Energy saving and carbon reduction of the application of phase change materials in rammed earth heritage buildings

Liu G., Li B., Jiang W., ARICI M., Jin Y., Liu G., ...Daha Fazla

ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, sa.1, ss.10510-10526, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Basım Tarihi: 2024
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1080/15567036.2024.2386378
  • Dergi Adı: ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, ABI/INFORM, Aerospace Database, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Applied Science & Technology Source, CAB Abstracts, Communication Abstracts, Compendex, Computer & Applied Sciences, Environment Index, Greenfile, INSPEC, Metadex, Pollution Abstracts, Veterinary Science Database, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.10510-10526
  • Kocaeli Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

The combination of conventional thermal insulation materials and phase change materials (PCMs) was proposed without damaging the appearance of REHBs, the internal insulation measures of four types of expanded polystyrene (EPS) and six kinds of PCM boards combinations were investigated, and 19 retrofit cases were obtained. By conducting detailed simulations of energy consumption and indoor temperature for different cases at different locations, and comprehensively comparing multi-objects (energy-saving, economic and low-carbon), the energy consumption, cost recovery period and carbon reduction of these cases are compared and analyzed. The results show that Case I (only EPS) has the best energy-saving performance, economy and carbon emission reduction, Case III (EPS and PCM) is the second and Case II (only PCM) is the worst. The energy-saving rate of Case I and Case III (16 degree celsius) differs by 5.65%, while the cost, incremental benefit and payback period differ by 9.34%, 10.2%, and 1.57 years, respectively. Case III is a new and better passive retrofit measure of the REHB. Its energy-saving, cost and carbon reduction are only about 10% lower than that of Case I, but it has better indoor comfort. The outcomes can provide a reference for the innovative energy-saving retrofit cases for REHBs.