Thermal Analysis of the Building Envelope with Infrared Thermography and Simulation in Educational Buildings in the Cold Climate Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The innovative aspects of the research should be emphasized. The results presented are sometimes quite general and, to some extent, predictable. For instance, it is expected that aluminum has a higher U-value from a thermal perspective than glass and autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) walls. To strengthen the impact of the study, the novel contributions of the findings need to be highlighted.
2. The presentation of the graphs should be revised. In particular, vertical axes need to be clearly labeled and introduced (For example in Fig. 4)
3. The accuracy of the measurements and their influence on the results should be thoroughly discussed to ensure the reliability of the findings.
4. The study’s limitations should be clearly outlined, providing context for the scope and constraints of the research.
5. The conclusion section needs to be rewritten to avoid generalizations. Instead, it should focus exclusively on the key and significant achievements of the study.

Author Response

Re: Revised Manuscript, Manuscript ID: buildings-3623134

 

To whom it may concern;

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the comments of editor(s) and reviewers. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions of the editor(s) and reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within a separate .docx file (name as buildings-3623134). The parts of the revision file that have been modified and included are marked in blue. Please see below for a point-by-point response to comments and concerns. Article text and response to reviewers have been uploaded as a Word file. Many thanks for your attention.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prof. Dr. Fatma Zehra Çakıcı

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript lacks novelty and reads more as a technical case report than a journal-quality research article. The authors must clearly articulate the research gap and academic contribution. While the thermal simulation of building envelopes is relevant, the current study does not advance the scientific understanding or methodology in a significant way. The conclusion is descriptive, offering operational insights rather than theoretical or analytical depth expected in scholarly work. The manuscript fails to clearly articulate what problem in the literature it aims to address. Without a research hypothesis, the study becomes descriptive. I suggest to reject the paper.

1. Temperature varies during the day. The study reports thermal imaging data but does not specify the time that each measurement represents or how it was chosen as representative.
2. Critical data such as the wall thickness, insulation layers, HVAC system specs, window-to-wall ratio, and material configurations are absent.
3. The E102 has 61.4% difference of simulation results. Does it mean that the simulation is not reliable?
4. What does the temperature in figure 4 represent? At which point, what time does the temperature represent? What does the “source of the author” mean here?
5. The thermographic data and simulation results are presented in parallel but not compared quantitatively. This is a missed opportunity for validation.
6. For the simulation, boundary conditions (e.g., solar gains, internal loads), material emissivity, and mesh independence were not discussed.

Author Response

Re: Revised Manuscript, Manuscript ID: buildings-3623134

 

To whom it may concern;

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the comments of editor(s) and reviewers. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions of the editor(s) and reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within a separate .docx file (name as buildings-3623134). The parts of the revision file that have been modified and included are marked in blue. Please see below for a point-by-point response to comments and concerns. Article text and response to reviewers have been uploaded as a Word file. Many thanks for your attention.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prof. Dr. Fatma Zehra Çakıcı

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript analyzed the thermal performance of the building envelope with infrared thermography and then simulated the envelope with SolidWorks 2022.

The major concerns are listed below:

1. What are the governing equations used in your Thermal Simulation?
2. Please clarify what types of heat transfer are simulated by your simulation model. Does your model simulate conduction, convection, and radiation heat transfer? 
3. Did you calibrate your simulation model? How accurate is your simulation model?  

Author Response

Re: Revised Manuscript, Manuscript ID: buildings-3623134

 

To whom it may concern;

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the comments of editor(s) and reviewers. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions of the editor(s) and reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within a separate .docx file (name as buildings-3623134). The parts of the revision file that have been modified and included are marked in blue. Please see below for a point-by-point response to comments and concerns. Article text and response to reviewers have been uploaded as a Word file. Many thanks for your attention.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prof. Dr. Fatma Zehra Çakıcı

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review comments for

Thermal analysis of the building envelope with infrared thermography and simulation in educational buildings in the cold climate region

This topic properly fits with the scope of the journal. This manuscript is worth publishing; however, I suggest major revision and reconsider for publication after revision.

