## 4 Results
### Impacts on the Energy Use of the Conditioning Equipment  
From the energy perspective, the analysis of results is focused on the energy consumption of the HVAC systems installed in the test cells. Figures 11 and 12 represent the impact of each specific PCM utilized in this work in terms of the energy use of the air conditioning units for the reference cell (DEMO1) and the test cell incorporating the PCM-based mortar into internal wall coating elements (DEMO2). Both graphs show the aggregated monthly energy consumption (in kWh) directly registered in the two lightweight constructions during the corresponding periods selected for testing of the 'Conditioned mode' according to the pre-defined testing calendar (see Section 3.3). It should be noticed that July 2021 is not included in the analysis since the monitoring campaign had to be stopped for some weeks due to the annual vacation period. Nevertheless, June, August, and September provided relevant results for the summer conditions.  
Figure 11 reveals that the energy use of the air conditioning unit was reduced when incorporating the Micronal-based internal panels, either working in heating or cooling modes. The effect of reduced temperature fluctuations observed under free-floating temperature mode was consistent with the fact that less energy was required to maintain the indoor environment within the comfort limits (i.e., to meet the heating/cooling setpoints of the conditioning equipment).  
Figure 11: HVAC system energy use during Micronal testing under ‘Conditioned mode’.  
Table 3 complements the graphical results with quantified values of the monitored energy use per month for each test cell during Micronal tests. In September 2021, the maximum percentage of energy savings was reached, accounting for up to 18% of energy savings. During the entire period, the energy use for the DEMO1 was 562.05 kWh, while the conditioning of DEMO2 required 526.16 kWh. This led to a 6.39% of energy savings.  
On the other hand, Figure 12 illustrates the evolution of the monitored energy use corresponding to the air conditioning units of both DEMO1 and DEMO2 during the testing of CrodaTherm-based panels. The annual profile and the absolute values of the monitored consumptions were different from the ones for Micronal since measurements obviously corresponded to different weeks within the corresponding month in which the outdoor climate was different as well. However, the same trend was observed, thus revealing a clear reduction in energy use due to the incorporation of the PCM-based indoor coating panels.  
Table 4 presents the quantitative results per month along with the whole monitoring campaign. It can be observed that the energy use for the DEMO1 was 499.82 kWh, while the conditioning of DEMO2 required 447.52 kWh. This led to a 10.46% of energy savings.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Date**} & **Energy Use in** & **Energy Use in** & **Energy Savings (\%)** \\  & **DEMO1 (kWh)** & **DEMO2 (kWh)** & **Energy Savings (\%)** \\ \hline November-2020 & 69.49 & 61.26 & 11.85\% \\ December-2020 & 84.46 & 78.76 & 6.74\% \\ January-2021 & 46.32 & 42.08 & 9.16\% \\ February-2021 & 69.79 & 65.20 & 6.58\% \\ March-2021 & 55.89 & 51.99 & 6.98\% \\ April-2021 & 44.54 & 43.33 & 2.72\% \\ May-2021 & 58.08 & 56.90 & 2.03\% \\ June-2021 & 45.71 & 44.35 & 2.98\% \\ August-2021 & 25.72 & 22.60 & 12.13\% \\ September-2021 & 11.77 & 9.67 & 17.82\% \\ October-2021 & 50.33 & 50.04 & 0.57\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Energy use in each test cell during the testing period with Micronal-based panels.  
Figure 12: HVAC system energy use during CrodaTherm tests under ‘Conditioned mode’.