Optimization of Performance Parameter Design and Energy Use Prediction for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript "Optimization of performance parameters design and energy use prediction for nearly Zero Energy Buildings", Manuscript ID: energies-382775. In this paper, the authors analyze the optimization of performance parameters design and building energy prediction for nearly Zero Energy Buildings located in Shenyang, the largest city of China's northeast Liaoning Province. I consider that the article will benefit if the authors take into account the following remarks and address within the manuscript the signaled issues:

1)      In what concerns the "Abstract" of the paper, I consider that the authors should have first positioned the manuscript’s topic in a broad context therefore covering appropriately the topic’s background.

2)      In the "Introduction" section, the authors did not identify a clear gap in the current state of knowledge that needs to be filled, a gap that is being addressed by their manuscript. In the "Introduction" section the authors must state clearer the novel aspects of their work. At the end of the Introduction, the authors should present the structure of their paper, under the form: "The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 contains…". 

3)      In the "Materials and Methods" section (that for the time being is missing completely from the manuscript), the authors should devise a flowchart that depicts the steps that they have processed in developing their research and most important of all, the final target.

4)      The equations within the manuscript should be explained, demonstrated or cited, as there are some equations that have not been introduced in the literature for the first time by the authors and that are not cited.

5)      In the "Discussion" section the authors must extend the comparison between their developed approach and results from the manuscript and other ones that have been developed and used in the literature for the same or related purposes.

6)      In the "Discussion" section the authors should also highlight current limitations of their study, and briefly mention some precise directions that they intend to follow in their future research work.

7)      The paper will benefit if the authors make a step further, beyond their approach and provide an insight at the end of the "Discussion" section regarding what they consider to be, based on the obtained results, the most important steps that all the involved parties should take in order to benefit from the results of the research conducted within the manuscript.

8)      Reference 7 consists in: "[7] IEA. SHC Task 40/ECBCS Annex 52, Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings, IEA SHC Task 40 and ECBCS Annex 52, <http://task40.iea-shc.org/>, 2008 (accessed 30.07.2013). " Firstly, I consider that the authors should refer more recent works, because the web page's content from 2008 could have been updated in the 10 years that have passed since 2008. Secondly, in order to offer all the relevant information to the readers, the authors must assume a more recent accessing of the mentioned web page (the content of the page could have been changed in the last 5 years since the authors state they have accessed it, in 2013).

9)      A part of the sections of the manuscript are not according to the ones recommended by the Energies MDPI Journal's Template (for example sections 2,3). The authors must restructure their paper according to the Template, as follows: Abstract, Keywords, 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions (not mandatory), 6. Patents (not mandatory), Supplementary Materials (not mandatory), Author Contributions, Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest, Appendices and References. According to the Energies MDPI Journal's Template, all the figures should be cited in the main text as Figure 1, Figure 2, etc. The caption of the figure must be of the form: "Figure 1. ...". In the manuscript under review, there are different ways in which this information appears (sometimes in the main text appears "Fig…", sometimes appears "Figure…", while the caption is always in the form "Fig. …"). Please address this issue by modifying the way in which the figures are referred in the main text and by modifying the captions, according to the Energies MDPI Journal's Template. Regarding the format of the paper, the authors must take into account the Instructions for Authors from the Energies MDPI Journal's website and the recommendations from the journal's Template ( https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/instructions ).

10)   Section 2: "The heat transmission properties of each element of envelope (i.e. wall, window, door, etc.)…" and Section 4: "At the same time, BP model input neurons were identified, including 12 variables such as building envelope thermal performance parameters, window-to-wall ratios, indoor thermal disturbance, etc." In a scientific paper one should avoid using run-on expressions, such as "and so forth", "and so on" or "etc.". Therefore, instead of "etc.", the sentence should mention all the elements that are relevant to the manuscript.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article proposal studies the "Optimization of performance design and energy use prediction for nZEBs". The subject is interesting, especially for its application to a country as important as China, but the article is poorly structured and should be reviewed in depth.

