heat flux, and Itr (t) is the solar irradi- RMSE =  · (sj − ej )2 (32)
n
ance transmitted through the PCM glazing. It is extremely difficult j=1
to estimate the daily energy uncertainty in a rigorous way, consid-
ering that the heat flux measurement determines a change in the Finally, the average value of the absolute difference between
thermal field and the measurement error is therefore much higher simulated and measured values is also assessed (Eq. (33)), together
than the only instrumental uncertainty. However, it is reasonable to with its standard deviation (Eq. (35)):
state that the measurement uncertainty is in the range of 10–15%.
The comparisons between experimental and numerical daily ener-   1  n
 
 = ·  (33)
gies are illustrated in Figs. 11 and 12, for both the summer and the n j
winter days. j=1

 
where  is given by Eq. (34);
j
   
1
Short-wave and long-wave radiative heat fluxes plus convective heat flux,  = sj − ej  (34)
exchanged between the indoor surface of the glazing and the indoor environment. j
 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153 151

+ −
Fig. 11. Simulated and measured disaggregated (E24 h
, E24 h
) daily energy.

Table 2
Values of the relevant material properties used during the simulation.
   
Physical quantity Season PRMSE RMSE ¯  STD 
¯

Surface temperature of the PCM Summer & winter 7.1% 1.7 ◦ C 1.1 ◦ C 1.3 ◦ C
glazing system (ig,i) Summer 6.0% 1.9 ◦ C 1.4 ◦ C 1.2 ◦ C
Winter 8.1% 1.5 ◦ C 0.9 ◦ C 1.2 ◦ C
Transmitted surface heat flux (q̇s,i ) Summer & winter – 14.9 W m−2 11.4 W m−2 9.5 W m−2
Summer – 17.9 W m−2 13.3 W m−2 11.9 W m−2
Winter – 11.1 W m−2 9.6 W m−2 5.5 W m−2
Transmitted solar irradiance (Htr ) Summer & winter – 20.3 W m−2 6.5 W m−2 19.3 W m−2
Summer – 27.6 W m−2 10.4 W m−2 25.6 W m−2
Winter – 7.9 W m−2 2.7 W m−2 7.5 W m−2


 n  5. Discussion
   
2
  1 
¯= ·
STD   − 
¯ (35)
n j j The comparison between the numerical results and the experi-
j=1
mental data demonstrates the good ability of the numerical model
to simulate the phenomena that occur in a PCM glazing system,
    despite the several assumptions and simplifications that have been
In Table 2, the PRMSE, RMSE, ¯  and STD 
¯  for the hourly done.
profile of the indoor surface temperature, surface heat flux and In particular, as far as the indoor surface temperatures of
transmitted irradiance are reported, for the summer season, the the glazing are concerned (Fig. 8), a good agreement between
winter season and summer and winter seasons together. the experimental data and the numerical simulation is found.

Fig. 12. Simulated and measured daily energy E24 h .

