 Technical Article
 Open Access
A simple and effective model for prediction of effective thermal conductivity of vacuum insulation panels
 Ankang Kan^{1}Email author,
 Liyun Kang^{1},
 Chong Wang^{1} and
 Dan Cao^{1}
Received: 11 October 2014
Accepted: 5 January 2015
Published: 21 August 2015
Abstract
The excellent thermal insulation performance of vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) make them widely applied in energy conservation fields, especially in buildings engineering. This research work proposes a simple, yet extremely effective, alternative model for prediction of the effective thermal conductivity (ETC.) of VIPs. The ETC. of VIPs is function of the thermal conductivity of the core materials, the equivalent thermal conductivity of the rarefied gas embraced in the core and the equivalent thermal conductivity of radiation in the early studies. The micro structure of the porous core materials and vacuum degree are taken into consideration and the prediction numerical model for the ECT of VIPs is developed. The relationship of the vacuum degree versus the ETC. is theoretical analyzed. Three types VIPs are made from the polyurethane foam materials, superfine fibrous materials and nanogranular silica materials as the core materials. For each type, the vacuum degree and the thermal conductivity are collected, including the comparison between the testing results and the prediction model. The agreement between the model and the experimental results is fairly well when the air pressure is very low. The vacuum maintaining and service life of the VIPs are also discussed. The research work is meaningful for the enhancement of stability and the development of vacuum insulation panels.
Keywords
Introduction
Nowadays, vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) are regarded as one of the optimum thermal adiabatic materials for the energy conservation purpose on the market. The thermal insulation performances observed, even ten times better than common heat insulation materials can be achieved by applying VIPs, resulting in a great potential for the reduction of energy loss in thermal space with slim exteriorprotected walls (Fricke et al. 2008; Baetens 2010; Nussbaumer et al. 2006; Nussbaumer et al. 2005; Brunner et al. 2012; Caps et al. 2001). The flat VIPs contain a porous core material which withstands the atmospheric air pressure, a gastight barrier envelope that is optimized for low air & moisture leakage rate and for a long service life to maintain the internal vacuum level, and getter or gas absorption materials, if necessary, to absorb internal gas from leakage or other sources. That is, the VIPs make use of vacuum to suppress heat transfer due to rarefied gaseous conduction (Bouquerel et al. 2012a; Bouquerel et al. 2012b; Alam et al. 2011). So the thermal adiabatic property of VIPs dramatically depends on the core materials and the internal gas pressure. The porous materials, such as, microopen foam, nanostructured power and fine fiber, are commonly used as core materials of VIPs, which are easily evacuated and have minimum thermal conduction effect (Kwon et al. 2009). The heat transfer processing in VIPs is via solid conduction, rarefied gas conduction, radiation and convection occurring at interface of gas and solid wall which is nearly zero, is always ignored in calculation. The solid conduction and radiation depends on the structure, the porosity and properties of core materials, while the gas conduction by the residual gases embraced in the caves depends on the internal gas pressure which maybe increased with time. So the ETC. of VIPs must be function of the variables mentioned above.
Various models to predict the ETC. of VIPs can be founded in the literature. The typical models for VIPs with different core materials have been presented by Jae Sung Kwon et al. (Kim & Song 2013; Caps & Fricke 2000; Di et al. 2013; Di et al. 2014). Special emphasis on the solid conduction is theoretically investigated and transport mechanisms of three core materials are numerically analyzed. Separate calculation for solid conductivity, gaseous conductivity and radiative conductivity is also studied. However, separate research of these contributions is not easy in practice because any of them cannot be fully eliminated. There are also many variables in the models that should be determined by experiments. Based on an empirical approach, Kan and Han (2013) proposed a fractal model to estimate the ETC. of opencell polyurethane foam. This model consists of fractal dimension and fractal diameter which are not easily obtained. Wang (Wang & Pan 2008a; Wang & Pan 2008b; Wang et al. 2007) presents a lattice Boltzmann method, that is, a random generationgrowth method to produce micro morphology of porous media. Different parameters of different porous materials are involved in the statistical models and the simulation porous materials are selfsimilarity in the micro space. A simplified model are proposed by Miguel A. A. Mendes et al. (Mendes et al. 2013; Mendes et al. 2014) to estimate the ETC. of opencell foamlike porous materials and the serial and parallel arrangements are simulated in the model. They concluded that the ETC. strongly depends on the porosity and the ratio of thermal conductivities of solid and fluid phases. The results are compared with the experimental data, and the correlation for the model is also obtained.
