## 3 Results
### All Samples
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mortar** & **Stat.** & \(\mathbf{R_{L}(W^{-1}Km^{2})}\) & \(\mathbf{R_{R}(W^{-1}Km^{2})}\) & \(\mathbf{\lambda_{s}(W^{-1}m^{-1})}\) & \(\mathbf{\lambda_{s}(W^{-1}m^{-1})}\) & \(\mathbf{\epsilon_{s}(J^{-1}kg^{-1})}\) & \(\mathbf{\epsilon_{l}(J^{-1}kg^{-1})}\) & \(\mathbf{\mathcal{T}_{M}(^{C})}\) & \(\mathbf{\mathcal{T}_{M}(^{C})}\) & \(\mathbf{\mathcal{L}_{M}(Jkg^{-1})}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{12.4\%\({}_{\text{w}}\)} & Min & \(1.216\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(5.625\cdot 10^{-3}\) & \(0.594\) & \(0.583\) & \(1089\) & \(1089\) & \(25.52\) & \(27\) & \(12,261\) \\  & Max & \(1.084\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(4.39\cdot 10^{-3}\) & \(0.617\) & \(0.6\) & \(1100\) & \(1094\) & \(25.58\) & \(27.19\) & \(12,478\) \\  & Avg. & \(1.135\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(4.921\cdot 10^{-3}\) & \(0.602\) & \(0.592\) & \(1093\) & \(1094\) & \(25.55\) & \(27.11\) & \(12,348\) \\  & \(\varepsilon\) & \(12.16\%\) & \(28.12\%\) & \(3.74\%\) & \(2.86\%\) & \(1.02\%\) & \(0.51\%\) & \(0.22\%\) & \(0.27\%\) & \(12,778\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{19.2\%\({}_{\text{w}}\)} & Min & \(1.473\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(3.306\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(0.426\) & \(0.436\) & \(1062\) & \(1030\) & \(25.57\) & \(27.28\) & \(17,978\) \\  & Max & \(1.159\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(3.127\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(0.435\) & \(0.451\) & \(1096\) & \(1037\) & \(25.78\) & \(27.63\) & \(18,352\) \\  & Avg. & \(1.338\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(3.21\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(0.43\) & \(0.441\) & \(1068\) & \(1033\) & \(25.7\) & \(27.48\) & \(18,227\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{22.1\%\({}_{\text{w}}\)} & Min & \(8.824\cdot 10^{-3}\) & \(1.475\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(0.382\) & \(0.382\) & \(1132\) & \(1081\) & \(25.52\) & \(26.91\) & \(20,587\) \\  & Max & \(7.826\cdot 10^{-3}\) & \(1.364\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(0.384\) & \(0.389\) & \(1163\) & \(1088\) & \(25.72\) & \(27.37\) & \(21,336\) \\  & Avg. & \(8.362\cdot 10^{-3}\) & \(1.429\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(0.383\) & \(0.386\) & \(1149\) & \(1084\) & \(25.63\) & \(27.15\) & \(20,924\) \\  & \(\varepsilon\) & \(12.75\%\) & \(8.2\%\) & \(0.58\%\) & \(1.74\%\) & \(2.75\%\) & \(0.62\%\) & \(0.78\%\) & \(1.69\%\) & \(3.64\%\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Minimal, maximal, average values, and discrepancy between each identified parameter for each mortar (considering all ramps and various cycles). Finally, a last comparison is proposed to clearly show the coherence between all the identified enthalpy functions. Knowing the minimal and maximal values for all the parameters, it is possible to build two extreme estimations for the enthalpy function. Such curves are given in Figure 11. Meanwhile, an error criterion between these curves is represented, which has been defined as follows so as to be non-dimensional:  
\[\varepsilon=\frac{|h_{\text{max}}-h_{\text{min}}|}{L_{M}} \tag{8}\]  
It is obvious that, even when taking the extreme values for each parameter, the corresponding discrepancy is very low. In fact, it is clearly far below the usual accepted quality threshold which is currently around 10% [66; 67]. Then, another analysis is proposed to clearly underline the possibility of the present method and its intrinsic strengthes. When looking at the other similar studies, summarized in Table 4, it appears that only five of them use the same PCM as in the present study. Besides, as stated before, some of them only deal with DSC [40; 45; 82] and the properties of a real macroscopic sample are addressed solely by [35], although only the thermal conductivity is involved in the latter paper. More importantly, when dealing with the thermal conductivity, very often, only an overall or effective value is furnished and no distinction is done between the concrete with PCM in solid or in liquid state, contrary to what is currently done here. Figure 9: Comparisons of the identified enthalpy functions for all the heating/cooling ramps (_n.b._ unique formulation pertaining for both fusion and crystallization).