152 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153
The model is capable of correctly predicting highest and lowest
peak values of the hourly profile, even if a little over-estimation of
the highest values and an under-estimation of the lowest values
are recorded, both in summer and in winter. A more detailed anal-
ysis of the time profiles reveals that the accuracy is slightly worst
during the charge phase of the PCM, while a better agreement is
reached when the paraffin layer re-solidifies after having experi-
enced a complete fusion. As clearly shown by Fig. 4a, the model has
the tendency to over-estimate the surface temperature during the
melting process, that is, it predicts a quicker charge phase than the
one which actually occurs. On the contrary, during the discharge
phase, even in case of a complete melting of the PCM layer, a bet-
ter agreement between the experimental data and the numerical
output is seen. The model reliability in predicting the surface tem-
perature of the glazing during the winter (Fig. 4b) is better than in
summer. Such behaviour can be explained by the fact that the PCM
in this season never completes the phase change and remains in
the solid state (or in a mix state where the solid phase is predom-
inant) for most of the time. A slight over-estimation of the surface
temperature of the glazing is shown during the winter time when
the temperature of the PCM layer is relatively high; a little under-
estimation occurs when the PCM layer is significantly lower than
the transition temperature (e.g. during the night time or in cold
cloudy days).
The PRMSE and RSME testify the good agreement between the
simulated values and the measured too. It is noticeable that the
PRMSE of the indoor surface temperature is, over the entire period,
around 7%. This value slightly increases when the winter season
alone is analysed. However, it must be stated that this increase is
mostly due to the fact that the average surface temperature during
the winter is lower than in summer, and therefore the percentage
error is inherently higher. The good  agreement
 in winter time is
demonstrated by the fact that the  ¯  is lower than the one dur-
ing the summer. As previously mentioned, the closer the measured
datum to 0, the less reliable the PRMSE indicator. The  ¯  along
the entire year is around 1 ◦ C, with a quite large range of values of
surface temperature that vary from 6 ◦ C to more than 40 ◦ C (and to
more than 52 ◦ C, when the system is in free running mode).
The comparison between the experimental and numerical sur-
face heat fluxes is resumed in Fig. 9. The model is able to predict
the exchanged heat fluxes under most of the situations with a rel-
atively good reliability. The picture is similar to the prediction of
the hourly profiles of the surface temperatures, but a worse agree-
ment is revealed between simulations and measurements during
the discharge phase of the PCM. In sunny summer days, the model
under-estimates the heat flux during the heat release process,
which mostly occurs in the late afternoon, evening and night, and
over-estimates them during the charge phase. In winter, the heat
fluxes provided by the simulation tool appear to be quite similar
to the ones recorded during the experimental campaign, though
their values are systematically slightly lower. This phenomenon is
emphasized during the central hours of cold nights. The discrep-
ancy between measurement and simulation may be caused by the
assumption done in the code (e.g. calculation of the convective heat
transfer coefficient, geometry of the room), and/or by the errors
during the measurements of the heat fluxes – being the measure-
ment of the heat flux in transparent/translucent components not
straightforward. In fact, the sensor may suffer from the effect of
the solar radiation and then need to be shielded: the presence of
the shields can affect the actual readings of the sensor and provide
lower or higher values [21].    
The analysis of the RMSE,  ¯  and STD  ¯  shows the satisfac-
 
tory level of accuracy that is achieved, being the RMSE and  ¯
always one order of magnitude less that the maximum value of
the variable (the surface heat flux can vary from −60 W m−2 up to
120 W m−2 ).
A less satisfactory agreement between numerical and experi-
mental results is found as far as the transmitted solar irradiance
through the PCM glazing is concerned. This is particularly note-
worthy in sunny summer days, when the PCM layer undergoes a
complete phase change and becomes highly transparent to the solar
radiation (cf. Goia et al. [7]). In such case, see e.g. Fig. 10 (summer),
during the third and the forth day, the simulated peak values of
the transmitted solar irradiance are about 250 W m−2 , while the
measured values are about 100–125 W m−2 . These are two sum-
mer days with high outdoor air temperature and (above all) high
solar irradiance, which cause the complete melting of the PCM
layer. On the contrary, a different behaviour is registered in the fifth
day. In this case the boundary conditions are quite similar to the
previous day (cf. Fig. 7), but surprisingly the agreement between
measured and predicted quantities is very good. Such characteris-
tic may give rise to the question whether the experimental data or
the numerical data (or none of them) are the ones that represent
with the best reliability the physical phenomenon. The measure-
ment of the transmitted solar irradiance, in fact, is not a trivial task,
since the PCM glazing shows a very complex and non homoge-
neous behaviour. Therefore, it may happen that the actual readings
of the pyranometer are negatively influenced by shades caused by
small fractions of solid paraffin dispersed in an almost completely
liquid layer. A good agreement between experiment and simula-
tion is, instead, always achieved when the PCM layer does not melt
completely (i.e. in cloudy days in summer and during the winter
season).    
The analysis of the RMSE,  ¯  and STD ¯  reveals once more
 