From the considered models mentioned above, it can be easily concluded that the numerical prediction models, where the effective structural cell is generated based on the real morphology of the porous media, are the function of the porosity, the thermal conductivities of the phases, the radiation conductivity and additional empirical parameters in some case. However, such models can be found in the references, but they do not directly provide explicit expressions for the ETC. of VIPs because of the vacuum conditions. As the wide application of VIPs, the needs of the ETC. prediction are urgent for manufacture, development and research. In view of above discussion, the main objective of this study is to provide an effective model to predict the ETC. of VIPs with alterable core materials. Based on the morphology of the core materials and the vacuum degree, the appropriate simplified numerical models are investigated for alterable VIPs.
Mathematical methods
However, for VIPs, the air pressure in the cavities of the core materials is very small, nearly zero. So the fluent phase is always gas, under the normal temperature. The thermal convection between the solid wall and the filled phases can be ignored.
The conductivity of solid matrix
The heat conduction for the nonmetal solid matrix can be achieved by the vibration of the lattice morphology. So the certain porous materials, the ETC. is usually regarded as the function of the mean temperature. In fact, the ETC. also has the relationship with the materials density, the micro structure, the characteristics, the porosity, and so on. The calculation formula is so very complex that it is nearly impossible to get the accuracy value. So the value is always provided by vendors or collected from experiment.
The conductivity of rarefied gas
Free motion of gas molecules makes the heat transfer complex in the open cells of the core porous materials. According to the gas kinetic theory, we can acknowledge that, the smaller the cavity dimension, the harder the gas molecules move in it. For the VIPs core materials, the pore dimension scales are micron or even nanometer level. While the pore dimension is no larger than 100 μm and the air pressure is under 100 Pa, that is, the Reynolds is smaller than 1000 and Knudsen number is bigger than ten, the equivalent conductivity of gas can be ignored, λ _{ c } ≈ 0.
Where T is the mean temperature of the porous material in thermodynamic scale, K; d _{ g } is the diameter of the gas molecule, m, here, for air, d _{ g } = 3.72 × 10^{−10} m;K _{ B } is the Boltzmann constant, and K _{ B } = 1.38 × 10^{−23} m J/K;P _{ g } is the rarefied air pressure, Pa.
The equivalent thermal conductivity of radiation
Where, l _{ c }is the thickness of the plate core materials, m; φ is the attenuation coefficient for porous media, and here φ = 445 m^{−1};σ is Steve Boltzmann constant, and σ = 5.6697 × 10^{−8} W/(K^{4} · m^{2}); T _{ 1 } ,T _{ 2 } are respectively both sides of the VIPs temperature in thermodynamic scale, K.
The ETC. of VIPs
Where, ξ is the porosity of the core materials.
Numerical analysis and discussion
Porous materials and simulation
Results and discussion
 (1)
The relationship of the vacuum degree versus the ETC.
Figure 2 shows the predicted ETC. of three typical porous media under vacuum condition. The curves in the simulation for the open micro cell polyurethane, superfine glass fiber and nanograin silica dioxide are very similar. In the relevant simulation figure, the curve is nearly flat while the static air pressure in the cavities is over a certain value P _{ low }, that is, the ETC. is nearly constant. But there is a sharp decline of the ETC. with the reducing of the static air pressure while the vacuum value is less than the certain value P _{ low } mentioned above. When the static air pressure in the cavities reaches for another certain value P _{ low }, the air in the cells is so rarefied that thermal convection can be negligible, and the curve line is flat again with the air pressure decreasing. For the VIP manufacture and application, the certain air pressure P _{ low } is meaningful and critical. When the air pressure inside the porous core materials is below the critical P _{ low }, the VIP will take a good adiabatic thermal performance in the usage. Taking into account the information in Fig. 2, one can easily make the conclusion that, if one wants to get the ideal insulating VIPs, the air pressure inside the core materials, for corresponding micro cellular polyurethane, should be reduced to below 1 Pa, for superfine glass fiber, below 10 Pa, for the nanograin silica dioxide, below 100 Pa.
 (2)
The relationship of the feature size of the porous medium versus the ETC.
From the Fig. 2, one can also easily recognize that, the ETC. greatly reduces with the reduction of the feather size of the porous core materials, as the occupancy of solid matrix increases and the corresponding air molecules free path decreases, and the movement of air embraced in the pore is restricted in the narrow spaces. With the feather size decreasing, the porosity decreases but the corresponding P _{ low } increased. In practice, the improvement of the P _{ low } is meaningful for the special equipments, especially for the vacuum heat sailing machines. But it is also the obstacles for the vacuum degree to create.
Actually, the recommending vacuum value for the open cellular polyurethane, as the core materials, is within 100 μm, for super fine glass fiber, within 10 μm, and super nano grain silica dioxides within 100 nm.
VIPs samples and experiments
Samples of VIPs with different core materials
The main parameters of the core materials
Parameters  