 

1. The abstract should be enhanced by briefly describing the research gaps to highlight the importance and uniqueness of this study. Additionally, it is recommended to briefly highlight the main contributions or findings of the study to enhance the abstract’s informative value. It is recommended to add some quantitative results in the abstract.
2. The abstract currently provides a good overview of the methodology and results, but it would be helpful to clarify the scope of the thermal analysis (e.g., specific performance metrics) and explicitly link the simulation results to potential implications for design improvements in cold climate educational buildings.
3. The writing in the Introduction section needs significant improvement. The current version lacks a clear explanation of the study’s originality and does not sufficiently justify the necessity of this research. The authors are encouraged to elaborate on the specific gap their study addresses and clearly position their work within the broader context.
4. The literature review would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion on the interconnections between thermal comfort, learning performance, building envelope design. Expanding on these topics would strengthen the justification for conducting thermal analysis specifically in educational settings.
5. In addition to Figure 2 and Figure 3, it would enhance the clarity and readability of the study if a floor plan or sectional plan were provided, clearly indicating the locations of the envelope components (measurement points) analyzed in this research.
6. The methodology section describes the thermal camera specifications and the simulation approach; however, additional procedural details are needed to improve clarity. Please specify how the thermal imaging was conducted. For example, the number of measurement points, time of day, and environmental conditions during data collection. Furthermore, explain how the thermal data were used to inform or validate the simulation models. Providing a brief justification for selecting the curtain wall and AAC wall configurations would also help clarify the scope and relevance of the analysis.
7. While Table 2 presents the thermal conductivity of glass used in the curtain wall model, the specific type of glass (e.g., single-pane, double-pane, low-emissivity, etc.) is not identified. Please clarify the type of glazing used in the simulation. Additionally, it would be helpful to include other key thermal properties of the glass, such as the U-value and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC), to provide a more complete understanding of its thermal performance, especially in the context of modeling and envelope comparisons.
8. The findings present detailed temperature measurements across different surfaces and spaces; however, the analysis would be more informative if supported by statistical measures such as average differences, standard deviations, or significance levels. This would help quantify the observed temperature variations and strengthen the reliability of the comparisons made between floors, spaces, and building orientations.
9. Table 10 effectively illustrates the simulation process; however, the results section could be strengthened by including additional quantitative outputs such as heat flux values or temperature gradients, alongside the already-reported U-values. Providing these values and directly comparing them between the curtain wall and AAC wall cases would offer a more comprehensive evaluation of the thermal performance differences between the two façade types.
10. The conclusion that AAC walls provide significantly better thermal performance than curtain walls is supported by the U-value comparison. However, the discussion would benefit from addressing potential trade-offs, such as cost, structural limitations, or daylight availability, associated with AAC walls versus curtain walls. This would provide a more balanced perspective and enhance the practical relevance of the findings.
11. Discussion: While the discussion notes general trends, such as higher temperatures on upper floors or in spaces near heat sources, the findings would benefit from deeper interpretation linking these results to building design features, occupancy, insulation levels, or HVAC performance. Consider elaborating on how these temperature differences relate to thermal comfort or energy efficiency outcomes, especially in educational settings.
12. The discussion provides a detailed comparison of temperature differences across various surfaces and spaces; however, it would be more impactful if the implications of these differences were more clearly tied to thermal comfort standards (e.g., ASHRAE 55) or occupant satisfaction. Including such context would help readers understand how these thermal variations affect the indoor environment from a user-centric perspective.
13. Furthermore, in the discussion section, it is recommended to highlight the significance of this study by discussing climatic variability, particularly how findings in cold regions may differ from those in other climate zones, to underscore the unique needs addressed by this research (from a higher level). Here are some references for your consideration; please incorporate them into your article as appropriate:

• https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13041103
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.08.197
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.007

14. The current result figures (e.g., temperature distribution graphs and U-value comparisons) are informative but appear somewhat basic in presentation. To enhance clarity and meet the standards of a scientific publication, consider improving the visual quality and formatting of the figures.
15. Conclusion: The conclusion provides a comprehensive summary of the findings and design recommendations. However, it would be strengthened by explicitly stating the key contributions and novelty of the study in the context of existing research.
16. Conclusion: The authors should clearly identify the study’s limitations. For example, any constraints related to data collection, simulation assumptions, or applicability to different building types or climates. Including a concise section summarizing the practical implications of the results for building design in cold regions would further enhance the conclusion's relevance and impact.

