You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Yifeng Guo1,
  • Yexue Li2,* and
  • Shanshan Xie2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

BIM-based Life Cycle Carbon Assessment and PV Strategies for Residential Buildings in Central China

The study focuses on simulating and analyzing the effects of different PV system integration strategies, varying in capacity and installation methods, on enhancing carbon reduction and mitigating emissions throughout the building’s life cycle.

  1. Since the manuscript was not provided with line numbering, it is difficult to indicate specific passages; therefore, the following comments are of a general nature.
  2. The paper would benefit from a clearer emphasis on the novelty of its contribution compared to existing research. While the integration of BIM and LCA for PV-based carbon assessment is interesting, the innovative aspects with respect to the current state of the art are not sufficiently highlighted.
  3. When referring to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the authors should mention recognized international standards or normative frameworks (e.g., ISO 14040–14044) and clarify which methodological procedures have been followed. This would strengthen the scientific robustness and replicability of the analysis.
  4. To improve readability, redundant or introductory explanations (such as “What is BIM” or “What is LCA”) could be shortened or moved to footnotes or appendices, since the target audience of Buildings is expected to be familiar with these concepts.
  5. The in-text citation format does not comply with the Buildings journal guidelines, where references should appear in square brackets [e.g., [33], [34]] instead of being integrated in the text narrative. The reference section itself seems complete and up to date, but cross-referencing in the body text should be carefully revised.
  6. The assumptions concerning the self-consumption rate (for example 90%) should be clarified and justified, as this value appears unusually high. It would be important to explain what calculation approach was used for estimating it.
  7. The discussion would benefit from a comparative analysis with previous studies in the literature, especially regarding life-cycle carbon performance of similar building typologies or PV configurations. This would contextualize the results and highlight the contribution of this work.
  8. The conclusions still include a placeholder note (“This section is not mandatory but can be added…”), which should be removed. The final section should instead synthesize the main findings, limitations, and implications for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: BIM-based Life Cycle Carbon Assessment and PV Strategies for Residential Buildings in Central China

In Abstract: „Results show total life cycle carbon emissions of 12,557.35 tCO₂”. You can calculate a nunber, but significance of the decimals are limited. In all the paper, many places. Maybe the results should be rounded to a maximum of two significant figures, or maximum three: 12,500 tCO₂ .

Keywords: Building Life Cycle Carbon Emissions; BIM; Photovoltaic Systems; not useful, already in title.

Typo: You need a space before [3]. In many place in the paper. „For example, Hubei Province [3] has also set similar targets”.

Page 2: „As a digital twin model enriched with parametric information, BIM enables the integration of comprehensive data…” Digital twin is generated with more complex systems, not only BIM. You need sensors and IoT.

Page 8: Typo: “….recycling30”. Better „….recycling [30].” In many places in the paper.

Page: Figure 5. Carbon Emission Analysis of Various Systems in the Operational Phase. Some data are necessary, for lighting you have LENI (Lighting Energy Numeric index – kWh/m2 ) or power density (kW/m2). For LED lighting, the numbers are hard to believe.

Page 15: Table 6. Power Generation of PV Systems with Different Installed Capacities. Better „Energy”, for Annual Power production, in kWh.

Page 18 „…It is suitable for building rooftops with an area of 8,497.5 m² and …” No, you are wrong, total interior surface is 8497 m2, the rooftop is 1400 m2. Very strange mistake.  

Conclusions. „This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex” Must be removed.

Page 18: „The system requires supporting components such as a 72 kWh energy storage system…” 72 kWh storage battery for 80 kW PV is very small, a justification is necessary.

It would have been interesting to know the transportation distances for the main materials, especially since some materials cross oceans.

There is no climate data or consumer profile in the school, so energy consumption for hot water or lighting is somewhat exaggerated.

The conclusions are as expected, without anything spectacular.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a case study that integrates Building Information Modeling (BIM) with Life Cycle Carbon Assessment (LCA) and Photovoltaic (PV) strategy simulation to evaluate carbon reduction in residential buildings under the hot-summer/cold-winter climate of Central China.

The topic is timely and aligns well with the Buildings journal’s scope, contributing to the discussion on digital and sustainable design methods supporting China’s “Dual Carbon” goals.

