## 3 Results and Discussion
### Parametric Analysis of Amount of PCM  
As it was previously stated, the implementation of PCM in the movable layer can be achieved by means of using a polymeric matrix, or other system such as tubes or honeycomb layers. In any case, the addition of PCM will not achieve 100% w/w, as some matrix will be used to hold the PCM and prevent its leakage. Within this context, Table 3 presents how the amount of PCM in the rotatable layer affects the performance of the whole system in terms of energy savings and optimal control strategy (t\({}_{0}\) and t\({}_{1}\)). Results show that the dynamic system is able to provide considerable heating benefits even without using any PCM in the movable layer and just storing solar energy in the polymeric matrix in a sensible form. Thus, this can reduce the heating load by 36% when the dynamic system is implemented in Wall1 and Wall3 construction systems and by more than 50% when implemented into the Wall 2 envelope. Furthermore, the use of any amount of PCM enhances dramatically this effect, as the system achieves heating load reductions higher than 100% when using 50% w/w of PCM in Wall 1 and when using 25% w/w of PCM in Wall 2 and Wall 3 construction systems. That means that with these proportions of PCM, the system provides a positive energy balance, as the amount of solar energy dissipated indoors is higher than heat losses to the outdoor environment. As expected, the more amount of PCM added in the movable layer, the higher heating benefits that the system can provide. However, this improvement is not always linear, as shown in Figure 7. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Construction System** & **System** & **Optimized T\({}_{\text{PCM}}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **Q\({}_{\text{load}}\) [kJ/m\({}^{2}\)]** & **Heating Load Reduction (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Wall 1} & Static & \multirow{2}{*}{-} & \multirow{2}{*}{2085.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{-} \\  & NoPCM & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Static PCM & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Dynamic & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Wall 2} & Static & \multirow{2}{*}{-} & \multirow{2}{*}{2085.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{-} \\  & NoPCM & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Static PCM & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Dynamic & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Wall 3} & Static & \multirow{2}{*}{-} & \multirow{2}{*}{2869.6} & \multirow{2}{*}{-} \\  & NoPCM & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Static PCM & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Dynamic & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Heating load reduction by using static and dynamic PCM for each constructive system. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Constructive System** & **PCM \% w/w** & **t\({}_{1}\)** & **t\({}_{0}\)** & **Q\({}_{\text{load}}\) [kJ/m\({}^{2}\)]** & **Heating Load Reduction (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Wall 1**} & 0 & 14:14 & 16:01 & 1319.8 & 36.71 \\  & 25 & 13:29 & 16:36 & 278.9 & 86.63 \\  & 50 & 12:37 & 16:44 & \(-\)189.8 & 109.10 \\  & 75 & 12:17 & 16:53 & \(-\)309.9 & 114.86 \\  & 100 & 12:26 & 16:58 & \(-\)311.6 & 114.94 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Wall 2**} & 0 & 13:12 & 15:07 & 949.1 & 53.33 \\  & 25 & 11:25 & 15:01 & \(-\)425.5 & 120.92 \\  & 50 & 10:43 & 15:31 & \(-\)1359.8 & 166.86 \\  & 75 & 10:42 & 15:24 & \(-\)2041.6 & 200.39 \\  & 100 & 10:32 & 15:47 & \(-\)2452.3 & 220.59 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Wall 3**} & 0 & 12:02 & 13:11 & 1833.6 & 36.10 \\  & 25 & 13:08 & 15:15 & \(-\)95.0 & 103.31 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 50 & 11:49 & 14:59 & \(-\)2281.3 & 179.50 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 75 & 11:52 & 16:41 & \(-\)4260.8 & 248.48 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 100 & 11:49 & 15:49 & \(-\)5994.4 & 308.89 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Sensitivity analysis of PCM amount in heating load and control parameters by using dynamic system for each constructive system. The system cannot improve benefits when adding more PCM than 50% in the case when the system is implemented in Wall 1, as the high thermal mass of the constructive system also plays an important role.