that a quite satisfactory agreement is anyway reached. The RMSE
is about 20 W m−2 and the  ¯  is about 6 W m−2 , with a range of
values that can vary from 0 W m−2 up to almost 250 W m−2 . Once
more, the best agreement is reached between the measured and
simulated values in winter time.
The analysis of both the total daily energy E24 h (cf. Fig. 12) and
the disaggregated daily energies, E24 + −
and E24 (cf. Fig. 11), reveals
h h
that, in most of the case, the numerical tool is able to estimate the
amount of energy that enters (E24+
) or leaves (E24−
) the indoor envi-
h h
ronment through the PCM glazing, with a satisfactory agreement –
+ −
quite often the calculated E24 h , E24 h
, and E24 h
are within the mea-
surement uncertainty range. However, it can be observed that in the
summer, in Day 3 and Day 4, the simulated value is quite far from
the measured one. This can be explained considering the differ-
ent value of the transmitted irradiance, as already explained above.
Furthermore, it is necessary to state that the numerical model has
the tendency to over-estimate both positive and the negative daily
energies, even if the values are very often in the range of the mea-
sured ones.
6. Conclusion
Advanced glazing systems are an important element of the
construction to achieve the nZEB target. The adoption of PCM in
transparent components has been considered a promising strat-
egy to improve the poor thermal inertia of conventional glazing
systems. PCM glazing systems were originally developed for cold
climates, but they seem to be promising also for moderate and
warmer climates. However, to fully investigate their potentials
and drawbacks, the availability of robust and reliable numerical
tools is fundamental. Thanks to these tools it would be possible
to test different configurations of PCM glazing systems (e.g. with
various PCMs, layered-structures) under different operative con-
ditions without the need of performing extensive and expensive
experimental analyses. It would also be possible to assess the effec-
tiveness of this technology in different climates and for different
building types (e.g. dwellings, office buildings).
 F. Goia et al. / Energy and Buildings 54 (2012) 141–153
A simplified numerical model has been therefore developed to
allow the simulations of different PCM glazing configurations. The
main aim was to provide a tool easy to use and fast enough to be
adopted as a design tool, but reliable and accurate for developing
engineering analyses.
In the paper, the main structure of the model is presented,
together with the results of a preliminary validation procedure.
For this sake the outcomes of a numerical simulation of a simple
prototype of PCM glazing (i.e. a Double Glazed Unit filled with a
paraffin wax) were compared with a set of available experimen-
tal data, collected during an extensive experimental campaign. The
physical–mathematical model was first calibrated on a set of inde-
pendent experimental data, and then validated on another set of
values.
In general, a good agreement between simulations and exper-
imental data is often achieved as far as the surface temperature
of the glazing is concerned. The comparison between simulated
and measured transmitted irradiances and heat fluxes does not
always reach the desired accuracy, even though both the qualita-
tive analysis of the hourly profiles and the quantitative estimation
of the accuracy (e.g. PRMS) reveal a satisfactory replication of the
thermo-physical behaviour of the PCM glazing system. This lower
agreement between measured and simulated value may be due to
some simplifying assumptions that are at the basis of the model.
A better and more reliable modelling of the short-wave radiation
through the PCM should be developed and incorporated in a future
improved code. However, it must be also mentioned that, due to
the inherent measurement uncertainties, errors in measurements
cannot be completely excluded. Nevertheless, this tool seems to
predict pretty well the overall thermo-physical behaviour of the
system and may therefore represent a good starting point for fur-
