## 5 Results  
Figures 17 and 18 show the internal and external surface temperatures and the heat flux recorded during the measurement campaigns, considering a time interval of 10 min (January 23-30 2019 for Casa Cembo and February 9-23 2019 for the pre-assembled prototype). In Figure 17, it is possible to see that the inside surface temperature of Casa Cembo is quite constant, while the inside surface temperature of the pre-assembled prototype in Figure 18 increases because of the absence of a thermostat. In both case studies, the difference in temperatures of about 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C and the constant internal temperature, T\({}_{si}\) (in the last 1000 measurements), guarantee the feasibility of the measurements. Figures 19 and 20 show that the conductance did not deviate by more than \(\pm\)5% (dotted lines) from the obtained value in the last 3-6 days for 500  
Figure 17: Casa Cembo: heat flux and surface temperatures from January 23 to 30 2019. Figure 18: Pre-assembled prototype: heat flux and surface temperatures from February 9 to 23 2019. Table 4 summarizes the main results of this investigation, which show marked differences between the two case studies. Casa Cembo shows very good results, which satisfy the \(U_{lim}\) limits established by Italian Ministerial Decree 26/6/2015 [14], and with straw conductivity \(\lambda\) and wall transmittance \(U\) that are comparable with the data in Table 1 and in [15]. The straw wall in the pre-assembled prototype disperses twice the amount of heat as that of Casa Cembo and more than results in the literature (Table 1 and [15]). Moreover, thermal transmittance \(U\) does not satisfy the Italian \(U_{lim}\) limits. It should be recalled that the pre-assembled prototype had \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Thermal Characteristic** & **Casa Cembo** & **Pre-Assembled Prototype in** \\  & **Saluggia (VC)** & **Verres (AO)** \\ \hline Conductance \(C\) & 0.150 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) & 0.298 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) \\ Thermal conductivity \(\lambda\) & 0.076 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) & 0.128 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) \\ Thermal transmittance \(U\)\(\ast\) & 0.146 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) & 0.283 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) \\ Decrement factor \(f\) & 0.08 & 0.036 \\ Time shift \(\Delta t\) & 18.25 h (19.3 h) \(\ast\) & 21 h \\ Periodic thermal transmittance \(Y_{IE}\)\(\ast\) & 0.01 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) & 0.01 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* D.M. 26/6/2015 [14]; \(U_{lim}=0.24\)–0.26 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\) for the walls of the reference building in F-E Italian climatic zones; \(Y_{IE,lim}=0.10\)–0.14 Wm\({}^{-2}\)K\({}^{-1}\); \(\ast\) the data measured with Equation (3) in brackets.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Main results of the experimental campaigns and calculations on straw wall. Figure 19: Casa Cembo: average heat flux, average surface temperature difference, and average thermal conductance C.  
Figure 20: Pre-assembled prototype: average heat flux, average surface temperature difference, and average thermal conductance C.  
only been built for demonstration purposes, without taking the precautions that are instead necessary for real buildings. Moreover, this result could also be related to transport issues, which could have involved movement of the straw inside the walls of the pre-assembled prototype. The dynamic behavior of the Casa Cembo straw wall was also evaluated according to EN ISO 13786:2017 [16].