Author Response

Re: Revised Manuscript, Manuscript ID: buildings-3623134

 

To whom it may concern;

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the comments of editor(s) and reviewers. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions of the editor(s) and reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within a separate .docx file (name as buildings-3623134). The parts of the revision file that have been modified and included are marked in blue. Please see below for a point-by-point response to comments and concerns. Article text and response to reviewers have been uploaded as a Word file. Many thanks for your attention.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prof. Dr. Fatma Zehra Çakıcı

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a thermal analysis of the building envelope using infrared thermography and simulation in educational buildings located in cold climate regions. While the analysis and findings are well-presented, there are several areas that need improvement before the paper can be considered for publication. Below are the detailed comments for improvement:

1. The problem statement of the research needs to be clearly articulated. It should be summarized in the abstract and elaborated upon in the introduction through a thorough literature review. This will help in demonstrating the research gap. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify and revise both the abstract and the introduction sections.
2. It is recommended to explicitly list the research gap and the contributions of the study. The introduction should highlight a specific gap in the thermal analysis of building envelopes, making the study's significance and contribution to the body of knowledge clear.
3. While the methodology is well-presented, it lacks novelty. The paper should clarify what new or original aspects this study adds to the existing methodologies or techniques compared to previously published materials. This will help in establishing the uniqueness of the research.
4. The study's focus on temperature alone is insufficient. It should be expanded to include other relevant variables such as relative humidity (RH), CO2 concentration, and other thermal parameters. This will provide a more comprehensive analysis of the building envelope's thermal performance.
5. Although the findings are consistent with the methodology, the synthesis and evaluation of the results need to be more comprehensive. The authors should clarify and revise this section to enhance the depth of the analysis.
6. Figure 4 should be combined and presented in a more scientific manner. This could involve using a more standardized format for scientific graphs to improve clarity and readability.
7. References: the paper should include more recent references from 2024 to 2025 to ensure that it is up-to-date with the latest research in the field.

Author Response

Re: Revised Manuscript, Manuscript ID: buildings-3623134

 

To whom it may concern;

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the comments of editor(s) and reviewers. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions of the editor(s) and reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within a separate .docx file (name as buildings-3623134). The parts of the revision file that have been modified and included are marked in blue. Please see below for a point-by-point response to comments and concerns. Article text and response to reviewers have been uploaded as a Word file. Many thanks for your attention.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prof. Dr. Fatma Zehra Çakıcı

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the revised version is appropriate for publication

Author Response

1. The revised version is appropriate for publication.

 

The authors are grateful for constructive feedback and appreciate the opportunity for improvement based on valuable suggestion. With your valuable opinions, the article has become more understandable and detailed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did address most of my comments accordingly, but I suggest an acceptance after minor revised again for following reason.

I think the authors forgot to explain the revision about the "knowledge gap" in the introduction though they highlighted the revision. I presented the comments at the very beginning as general evaluation, this should also respond in the rebuttal letter.

 for the first question " 1. Temperature varies during the day. The study reports thermal imaging data but does not specify the time that each measurement represents or how it was chosen as representative. " What I need in paper is to present explanation on how and why these times were chosen.

Author Response

Re: Revised Manuscript, Manuscript ID: buildings-3623134

 

Dear editor(s) and valuable reviewers;

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the comments of editor(s) and reviewers. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the valuable suggestions of the editor(s) and reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within a separate .docx file (name as buildings-3623134). The parts of the revision file that have been modified and included are marked in blue. Please see below for a point-by-point response to comments and concerns. Article text and response to reviewers have been uploaded as a Word file. Many thanks for your attention.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prof. Dr. Fatma Zehra Çakıcı

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered the questions raised from the previous round of review. 

Author Response

1. The authors answered the questions raised from the previous round of review.

 

The authors are grateful for constructive feedback and appreciate the opportunity for improvement based on valuable suggestion. With your valuable opinions, the article has become more understandable and detailed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly addressed all of my previous concerns, and the manuscript has been significantly improved. I find it acceptable for publication.

Author Response

1. The authors have thoroughly addressed all of my previous concerns, and the manuscript has been significantly improved. I find it acceptable for publication.

 

The authors are grateful for constructive feedback and appreciate the opportunity for improvement based on valuable suggestion. With your valuable opinions, the article has become more understandable and detailed.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the paper. The paper has been revised accordingly. 

Author Response

1. Thank you for revising the paper. The paper has been revised accordingly.

 

The authors are grateful for constructive feedback and appreciate the opportunity for improvement based on valuable suggestion. With your valuable opinions, the article has become more understandable and detailed.