ther simulations on PCM glazing systems, where the PCM layer
is integrated with additional features (e.g. solar shading devices,
smart-glass panes, ventilated cavities) that can increase the control
over the charge/discharge process of the PCM layer.
Acknowledgements
The research is part of the project “SMARTglass”, co-financed
by Regione Piemonte, Skyline – Strutture per l’Architettura srl and
MBT srl. The Research Centre on Zero Emission Building of the NTNU
is gratefully acknowledged. Authors would like to thank prof. Arild
Gustavsen for reviewing the paper.
153
References
[1] L.F. Cabeza, A. Castell, C. Barreneche, A. de Gracia, A.I. Fernández, Materials
used as PCM in thermal energy storage in buildings: a review, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 1675–1695.
[2] R. Baetens, B.P. Jelle, A. Gustavsen, Phase change materials for building appli-
cations: a state-of-the-art review, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 1361–1368.
[3] H. Manz, P.W. Egolf, P. Suter, A. Goetzberger, TIM-PCM external wall system for
solar space heating and daylighting, Solar Energy 61 (1997) 369–379.
[4] K.A.R. Ismail, J.R. Henríquez, Parametric study on composite and PCM glass
system, Energy Conversion and Management 43 (2002) 973–993.
[5] K.A.R. Ismail, C.T. Salinas, J.R. Henríquez, Comparison between PCM filled glass
windows and absorbing gas filled windows, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008)
710–719.
[6] H. Weinläder, A. Beck, J. Fricke, PCM-facade-panel for daylighting and room
heating, Solar Energy 78 (2005) 177–186.
[7] F. Goia, M. Perino, V. Serra, F. Zanghirella, Experimental assessment of
the thermal behaviour of a PCM grazing, in: Proceedings of IAQVEC
2010, Syracuse, New York, USA, 15–18 August, 2010, pp. 1–8 (Paper Ref.
21–34).
[8] H. Weinläder, Optische Charakterisierung von Latentwärmespeichermateri-
alien zur Tageslichtnutzung, Universität Würzburg, 2004 (in German).
[9] A. Ishimaru, Single Scattering and Transport Theory, vol. 1, Academic Press, CA,
USA, 1978.
[10] J.A. Duffie, W.A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, Wiley-
Interscience, New York, USA, 1980.
[11] F. Zanghirella, M. Perino, V. Serra, A numerical model to evaluate the ther-
mal behaviour of active transparent façades, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011)
1123–1138.
[12] F. Goia, M. Zinzi, E. Carnielo, V. Serra, Characterization of the optical properties
of a PCM glazing system, in: Proceedings of the SHC 2012 Conference – Inter-
national Conference on Solar Heating and Cooling for Buildings and Industry,
San Francisco, USA, Energy Procedia 2012, in press.
[13] D.K. Edwards, Solar absorption by each element in an absorber-coverglass
array, Solar Energy 19 (1997) 401–402.
[14] G.N. Walton, Thermal Analysis Research Program Reference Manual, NBSSIR
832655, National Bureau of Standards, 1983.
[15] K.S. Ong, A mathematical model of a solar chimney, Renewable Energy 28
(2003) 1047–1060.
[16] G.V. Fracastoro, L. Gai, M. Perino, Reducing cooling loads with under roof air
cavities, in: Proceedings of the 18th AIVC Conference, Athens, Greece, 1997, pp.
477–486.
[17] I. Beausoleil-Morrison, The adaptive simulation of convective heat trans-
fer at internal building surfaces, Building and Environment 37 (2002)
791–806.
[18] J.L. Wright, A correlation to quantify convective heat transfer between vertical
glazings, ASHRAE Transaction 106 (1996) 940–946.
[19] H. Manz, Numerical simulation of heat transfer by natural convection in cavities
of façade elements, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 305–331.
[20] M.C. Peel, B.I. Finlayson, T.A. McMahon, Updated world map of the
Köppen–Geiger climate classification, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
11 (2007) 1633–1644.
[21] O. Kalyanova, F. Zanghirella, P. Heiselberg, M. Perino, R. Jensen, Measuring air
temperature in glazed ventilated façades in the presence of direct solar radia-
tion, in: Proceedings of Roomvent 2007, vol. 3, Helsinki, 13–15 June, 2007, pp.
209–218.