A Flexible Quantification Method for Buildings’ Air Conditioning Based on the Light and Heat Transfer Coefficients: A Case Study of a Shanghai Office Building

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Flexible Quantification Method for Buildings’ Air Conditioning Based on the Light and Heat Transfer Coefficients: A Case Study of a Shanghai Office Building

The authors presented results of the analysis on a light and heat transfer system that combines the thermal physical properties of the building body with the external dynamic environment. Below are comments to improve the paper:

1. It is recommended to include additional quantitative results in the Abstract section to better reflect the relevance of the paper.
2. The first keyword should be revised: building air conditioning flexible regulation capability as it is too long.
3. All abbreviations used should be explained in the first line of the text, e.g. AVES (line 117).
4. Add units to heat transfer coefficient (line 218).
5. The authors refer only to external wall heat transfer coefficients. Please provide coefficients for other envelopes: windows, doors, roof ...
6. A more detailed description of the object is needed.
7. Which user profiles are used in the program settings?
8. What are the lighting settings?
9. What are the settings for the ventilation system?
10. Please provide a model of the building from the software.
11. How is the model validated?
12. The authors mention that ‘compared with the actual test data’ Where to see those actual test data? Are they provided?
13. Why is the period from May 1 in the results chosen?
14. 6 (d) - huge spread of data. More justification is needed.
15. Most of the figures are very briefly discussed, deeper scientific discussion is needed.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Flexible Quantification Method for Buildings’ Air Conditioning Based on the Light and Heat Transfer Coefficients: A Case Study of a Shanghai Office Building” (Manuscript ID: energies-3486740). 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. The “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word is used to mask the revisions. The response to the reviewer's comments can be found in the attachment "Response to Reviewer 1 Comments"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors;

I suggest the following revisions to improve the manuscript:

The abstract introduces the topic but lacks a clear articulation of the specific research gap.

The abstract mentions an 80% fitting degree but does not clarify how this was measured or validated. Including a brief mention of statistical validation would add credibility.

The introduction provides a strong justification for the study’s relevance but does not sufficiently differentiate it from existing demand-side energy management models.

The introduction hints at a research gap related to the difficulty in quantifying air conditioning flexibility but does not explicitly define it. Also, the study’s objectives could be better structured.

There is limited discussion on how existing quantification models compare to the proposed light and heat transfer coefficient-based approach. Including a comparative analysis would provide stronger justification for the methodology.

The research discusses insulation performance and thermal mass but does not elaborate on how recent advancements in smart glazing or phase-change materials (PCMs) could affect air conditioning flexibility.

The study references methodologies such as the Equivalent Thermal Parameter (ETP) model but does not critically assess their limitations. A more detailed discussion on why these models are insufficient for flexibility quantification would be beneficial.

he selection of a public building in Shanghai is justified, but additional details on why this specific building was chosen (e.g., typical energy consumption patterns, architectural characteristics) would strengthen the case study’s generalizability.

The study employs Spearman’s correlation and sliding window analysis, but it does not justify why these techniques were chosen over others such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or regression-based sensitivity analysis.

The study does not explicitly acknowledge the limitations of its approach.

The results are presented clearly, but the figures lack sufficient interpretative commentary.

The results mention an 80% fitting degree for heat transfer-based quantification, but it is unclear how this was computed. Was it based on R² values from regression analysis? Clarifying this would add transparency.

The discussion effectively summarizes key findings but does not critically examine potential drawbacks of the proposed approach.

The conclusion effectively reiterates the study’s contributions but does not explicitly state how it advances the field beyond previous quantification methods.

I hope the authors find these comments constructive and helpful in improving the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Flexible Quantification Method for Buildings’ Air Conditioning Based on the Light and Heat Transfer Coefficients: A Case Study of a Shanghai Office Building” (Manuscript ID: energies-3486740). 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. The “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word is used to mask the revisions.  The response to the reviewer's comments can be found in the attachment "Response to Reviewer 2 Comments"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper could be accepted.

Figure 8 should be revised. Some text is very small.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Flexible Quantification Method for Buildings’ Air Conditioning Based on the Light and Heat Transfer Coefficients: A Case Study of a Shanghai Office Building” (Manuscript ID: energies-3486740). 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. The “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word is used to mask the revisions. The responds to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:

Point 1: Figure 8 should be revised. Some text is very small.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have made modifications to Figure 8. Meanwhile, we have also made adjustments to the readability and clarity of other images based on the editor's feedback.Specific modifications can be found in the resubmitted manuscript “Manuscript-modified-V2”.