The Development of ARIMA Models for the Clear Sky Beam and Diffuse Optical Depths for HVAC Systems Design Using RTSM: A Case Study of the Umlazi Township Area, South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The purpose of the article is to propose a procedure for determining the clear sky beam optical depth and the clear sky diffuse optical depth parameters for a specific area, using the data from solar ground measurement, however, this is only made explicit at the end of the "introduction" paragraph. It would be better if the purpose of the article was stated from the very first lines.
The second subparagraph of the "introduction" paragraph (from «Buildings consume energy» to «with high solar heat gain») seems to be rather generic and almost superfluous, because it discusses some well-known concepts.
The whole paper is not formatted according to the editorial template. The references are not formatted according to the editorial reference style and the digital object identifiers (DOI) are always missing.
The paper has many terminological or typographical errors; some of them have been highlighted in the attached article file.
Author Response
We would like to thank reviewer 1 for his availability and critics that contributed to improve this article.
The comments and our answers to the comments are below:
1) The purpose of the article is to propose a procedure for determining the clear sky beam optical depth and the clear sky diffuse optical depth parameters for a specific area, using the data from solar ground measurement, however, this is only made explicit at the end of the "introduction" paragraph. It would be better if the purpose of the article was stated from the very first lines.
- R) The purpose of the article was removed from the end of the introduction to the top lines as suggested.
2) The second subparagraph of the "introduction" paragraph (from «Buildings consume energy» to «with high solar heat gain») seems to be rather generic and almost superfluous because it discusses some well-known concepts.
- R) The second subparagraph of the "introduction" paragraph (from «Buildings consume energy» to «with high solar heat gain») in the introduction was removed from the article.
3) The whole paper is not formatted according to the editor template. The references are not formatted according to the editorial reference style and the digital object identifiers (DOI) are always missing.
- R) The manuscript was submitted based on the “Free Format Submission” of the journal, but the journal template was used for the resubmission.
4) The paper has many terminological or typographical errors; some of them have been highlighted in the attached article file.
R) The terminological or typographical errors were corrected. Some corrections, like removed words, cannot be seen from the revised version of the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations to the authors for the work done.
The work presented is novel and deals with a tremendously current topic and in accordance with the topic of renewable energies.
It presents some things in my opinion that should be improved:
1. The abstract should be better explained since, due to the abuse of acronyms, it is difficult to understand.
2. The methodology is very short. It should be longer and better explained.
3. Figures are generally unclear. There are many lines that cover each other which makes it impossible to understand them. Other types of graphs should be made.
4. There are no references from the last 2 years. It should be updated with recent references.
5. The text in general is quite difficult to read because there are so many acronyms that it cannot be read clearly.
Author Response
We would like to thank reviewer 2 for his availability and critics that contributed to improve this article.
The comments and our answers to the comments are below:
1) The abstract should be better explained since, due to the abuse of acronyms, it is difficult to understand.
R) Most of the acronyms were removed, except the ones used more than twice. Also, the acronyms are defined in the abstract and in the body of the manuscript when used for the first time.
2) The methodology is very short. It should be longer and better explained.
R) The methodology in the article describes all the necessary and important steps to obtain these results, and more details on the method were added. However, we are open to any suggestion to improve the methodology.
3) Figures are generally unclear. There are many lines that cover each other which makes it impossible to understand them. Other types of graphs should be made.
R) All the figures were replaced.
4) There are no references from the last 2 years. It should be updated with recent references.
R) More articles from 2020 to 2022 were added, making a total of nine cited articles from 2020 to 2022.
5) The text in general is quite difficult to read because there are so many acronyms that it cannot be read clearly.
R) Most of the acronyms were removed, except the ones used more than twice. Also, the acronyms are defined in the abstract and in the body of the manuscript when used for the first time.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please read the paper and remove the connectivity issues in different paragraphs.
Author Response
We would like to thank reviewer 3 for his availability and critics that contributed to improve this article.
The comment and our answer to the comment are below:
Please read the paper and remove the connectivity issues in different paragraphs.
R) Connectivity issues were reviewed in the paper.