The paper demonstrates solid analytical work and clear organization, but its novelty is primarily applied rather than methodologically, and several methodological assumptions require better justification and validation. Overall, it provides useful empirical evidence but would benefit from more rigorous methodological transparency and comparative context. Some major comments are listed below:

  1. The current literature review is broad but lacks recent high-impact works that could strengthen the international context of BIM-LCA-PV integration. Please update the State of the Art section to include and discuss more recent studies published in 2025 that directly relate to life-cycle carbon assessment, optimization, and BIM-based analysis frameworks, e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178493 , useful to illustrate advanced combinations of LCA with quantitative optimization techniques, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145142 , relevant for connecting technical carbon-reduction models with policy and economic perspectives in building retrofitting and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125649 ,directly related to your methodological focus and can serve as a strong comparative benchmark for the BIM-LCA integration. Adding these recent references would significantly enhance the depth and currency of the literature review, while clarifying the novelty of the present study.
  2. The integration of BIM–LCA–PV analysis is valuable, yet it remains primarily a framework application rather than a methodological innovation. Please clarify how your approach advances existing models—for instance, does it introduce new data-link automation, a dynamic updating mechanism, or a regionalized emission factor database?
  3. The paper refers to several proprietary tools (GTJ2025, GQI2021, GCCP V6.0, PKPM-CES, PVsyst), but the data interoperability process among them is not explained.
    Add a figure or subsection clarifying how data (e.g., quantities, materials, emission factors) flow between BIM and LCA software, including file formats or APIs (e.g., IFC, gbXML, or CSV links).
  4. The study uses local carbon emission factors (e.g., 0.58 kgCO₂/kWh) and embodied carbon coefficients but does not cite their origin. Please provide a detailed table listing all emission factors, units, sources, and year of reference to ensure reproducibility.
  5. The paper reports total life-cycle emissions of 12,557 tCO₂, but no benchmarking or external validation is provided. Include a short comparison with similar case studies (in China or abroad) to assess whether these results are within a reasonable range (e.g., kgCO₂/m²).
  6. As the work is based on a single residential case in Xiangyang, the conclusions should explicitly acknowledge the limitations of generalizability and regional dependence of the results.
  7. The “Discussion” section is clear but qualitative. Strengthen it by relating your numerical findings to national or international benchmarks (e.g., average carbon intensity of Chinese residential buildings) and by elaborating on policy or design implications.
  8. Define abbreviations upon first appearance (e.g., “PEDF” in p.3 should be expanded before use).
  9. Use “embodied carbon” consistently instead of “carbon from material production.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-structured and timely study on the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) with life cycle carbon assessment and photovoltaic (PV) strategies for residential buildings in Central China. The research addresses a relevant gap in the literature by combining dynamic BIM-based carbon quantification with PV system optimization under specific regional and climatic conditions. The methodology is sound, the results are clearly presented, and the conclusions are supported by the data. The study has practical implications for low-carbon building design and policy-making in similar contexts. I would like to recommend it for publication after minor revision:

  1. More recent international studies on BIM-LCA integration and PV carbon accounting, especially from regions with similar climatic conditions, should be included to strengthen the literature review.
  2. The purpose of keywords is to facilitate reader retrieval, so it is important to choose the most relevant terms that best represent the content of the research. Please carefully choose the suitable key words. Meanwhile, the full name of BIM should be provided in the key words part.
  3. A clearer articulation of how this study advances beyond existing BIM-LCA and PV studies needs to be provided.
  4. The assumptions used in the operational energy simulation (e.g., occupancy patterns, equipment usage) should be explicitly stated to enhance reproducibility.
  5. The discussion on the limitations of the BIM-LCA model (e.g., data granularity, model interoperability) is too brief. A more critical reflection on these limitations will help to strengthen the paper.
  6. The economic analysis of PV systems is suggested to be enriched by including a net present value (NPV) or internal rate of return (IRR) analysis, in addition to the payback period.
  7. The English language is generally good but would benefit from minor polishing for fluency and consistency (e.g., “twin peaks in winter and summer” should be rephrased).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the reviewer’s comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. If the comments from the other reviewers have also been satisfactorily addressed, the paper can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The suggestion was acceptet in majority, the paper is somehow improved. The doalog was effective. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following the previous comments, it can be appreciated that the authors have improved the manuscript. According to me, the current status of the paper can be accepted for publication.