Design of a Building-Scale Space Solar Cooling System Using TRNSYS
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I don’t understand what is the novelty or the new contribution from this manuscript. Such studies have been conducted successfully in the past. Reading the manuscript gives the impression that the work has been repeated only using the new location. At least the authors can do some comparison of the current study with previously conducted studies or with some other locations and come up with some concrete conclusion. This manuscript needs some special attention otherwise it’s just an assignment converted into an article. I hardly find any research on it. Environmental benefits of using such cooling systems also need to be done.
Authors need to de the validation of the simulated results too.
References are malfunctioning pls relook it. Manuscripts need to be fully checked before final submission. It shows the seriousness of the authors.
Author Response
Review 1
see attached word file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article ‘’ Design of a building scale space solar cooling system using TRNSYS is an interested simulation study, however, there are many major and minor aspects authors might need to concentrate before the article is considered for the publication in this journal. Following is the feedback for the authors:
- The first line of the abstract is not well defined as problem statement ‘’ Research into solar absorption chillers despite their environmental benefits has been limited to date to mainly larger systems whilst ignoring smaller building scale units’’. Please critically revised it as why there is need of this study. Reflect the problem as emerging need in the current scenario.
- Abstract line 19: please avoid using words like ‘’ detailed information’’. Instead please describe specifically that what particular parameters helped in improving the overall outcome of the system.
- Authors should write full forms and abbreviation in brackets () first time before writing the abbreviation directly first time e.g. ETCs and CPCs. Although, authors have written full form but they have missed to mention the brackets there. Please incorporate accordingly.
- The start of the abstract has different statement of problem, whereas at the end of abstract authors have mentioned about different application i.e. CO2 emission reduction. There should be synchronization/ strong connectivity in abstract.
- Please remove the table of contents from the article. Authors should follow the usual norms of the structure of the research paper.
- In the start of the introduction, authors have mentioned:
‘’ Vapour Absorption 47 Chillers (VACs) are able to convert heat from solar thermal collectors into cooling and differ from vapour compression systems in that the electricity consuming compressor is replaced with a generator and an absorber and they don’t use electricity as primary energy.’’ Please avoid such long sentences, with multiple and and etc. Also, please use proper English language structure in the research paper essence.
- In addition, avoid such lines as it reflect general theory and this is well known fact about the vapour compression system, which is well available in the literature.
- There is no significant literature as there are only 15 references. This is not a good study unless addition of some relevant literature. A good article normally contain at least 30 reference studies minimum. Authors are suggested with some of the relevant literature as follows:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.02.029
- https://doi.org/10.3390/en13184956
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101544
- Please remove table one and only mention it as it is from literature. Normally in the introduction section it is not recommended unless it is very much necessary.
- Methodology section is too long. Authors needs to short it. It is not mandatory to include every information in the methodology section.
- Results section is very week, authors are required to re-work on results section for the critical results and their analyses. It is very difficult to give a lot of major comments on the results section. It is better to rethink about the critical discussion and graphs / results display. In the present form, it is not good R&A section.
- Conclusion section is very general, authors should re-write this section only focusing on the outcome of the present results.
- References needs to enhance at least double. Present number of references are not of a research paper reference number.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Please find the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper provides a numerical analysis of solar absorption chiller cooling-supply to a health care center in Cairo using TRNSYS software for two different collector types and configurations. In terms of lifetime costs for ETCs and CPCs, the optimum solar fraction was found, meanwhile, the CO2 emission reduction was calculated through adoption of the CPC 24 based solar absorption systems. This study is interesting for carrying out some researches in the field of building Carbon emission reduction to utilize the renewable energy. But the draft has some questions as follows.
1. The basic quality of Figure 1 need be improved without paragraph marks.
2. The form of all Tables should be written as a trilinear scientific display.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Heading 1.1 line 173
Novelty should be addressed at the end of the introduction section and should not be presented as a separate heading. It should be concise in one paragraph.
What is the significance of the R2 value presented in the charts that need to be described?
This is the simulation-based study conducted on TRNSYS software how the author will show the accuracy of their results. Validation is the most important part of the numerical study that is needed to publish a good article and it is missing.
Author Response
Please see our response in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors' efforts, I got a good response to all my comments.
Author Response
no specific response is needed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
There are lot of studies being conducted on the absorption cooling system coupled with solar how the current study is different from others present in the literature. Changing the climatic conditions will not add any novelty unlit and unless there is some major breakthrough in the results.
Author should present the validity of the results without validation one cannot say anything
In my opinion, the author should make a table and compare the current study with already conducted studies in this field this will give a better picture of the novelty and the viability of the current study
Conclusions are very vague and generic. I think the authors should put some more effort to bring the new idea into the study otherwise it is just like short-term project
Author Response
- A detailed Response is attached.
- New information added in the manuscript is shown in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
