Shielding Effectiveness Evaluation of Wall-Integrated Energy Storage Devices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the submission. This work evaluates the SE of wall-integrated energy storage devices, which is definitely important in energy safety and electromagnetic safety. My comments are given as follows for your reference:
(1) The energy-efficient storage buildings are critical infrastructures in modern urban areas. Except for the electromagnetic interference from the environment, the intentional electromagnetic attacks from criminals serve as a high-priority consideration. The current background ignores the concept of this part, as well as a deep review of the latest design or SE evaluation methods. Please discuss the latest review and techniques, such as a review of intentional electromagnetic interference in power electronics: Conducted and radiated susceptibility.
(2) The main concept of this work is to embed the energy storage elements for shielding. However, there are more common and easy-to-implement solutions, which have been widely implemented in buildings, such as adding metal shielding, setting the fence for social distancing, etc. You may find many relevant studies in substation protection, such as the systematic testing, simulation, and mitigation of IEMI risks in medium-voltage substations. I believe these studies can also be implemented in energy-efficient storage buildings. Maybe a discussion of these traditional methods and the proposed one can enhance the importance of this study.
(3) The SE is usually provided by reflection, multi-reflection, and absorption. The equation given in (1) is a classic formula, which quantifies the SE from the results rather than predicting at the initial design stage. Please summarize the core design concept for this work and how the proposed layer affects the aforementioned three indices. You can see more useful concepts in a systematic three-stage safety enhancement approach for motor drive and gimbal systems in unmanned aerial vehicles. Moreover, the formulas (2)-(13) are a sequential derivation, which did not address how to quantify the required SE and how to derive the multilayered capacitor design based on the required SE.
(4) What's the reason for selecting 700 MHz to 4 GHz as the frequency range of interest? Based on the standard, such as MIL-STD-461, the protection range for radiation is usually from a few MHz to 18 GHz based on the risk level.
(5) The specifications of the simulation should be given for repeated purposes, such as the dimension, the setting, the mesh size, etc.
(6) The experiment has been conducted in a typical shielding room-based method, as described in the review of (1). However, it is more suitable for a plane structure. Could the authors provide more insights about the irregular structure of the real building? What are the results if there are any vents or apertures (e.g., windows)?
(7) A design flow should be given. More limitations and future works should be added to address the comments provided in (1)-(6).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work studies energy storage in building wall

To improve, please consider the following points:

1. Abstract is oversimple. It should include background of study, the problem that the paper addressed, the innovations, methods used, and key results.
2. In introduction, energy storage is a broad word and this paper however is focusing on a filed in the energy storage. To help a reader under the the context, It is important to present the energy storage application in terms of energy capacity range, response time (charging / discharging), and temperature range if applicable. 
3. A capacity model is presented. To support the context, what are the existing developments in the area and what are the technical competitors? For instance, lithium ion batteries are popular for residential electricity storage. How is this being different from these? 
4. Why integrating the capacitor into building fabric? What are the impact of building structure and heat loss/gain?
5. In data analysis, what is the shielding effect and what does it mean to the building if integrated in building fabric. The current data analysis is focused on presented the list of data and it would be great to enhance the explanation on energy-buffering evaluations as the paper's title noted. 
6. Conclusions should be improved. Conclusion should include key outputs and results supported with data of study. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is relevant and technically competent, but needs improvements in clarity, experimental scope, and contextualization of its novelty. Addressing the questions below will significantly strengthen the manuscript.

1. You apply a transmission-line homogenization method assuming uniform dielectric-metal layer behavior. How do you account for variability in layer thickness or real-world imperfections in the prototype capacitor structure? Have you performed a sensitivity analysis?
2. Why was the upper limit of 3.6 GHz chosen for measurement? Given that 5G and emerging 6G operate up to 30 GHz, how do you justify the limited frequency range in both simulation and experiments?
3. Measured SE values are below 20 dB across the entire range, which is often considered minimal for EMI shielding. Do you consider this level practically meaningful? What standards or application benchmarks are you comparing this with?
4. You note that simulations underestimate SE. Can you quantify the error and explain why a plane wave in a waveguide sufficiently approximates the field from antennas? Would modeling the actual horn antenna configuration improve agreement?
5. What are the thermal and mechanical impacts of embedding these capacitors in real-world construction? Is there trade-offs in structural integrity or fire safety you can comment on?
6. The paper focuses on electric field SE. Have you considered or measured magnetic shielding effectiveness (especially at lower frequencies)? How would the design respond to near-field magnetic interference from power lines?
7. Polypropylene (PP) is known to degrade under thermal cycling and humidity. Have you investigated how environmental conditions might affect shielding performance over time?
8. What are the challenges in scaling this approach to full-scale buildings? Are there manufacturing or cost constraints associated with embedding multilayer capacitors in structural elements?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised accordingly in the first review round. Some concepts have been added in the main context with the standard references. It is suggested to cover more technical/review papers to highlight the latest studies and applications. For other parts, well done! Congratulations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments have been addressed properly. Thank you.