4.5 Review

Phase Change Materials in Transparent Building Envelopes: A Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en11010111

Keywords

phase change materials (PCMs); PCM-filled window; transparent building envelope; Thermal energy storage (TES); glazing; SWOT analysis; review; experimental

Categories

Funding

  1. EU Cost Action [TU1403]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Building envelopes can play a crucial role in building improvement efficiency, and the adoption of Phase Change Materials (PCMs), coupled with transparent elements, may: (i) allow a better control of the heat flows from/to the outdoor environment, (ii) increase the exploitation of solar energy at a building scale and (iii) modulate light transmission in order to prevent glare effects. Starting from a literature review, focused on experimental works, this research identifies the main possible integrations of PCMs in transparent/translucent building envelope components (in glazing, in shutters and in multilayer facade system) in order to draw a global picture of the potential and limitations of these technologies. Transparent envelopes with PCMs have been classified from the simplest zero technology, which integrates the PCM in a double glass unit (DGU), to more complex solutionswith a different number of glass cavities (triple glazed unit TGU), different positions of the PCM layer (internal/external shutter), and in combination with other materials (TIM, aerogel, prismatic solar reflector, PCM curtain controlled by an electric pump). The results of the analysis have been summarised in a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis table to underline the strengths and weaknesses of transparent building envelope components with PCMs, and to indicate opportunities and threats for future research and building applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available