A Decision Support Tool to Assess the Energy Renovation Performance Through a Timber-Based Solution for Concrete-Framed Buildings
, Michele Torrisi 1, Vincenzo Costanzo 1, Marilena Lazzaro 2, Diego Arnone 3 and Giuseppe Margani 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewed paper submitted to the Energies journal deals with energy issues and considers those data and KPIs regarding the building envelope based on a case study of residential building situated in Catania (Southern Italy). This manuscript meets science-related requirements including a clarification of the scientific problem, a proper composition of the methodology, a clear explanation of results obtained, discussion and conclusions well elaborated. A contribution is explicit, limitations of the study and future research lines are included.
In general, the article is complete. It is very neat, only one element is confusing for a reader that must be explained before publication. In the text, the authors refer to Table A.1. included in the appendices (page 9, line 385). The data contained in Tables A.1 and A.2 are relatively foggy because it is not clearly stated where these numbers come from and on the basis of what standard they were obtained – e.g. some other parameters are calculated according to EN ISO 6946…
The content meets the requirements for scientific works in the form of an original article in a scientific journal and can be recommended for publication after minor corrections.
Author Response
Comment 1: The reviewed paper submitted to the Energies journal deals with energy issues and considers those data and KPIs regarding the building envelope based on a case study of residential building situated in Catania (Southern Italy). This manuscript meets science-related requirements including a clarification of the scientific problem, a proper composition of the methodology, a clear explanation of results obtained, discussion and conclusions well elaborated. A contribution is explicit, limitations of the study and future research lines are included. In general, the article is complete. It is very neat, only one element is confusing for a reader that must be explained before publication. In the text, the authors refer to Table A.1. included in the appendices (page 9, line 385). The data contained in Tables A.1 and A.2 are relatively foggy because it is not clearly stated where these numbers come from and on the basis of what standard they were obtained – e.g. some other parameters are calculated according to EN ISO 6946. The content meets the requirements for scientific works in the form of an original article in a scientific journal and can be recommended for publication after minor corrections.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the very positive review. To address the remark, we included in the captions of Table A.1 and Table A.2 more details regarding data sources
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper describes a novel Decision Support System that is designed to be effectively employed in the development of simplified decision-making tools specifically tailored for building professionals operating in the early phases of building renovation projects. This study is both interesting and significant for the literature. However, a major revision is required before publication.
(1) Page 1. Both the “Abstract” and “Conclusion” sections of this paper emphasize the user-friendliness of e-DSS. Please add the description and discussion of this aspect in appropriate sections of the paper. For example, add user testing feedback or usability evaluation results.
(2) Page 1-4. The Introduction should be streamlined.
(3) Page 4. Line 179-196. Variables in Equations are ambiguously defined. Provide a nomenclature list or footnotes for clarity. Additionally, carefully verify the consistency of variable symbols throughout the paper (e.g., Sadj_i; SAdj_i)
(4) Page 11. Line 455. Please explain the rationale and applicable scope for the default thermal resistance value of R=0.1, and provide supporting references.
(5) Page 13. Line 500. Table 4 lacks details on shading devices. Provide complete input parameters for reproducibility.
(6) Page 14. The impact of using PVGIS (single-year data) vs. UNI 10349 (long-term averages) is not thoroughly addressed. A sensitivity analysis on weather data variability is needed.
(7) Page 14-16. The analysis of the results requires further in-depth discussion. It is recommended to incorporate relevant literature for a more comprehensive analysis.
(8) Page 18. The conclusion should highlight the innovative findings of this paper. It is recommended to refine and condense the conclusion.
Author Response
This paper describes a novel Decision Support System that is designed to be effectively employed in the development of simplified decision-making tools specifically tailored for building professionals operating in the early phases of building renovation projects. This study is both interesting and significant for the literature. However, a major revision is required before publication.
Comment 1: Page 1. Both the “Abstract” and “Conclusion” sections of this paper emphasize the user-friendliness of e-DSS. Please add the description and discussion of this aspect in appropriate sections of the paper. For example, add user testing feedback or usability evaluation results.
Response 1: We agree that this would significantly enrich the paper. Actually, we already performed a series of training and dissemination activities with more than 40 professionals in Italy and Greece, and we received very good feedback. We added an extensive description at the end of Section 4.3.
Comment 2: Page 1-4. The Introduction should be streamlined.
Response 2: We have shortened the introduction by retaining the essential information only and emphasizing the e-DSS’s peculiarities
Comment 3: Page 4. Line 179-196. Variables in Equations are ambiguously defined. Provide a nomenclature list or footnotes for clarity. Additionally, carefully verify the consistency of variable symbols throughout the paper (e.g., Sadj_i; SAdj_i)
Response 3: Thank you, we now included a Nomenclature section at the end of the document.
Comment 4: Page 11. Line 455. Please explain the rationale and applicable scope for the default thermal resistance value of R = 0.1 and provide supporting references.
Response 4: We agree that this value was not properly justified. R = 0.1 m2∙K/W accounts for both the new tiles and the cement screed layer that is placed between the insulation and the tiles, with an overall thickness of around 4 to 5 cm. Since a lightweight screed is recommended, the average thermal conductivity is well below 1 W/(m∙K), giving rise to the above value (0.05 m / around 0.5 W(m∙K)). We added these details in the text.
Comment 5: Page 13. Line 500. Table 4 lacks details on shading devices. Provide complete input parameters for reproducibility.
Response 5: Actually, Table 4 already includes details about the type of shading device (Inner light curtains) and the corresponding value of the shading coefficient (f_shade = 0.80). In the equations no further parameters are required to fully describe the shading devices.