In particular, I consider it necessary to undertake the following major revisions:

- The Abstract does not agree with the title or the text of the article as a whole. It needs a better structure.

- The state of the art of the Introduction must be improved. The provisions relating to the European Union should be adjusted more to the normative reality and not so much to the general news of the newspapers. Concepts such as "... the building sector represents about 40% of the world's total energy consumption ..." is applicable to Europe (Eurostar data) but not to the underdeveloped countries (Africa, Latin America, India, etc.).

In any case, the Introduction must have a clear objective to summarize the state of knowledge and not an endless enumeration of disconnected data.

- The numerical simulation is supported by equations that must be incorporated, explained and cited adequately. There is a lack in explaining the whole numerical process.

- Everything related to the Discussion and Conclusions should be expanded and placed in the context, both of China, of surrounding countries (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) and of Europe and the USA.

Minor Revisions: I recommend that the e-mail address of the corresponding author be an institutional address (University, Company, Public Organization, etc.) and not a simple internet service provider.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I suggest that the authors should first correctly format the article.
It is badly organized and formatted.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the revised version of the article "Optimization of performance parameters design and energy use prediction for nearly Zero Energy Buildings", Manuscript ID: energies-382775 and I can conclude that the authors have improved the manuscript.  

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulate the authors of the article for the substantial improvement in its content.

I consider that it meets the quality standards required for its publication in the journal Energies.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript still needs some improvements concerning the overall presentation.

- The abstract should be more concise, and I suggest authors provide the background, target, significance, methodology, main results, and so on, in this abstract.

-  "The world is confronted with similar problems in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions" Similar? Which ones? This should be clarified.

- "Existing buildings consume most of the energy " - delete this sentence.

- Delete the last paragraph - Introduction section.

- Table 1 must be on one page.

- Chapter (section) 2.1.1. is not Building characteristics. There should be: description of the research model or something like that.

- lines 230-231: new page

- Figure 6 : draw the model/structure yourself. it looks like a scan.

- lines 282-283: new page

- Describe OpenStudio better.

- line 454: is remarks; should be: where

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Optimization of performance parameters design and energy use prediction for nearly Zero Energy Buildings” (ID: energies-382775). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing.

 Point 1: The abstract should be more concise, and I suggest authors provide the background, target, significance, methodology, main results, and so on, in this abstract.

Response 1:  As Reviewer suggested that we have re-written the "Abstract" . It becomes more concise.

 Point 2: "The world is confronted with similar problems in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions" Similar? Which ones? This should be clarified.

Response 2: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.

 Point 3: "Existing buildings consume most of the energy " - delete this sentence.

Response 3:  Considering the Reviewer’ s suggestion, we have deleted this sentence.

 Point 4: Delete the last paragraph - Introduction section.

Response 4: Reviewer 1 gave the following suggestions: At the end of the Introduction, the authors should present the structure of their paper, under the form: "The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 contains…". So we added this paragraph to explain the structure of this paper.

 Point 5: Table 1 must be on one page.

Response 5: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. Table 1 have been on one page.

 Point 6: Chapter (section) 2.1.1. is not Building characteristics. There should be: description of the research model or something like that.

Response 6: As Reviewer suggested that Chapter (section) 2.1.1 was rewritten as ‘Description of the research model’.

 Point 7: lines 230-231: new page

Response 7: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.  

 Point 8: Figure 6 : draw the model/structure yourself. it looks like a scan.

Response 8: As Reviewer suggested we have redrawn the Figure 6.

 Point 9: lines 282-283: new page

Response 9: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.

 Point 10: Describe OpenStudio better.

Response 10: As Reviewer suggested we added some descriptions for OpenStudio.

 Point 11: line 454: is remarks; should be: where

Response 11: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of my comments are taken into account.