Dimension mm × mm × mm  Density Kg/m^{3}  Pore diameter  Porosity  Mean diameter  Barrier membrane  
open cellular foam polyurethane  300 × 300 × 20  50 ~ 75  80 ~ 100 μm  95 %  72 μm  High barrier laminates 
superfine fibrous glass mate  300 × 300 × 20  200 ~ 250  2 ~ 10 μm  >90 %  6 μm  High barrier laminates 
nanograin silica dioxides mixed with a few short glass fibers.  300 × 300 × 20  180 ~ 200  10 ~ 40 nm  >95 %  32 nm  High barrier laminates and nylon film 
The vacuuming, heat sealing, cooling and air charging proceeding are program controlled by the computer, and the setting air pressure is the final vacuum degree in the vacuum space. The setting rank of air pressure in these experiments are 0.1 Pa, 1 Pa, 10 Pa, 100 Pa and 1000 Pa. And then we got five VIPs samples with five different kind of inside air pressure. And the final vacuum inside the core materials are estimated by the anti air pressure method (Di et al. 2013).
ETC testing and data collection
ETC. of VIPs samples and the inside air pressure in the measurements
Core porous materials  

open cellular foam polyurethane  superfine fibrous glass mate  nanograin silica dioxides  
NO.  PU1  PU2  PU3  PU4  PU5  FG1  FG2  FG3  FG4  FG5  SI1  SI2  SI3  SI4  SI5 
Setting air pressure/Pa  0.1  1  10  10^{2}  10^{3}  0.1  1  10  10^{2}  10^{3}  0.1  1  10  10^{2}  10^{3} 
Final air pressure/Pa  5  13  45  140  713  0.6  7  25  165  763  15  38  80  241  892 
Testing ETC./mW/(m · K)  4.12  4.15  5.04  16.23  21.16  2.68  2.96  3.19  5.84  14.63  3.06  3.82  4.14  4.75  8.24 
Calculated ETC. mW/(m · K)  4.03  4.42  4.84  14.33  19.21  2.61  2.83  2.94  4.86  10.44  3.23  3.35  3.98  4.12  8.08 
Because the thickness of the barrier films (always several micro meters) is much smaller than that of core materials mate (in centimeter) and the thermal conductivity is much bigger than that of core materials under vacuum condition, the thermal resistance of the barrier films is ignored in the calculation and the further analysis. However, if the numerical model is used to predict the ETC. when the inside air pressure is near the barometric pressure, the thickness and thermal resistance should been taken into account.
Comparisons and discussions
When the inside air pressure is lower than 10 Pa, the ETC. curved line of the open cellular polyurethane is flat, basically around a constant value 4 mW/(m · K), and the theoretical calculation value is nearly the same, but slightly lower than the measured one. When the inside air pressure reaches for 100 Pa and continues to rise, the ETC., both of numerical prediction value and measurement one, sharply increased and over 11 mW/(m · K)(the limited value for so called adiabatic materials). The deviation between the theoretical calculations and the measured values gradually increases with the air pressure increases. The reason is that, the number of the air molecules in the pores increases and the frequent collision of the air molecules makes the free air path smaller than the cell feather size. The air thermal convection occurs and plays an important role by degrees. So the measured value is higher than that of the calculated one. So, the numerical ETC. prediction model for VIPs with the open micro cellular polyurethane, is much accurate when the inside air pressure is lower than 100 Pa.
For the superfine fibrous glass materials, the measured ETC. is agreeable with the calculated one when the inside air pressure is lower than10Pa and the ETC. value is around 3 mW/(m · K). As the inside air pressure exceeds 20 Pa and continues to rise, ETCs, both measured value and theoretical calculated one, sharply rise with the increasing of air pressure. And the difference between the two values also enlarges. One reason is that, the air molecules gathered in the pore leading to the thermal convection gradually intensified, as mentioned above. Another reason is that, the fibrous glass mate is flexible and compressible. The connected thermal resistance exists between two superfine fibrous pips and changes with the various air pressure differences between air pressure inside and outside the panels. The connected thermal resistance decreasing along with the inside air pressure increasing makes the measured ETC. value is slightly higher than that of calculated ones. So, the numerical ETC. prediction model for VIPs with the superfine fibrous glass core materials, is much accurate when the inside air pressure is lower than 10 Pa.
The ETCs of the nano grain silica dioxide powder as the core materials under the vacuum condition, both of the numerical prediction value and the measured one, are nearly the same and not more than 4 mW/(m · K) when the inside air pressure is no more than 100 Pa and theoretical calculation and measured values are in good agreement. The same trend is also displayed the similarities with the other two core materials. The reason is also mentioned above. The numerical ETC. prediction model for VIPs with the nano grain silica dioxide core materials is more accurate when the inside air pressure is lower than 100 Pa.
Conclusions
 (1)The vacuum degree is one of the key external effect factors of the VIPs thermal property. Vacuum maintenance is an important and vital for the thermal stability and service life of VIPs. From the numerical simulation, the conclusions can be made that:

➢The feature size of micro open cellular polyurethane as the core materials for VIPs, should be within 100 μm and the inside air pressure should be not more than 1 Pa;

➢The feature size of superfine fibrous glass should be within 10 μm, and the inside air pressure should be not more than 10 Pa;

➢The feature size of nano grain silica dioxide power should be within 100 nm, and the inside air pressure should be not more than 100 Pa.

 (2)
Compared the theoretical prediction value with the measured one, the agreement is very well when the inside air pressure is low. Even the ETC. same change trend, both of the numerical model and the measured values with increasing the air pressure, displaying in the research work, the deviation between the two gradually enlarged. So the numerical model can accurately predict the ECT of porous media under the low air pressure, especially under the P _{ low }.
 (3)
Taking into consideration the properties of the core materials and vacuum degree, combined with the gas permeability rate of the barrier membrane, this numerical model can also be used to predict the service life of VIPs for further research, for the purpose of manufacture, engineering design and application.
Nomenclature

d _{ g } the diameter of the gas molecule, m

ETC. effective thermal conductivity W/(m · K)

K _{ B } Boltzmann constant, 1.38 × 10^{−23} mJ/K

K _{ n } Knudsen number

l _{ c } the thickness of the plate core materials, m

l _{ m } gas molecule mean free path, m

P Air pressure, Pa

T temperature in thermodynamic scale, K

β universal constant, 1.5

δ the mean diameter of the pore, m

σ Steve Boltzmann constant, 5.6697 × 10^{−8} W/(K^{4} · m^{2})

φ the attenuation coefficient,445 m^{−1}

ξ the porosity of the core materials

λ thermal conductivity W/(m · K)