Comment 6: Page 14. The impact of using PVGIS (single-year data) vs. UNI 10349 (long-term averages) is not thoroughly addressed. A sensitivity analysis on weather data variability is needed.
Response 6: Thank you, we now included a statistical analysis to describe the variation of the weather data in Catania in the last 15 years, according to the data available in PVGIS. The corresponding boxplots are compared with both the values provided by UNI 10349 and the values regarding 2023.
Comment 7: Page 14-16. The analysis of the results requires further in-depth discussion. It is recommended to incorporate relevant literature for a more comprehensive analysis.
Response 7: Actually, we believe the results are already presented and discussed in detail, also in comparative terms against a well-known and largely used commercial tool in Italy where the same case study building was simulated. A further comparative analysis against the outcomes of other decision support system tools would be inconsistent because of many structural (e.g., algorithms, level of detail of input parameters) and case study building (e.g., geometry, location, climate data, etc.) differences
Comment 8: Page 18. The conclusion should highlight the innovative findings of this paper. It is recommended to refine and condense the conclusion.
Response 8: Thank you for the suggestion, we have modified the Conclusions to address it. More than the innovative findings of this paper, we tried to highlight the innovative features of the tool.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction does not properly distinguish the e-DSS from other tools such as BIM4EEB and RenoZEB, which may confuse readers regarding its unique usefulness. Highlight the e-DSS's unique features, such as its focus on both energy and seismic performance.
The research question lacks consideration of the economic and lifecycle impacts, which are crucial for real-world decision-making. Consider including economic viability and broader impact assessments to strengthen the study's practical significance.
The case study is limited to a single region, potentially restricting the global applicability of the findings. Consider including comparative literature on case studies from different climatic regions to validate the tool’s versatility.
The methodology needs to include a sensitivity analysis for key parameters like U-values and shading coefficients to justify the results.
The methodology lacks sufficient detail on the decision-making algorithms used within the e-DSS. A detailed flowchart or algorithm description would be beneficial.
Discussion on the user experience and potential training requirements for using the e-DSS would strengthen section 4.3.
Page 18: The conclusions need to address the economic implications of the proposed renovation strategies.
Author Response
Comment 1: The introduction does not properly distinguish the e-DSS from other tools such as BIM4EEB and RenoZEB, which may confuse readers regarding its unique usefulness. Highlight the e-DSS's unique features, such as its focus on both energy and seismic performance.
Response 1 :We have shortened the introduction as requested by another reviewer and emphasized the e-DSS’s unique features, i.e. the appraisal of combined energy and seismic retrofit interventions and easiness of use regarding the input of building geometry data.
Comment 2: The research question lacks consideration of the economic and lifecycle impacts, which are crucial for real-world decision-making. Consider including economic viability and broader impact assessments to strengthen the study's practical significance.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this remark. The e-DSS includes the calculation of several economic KPIs, but it does not include LCA calculation. However, as already remarked at the end of the Introduction, the present paper only deals with energy issues, and will only consider those data and KPIs regarding the building envelope: the simulation of the thermal systems, the calculation of the primary energy use and the energy vectors used (fuel, electricity), the consequent costs and the environmental impact (CO2 emissions) will be addressed in a future separate paper, because addressing it in this paper would make the paper too long.
Comment 3: The case study is limited to a single region, potentially restricting the global applicability of the findings. Consider including comparative literature on case studies from different climatic regions to validate the tool’s versatility.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this remark. In our opinion, the tool versatility is ensured by the possibility of using weather data for whatever location in the world, provided that it is covered by the PVGIS online service. So far, the tool can be effectively used only in Italy, Greece and Romania, because for these Countries it includes a suitable database of materials, costs, and regulations. These Countries were chosen because they show high seismic risk, and the e-SAFE project includes partners coming from them. We tried to add more comments in this direction in the Conclusions. Instead, the validation of the energy algorithms in other climates than the one here considered will be studied soon after addressing the few improvements emerging from the paper.
Comment 4: The methodology needs to include a sensitivity analysis for key parameters like U-values and shading coefficients to justify the results.
Response 4: The sensitivity analysis for key parameters was performed during the debug phase of coding as a standard quality assessment procedure. To underline it, we added a few lines at the end of Section 4.1.
Comment 5: The methodology lacks sufficient detail on the decision-making algorithms used within the e-DSS. A detailed flowchart or algorithm description would be beneficial.
Response 5: We agree that this would significantly enrich the paper. Unfortunately, the decision process is quite articulated, and this paper cannot provide enough space to fully describe it. In any case, we included further information in half a page at the beginning of Section 2.5, while also recalling the relevant project deliverable that is freely available in Zenodo: here, the entire decision process is described.
Comment 6: Discussion on the user experience and potential training requirements for using the e-DSS would strengthen section 4.3.
Response 6: We agree that this would significantly enrich the paper. Actually, we already performed a series of training and dissemination activities with more than 40 professionals in Italy and Greece, and we received very good feedback. We added an extensive description at the end of Section 4.3.
Comment 7: Page 18: The conclusions need to address the economic implications of the proposed renovation strategies.
Response 7: We thank the reviewer for the feedback. As highlighted above, this paper is not intended to deal with economic aspect and costs, which would require too much space. The paper has the only scope to address energy issues, by describing and validating the calculation of the KPIs regarding the building envelope. The e-DSS is a thorough tool that addresses energy, environmental and economic issues, one single paper cannot include all of them.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be accepted for publication since all the comments have been addressed.