c thermal conduction

e effective

g gas

r thermal radiation

s solid phase
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This research is financially supported by the Natural Sciences Foundation of Shanghai, China (15ZR1419900). The authors also sincerely acknowledge the technical support from Prof. Zhang Xuelai for his valuable suggestion and contributions in mounting the experimental setup and installing the data acquisition devices.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Alam M, Singh H, Limbachiya MC (2011) Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs) for building construction industry–A review of the contemporary and future directions. Appl Energy 88:3592–3602View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Baetens R, Jelle BP, Thue JV et al (2010) . Vacuum insulation panels for building application: a review and beyond. Energy Buildings 42:147–172View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bouquerel M, Duforestel T, Baillis D, Rusaouen G (2012a) Heat transfer modeling in vacuum insulation panels containing nanoporous silicas: A review. Energy Buildings 54:320–336View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bouquerel M, Duforestel T, Baillis D, Rusaouenb G (2012b) Mass transfer modeling in gas barrier envelopes for vacuum insulation panels: a review. Energy Buildings 55:903–920View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Brunner S, Stahl T, Ghazi Wakili K (2012) An example of deteriorated vacuum insulation panels in a building facade. Energy Buildings 54:278–282View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Caps R, Fricke J (2000) Thermal conductivity of opacified powder filler materials for vacuum insulations. Int J Thermophys 21:2 445–2452View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Caps R, Heinemann U, Ehrmanntraut M, Fricke J (2001) Evacuated insulation panels filled with pyrogenic silica powders: properties and applications. High TempHigh Press 33:151–156View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Di X, Gao Y, Bao C, Hu Y (2013) Optimization of glass fiber based core materials for vacuum insulation panels with laminated aluminum foils as envelopes. Vacuum 97:55–59View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Di X, Gao Y, Bao C, Ma S (2014) Thermal insulation property and service life of vacuum insulationpanels with glass fiber chopped strand as core materials. Energy Buildings 73:176–183View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fricke J, Heinemann U, Ebert HP (2008) Vacuum insulation panelsFrom research to market. Vacuum 82:680–690View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jung H, Jang CH, Yeo IS, Song TH (2013) Investigation of gas permeation through Almetalized film for vacuum insulation panels. Int J Heat Mass Transf 56:463–446View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kan A, Han H (2013) Effective Thermal Conductivity of Open Cell Polyurethane Foam Based on the Fractal Theory. Adv Mat Sci Eng Article ID 125267:7Google Scholar
 Kim J, Song TH (2013) Vacuum insulation properties of glass wool and opacified fumed silica under variable pressing load and vacuum level. Int J Heat Mass Transf 64:783–791View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kim J, Jang C, Song TH (2012) Combined heat transfer in multilayered radiation shields for vacuum insulation panels: Theoretical/numerical analyses and experiment. Appl Energy 94:295–302View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kwon JS, Jang CH, Jung H, Song TH (2009) Effective thermal conductivity of various filling materials for vacuum insulation panels. Int J Heat Mass Transf 52:5525–5532View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mendes MAA, Ray S, Trimis D (2013) A simple and effective method for the evaluation of effective thermal conductivity of opencell foamlike structures. Int J Heat Mass Transf 66:412–422View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mendes MAA, Talukdar P, Ray S, Trimis D (2014) Detailed and simplified models for evaluation of effective thermal conductivity of opencell porous foams at high temperatures in presence of thermal radiation. Int J Heat Mass Transf 68:612–624View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nussbaumer T, Bundi R, Tanner C, Muehlebach H (2005) Thermal analysis of a wooden door system with integrated vacuum insulation panels. Energy Buildings 37:1107–1113View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nussbaumer T, Ghazi Wakili K, Tanner C (2006) Experimental and numerical investigation of the thermal performance of a protected vacuum insulation system applied to a concrete wall. Appl Energy 83:841–855View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Schwab H, Heinemann U, Wachtel J (2005a) Prediction for the increase in Pressure and water content of vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) Integrated into Building Construction using Model Calculation. J Therm Envel Build Sci 28:327–344Google Scholar
 Schwab H, Heinemann U, Beck A (2005b) Prediction of service life for vacuum insulation panels with fumed silica kernel and foil cover. J Therm Envel Build Sci 28:357–374Google Scholar
 Tenpierik M, Cauberg H (2007) Analytical models for calculating thermal bridge effects caused by thin high barrier envelopes around vacuum insulation panels. J Build Phys 30:185–215View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Wang M, Pan N (2008a) Modeling and prediction of the effective thermal conductivity of random opencell porous foams. Int J Heat Mass Transf 51:1325–1331View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang M, Pan N (2008b) Predictions of effective physical properties of complex multiphase materials. Mater Sci Eng R 63:1–30View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Wang M, Pan N, Wang J, Chen S (2007) Mesoscopic simulations of phase distribution effects on the effective thermal conductivity of microgranular porous media. J Colloid Interface Sci 311:562–570View ArticleGoogle Scholar