Balancing Sustainability and Comfort: A Holistic Study of Building Control Strategies That Meet the Global Standards for Efficiency and Thermal Comfort

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript analyses different sustainable approaches regarding standards, modeling, control strategies, and techniques to deduce energy transition in buildings. The aim and approaches of the study were reflected in the manuscript, but the abstract is not well written. It lacks the mention of the study’s objective, methodology, and results. Hence, the abstract needs to be revised to address these points.

The topic is comprehensive with excessive content. Nevertheless, the abstract needs more development to reflect the study’s aim and methodology. The introduction and literature review were condensed compared to the information presented earlier in the abstract. Hence, it it needs to be revised.

 In the abstract, the authors also highlighted the term ‘energy transition’, but it was not highlighted in the introduction. The authors need to address this comprehensively.  Also, the authors stated the term ‘energy-efficient envelope’, and how this relates to HVAC. Thus, it should be addressed in the introduction section and supported by references.    

In the introduction (lines 50-53), the authors stated that ‘Buildings can significantly re- 50 duce their reliance on the conventional electricity grid by utilizing solar energy to power HVAC and other electrical needs, resulting in lower energy costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.’  This requires a large number of solar panels or absorption chillers. Hence, the authors need to clarify this and provide  examples.

The authors stated the study's objectives in lines 72-73 as ‘The primary objective of this review article is to serve as a comprehensive reference guide for the approaches to building control.’  In fact. this is not an objective rather than a conclusion. Hence, the authors need to rewrite the objective to reflect the study.

The structure and organization are somehow logical concerning the ideas’ presentation and analysis, and the reasonable sequence of presented analysis. However, there no is section in the manuscript that highlights the Methodology (Methods and Material) adopted in this study or refers to similar studies in this domain to identify the gap. Also, the authors stated five sections (2-5):

Section 2: Notation and standards for building. It should be notions and standards.

Section 3: Building’s modeling approaches.

Section 4: Classification of control strategies in buildings.

Section 5: Critical review of control techniques in buildings.

 Nevertheless, the authors did not state the linkage between each section, and how these sections are correlated. Therefore, the logic must be stated.  

In section 2, the authors reversed the term ‘Standards and Notions’. This must be consistent throughout the text. In this section, the authors also stated in lines 98-99 ‘Between 1973 and 2018, final energy consumption rose by 109%, and 37% of the 98 world's electricity production is generated from coal.’ What about the final energy consumption in 2021 or 2022? Today is the end of 2023 and this information should be updated to at least cover similar data for the year 2021 or 2022.

The authors stated many international standards and notions including those in Algeria and Tunisia, but they did not refer to the standards in Morocco.  

The order of control strategies listed in Figure 5 is not in the same order as depicted in the text some were placed before others. Thus, this should be revised to reflect the order as in Figure 5.

Even though the authors stated sections 2-5 in the manuscript, it doesn’t have a  results and discussion section. it jumps to a conclusion, however. It is a major part of the flow.  

The approach needs a summarized figure to define the structure and methodology of the paper.

The availability of data proves that the selection of this specific topic was fine.

The hierarchy of the paper leads to defining a successful approach of zero-energy buildings for energy consumption rates, nevertheless, it would be better to summarize different control systems into a figure or a table to easily compare data and understand their standards and regulations.

The conclusion needs to be revised. 

Comments to be sent to the Authors:

1. The title as it stands does not fully reflect the paper's contents, hence it could be enhanced to be more specific with energy transition and comfort strategies and standards.

2.  The objective is not clearly stated.

3.  The methodology and paper objective are not clear in the abstract section or the body of the paper.

4.  Abbreviations are not all cited in the text, e.g., PMV and PPD.

5. In line 106, CO2 emissions should be written first as carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, then CO₂ emissions throughout the text.

6.  Lines 177 & 178 should be translated into English.

7.  Spacing before and after tables needs adjustments as well.

8.  Some abbreviations are written in the wrong order as thermal regulations (RT).

9. The authors cannot state according to [36], you shall add reference data instead of numbers, which has been repeated many times within the paper.

10.  What is IDA ICE? You can’t write a whole paragraph without stating the full terminology.

11.  All sources for all tables and figures are missing, they should be stated under each caption.

12.  Section 4.2 introduction paragraph is missing.

13. Section 6 critical review font color and size shall be revised. Also, in line 784, 6. Critical review of control techniques in Building. Should be section 5, not 6.

14. Most figures are copied from the source reference and pasted into the manuscript. Some are of poor quality or blurred, in addition to copyright.

15.  Spacing and justifying between paragraphs and tables or figures.

16.  Poor formatting and presentation.

17.  Manage all references with accessible dates.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs to be revised to be free from English typos, e.g., 'Advinced' should read 'Advanced'.  

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: sustainability-2782648

Original Article Title: Control Strategies for HVAC systems in Buildings: Survey

To: MDPI Sustainability

Re: Response to reviewers

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the chance to revise and resubmit our work in order to address the concerns provided by the reviewers.

We have uploaded our detailed response to the remarks (the response to reviewers), along with a revised manuscript that includes highlighted revisions in yellow.

Best regards,

Amal Azzi, Mohamed Tabaa, Badr Chegari, Hanaa Hachimi

 

Review 1

1. This manuscript analyses different sustainable approaches regarding standards, modeling, control strategies, and techniques to deduce energy transition in buildings. The aim and approaches of the study were reflected in the manuscript, but the abstract is not well written. It lacks the mention of the study’s objective, methodology, and results. Hence, the abstract needs to be revised to address these points.

Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We appreciate your careful and constructive feedback. After careful consideration of your recommendations, we have significantly revised the abstract to improve its completeness and clarity. We have taken into account all the remarks mentioned in the abstract. Please refer to lines 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. We have implemented the following changes: Inclusion of objectives: The updated abstract now includes a clear summary of the study's objectives. This updated summary provides readers with an overview of our survey results by including a brief discussion of the methodology used in our study as well as a summary of the main findings. We believe that these changes have considerably improved the abstract.

2. The topic is comprehensive with excessive content. Nevertheless, the abstract needs more development to reflect the study’s aim and methodology. The introduction and literature review were condensed compared to the information presented earlier in the abstract. Hence, it needs to be revised.

Thank you for your pertinent comment. The updated abstract now includes a clear summary of the study's objectives and methodology. We have also expanded the introduction to ensure providing more detailed relevant literature. We aim to present a continuous flow of information, maintaining consistency with the abstract while expanding on key points to enhance clarity and context. We have also added a figure (figure 1) to summarize the structure of the article. Please refer to section 1 (Introduction).

3. In the abstract, the authors also highlighted the term ‘energy transition’, but it was not highlighted in the introduction. The authors need to address this comprehensively.  Also, the authors stated the term ‘energy-efficient envelope’, and how this relates to HVAC. Thus, it should be addressed in the introduction section and supported by references.

Thank you. The updated introduction now provides a more detailed and integrated discussion of the energy transition. These additions are substantiated by references. Please refer to lines 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80.

4. In the introduction (lines 50-53), the authors stated that ‘Buildings can significantly re- 50 duce their reliance on the conventional electricity grid by utilizing solar energy to power HVAC and other electrical needs, resulting in lower energy costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.’This requires a large number of solar panels or absorption chillers. Hence, the authors need to clarify this and provide examples.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the introduction (lines 50–53 first version) to include specific examples that illustrate the scale and requirements associated with utilizing solar energy for HVAC and other electrical needs in buildings. Please refer to updated version lines 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, and 99. We believe these additions enhance the clarity of our statement. Your valuable input is greatly appreciated.

5. The authors stated the study's objectives in lines 72-73 as ‘The primary objective of this review article is to serve as a comprehensive reference guide for the approaches to building control.’  In fact. this is not an objective rather than a conclusion. Hence, the authors need to rewrite the objective to reflect the study

Thank you for your pertinent comment. We’ve developed the study’s objectives “To this end, this review article aims to serve as a comprehensive reference guide for the approaches to building control, and that is to help shed light on the challenges facing control methods in the building sector, the strategies deployed, and the areas of improvement. This paper reviews recent developments in control strategies for researchers, users and interested parties within the building sector, including those concerned with HVAC systems whose aim is to ensure thermal comfort and reduce power consumption in buildings. The document also looks at different building modeling approaches and software, highlighting their importance in the development of energy efficiency strategies.”

Please refer to lines 121,122,123,124,125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, and 141.

6. The structure and organization are somehow logical concerning the ideas’ presentation and analysis, and the reasonable sequence of presented analysis. However, there no is section in the manuscript that highlights the Methodology (Methods and Material) adopted in this study or refers to similar studies in this domain to identify the gap. Also, the authors stated five sections (2-5):

Section 2: Notation and standards for building. It should be notions and standards.

Section 3: Building’s modeling approaches.

Section 4: Classification of control strategies in buildings.

Section 5: Critical review of control techniques in buildings.

Nevertheless, the authors did not state the linkage between each section, and how these sections are correlated. Therefore, the logic must be stated

 

Thank you for your relevant comment.  We have included a supplementary section labeled "Methodology" as section 2. This section provides an overview of the methodology employed in the paper. Additionally, we have included a diagram (figure 2), that visually represents the organized approach utilized in writing this review article. Please refer to section 2 (Methodology).

7. In section 2, the authors reversed the term ‘Standards and Notions’. This must be consistent throughout the text. In this section, the authors also stated in lines 98-99 ‘Between 1973 and 2018, final energy consumption rose by 109%, and 37% of the 98 world's electricity production is generated from coal.’What about the final energy consumption in 2021 or 2022? Today is the end of 2023 and this information should be updated to at least cover similar data for the year 2021 or 2022.

 We have ensured consistency in terminology in Section 2 by correcting the term to “Notations and Standards." Additionally, we have updated the information to reflect the recent data available. specifically, we now include information on final energy consumption in 2022 reference [37]. Please refer to lines 202 to 203.

8. The authors stated many international standards and notions including those in Algeria and Tunisia, but they did not refer to the standards in Morocco. 

Thank you for your insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and observation regarding the inclusion of international standards and concepts, without reference to Moroccan standards. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated references to relevant standards in Morocco. Please refer to lines 302 ,303, 304 ,305  and 306.

9. The order of control strategies listed in Figure 5 is not in the same order as depicted in the text some were placed before others. Thus, this should be revised to reflect the order as in Figure 5.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the order of the control strategies listed in figure 5 of the original version. Please refer to the updated version (figure 7), lines 444.

10. Even though the authors stated sections 2-5 in the manuscript, it doesn’t have a results and discussion section. it jumps to a conclusion, however. It is a major part of the flow. 

Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and observation regarding the lack of a results section. We would like to clarify that our article is a review article and as such does not contain original results or a dedicated results section. Our intention is to provide a comprehensive review of the existing literature, synthesizing and summarizing the main results. supplementary section labeled "Methodology"  Please refer to the Section 4.

11. The approach needs a summarized figure to define the structure and methodology of the paper. The availability of data proves that the selection of this specific topic was fine. The hierarchy of the paper leads to defining a successful approach of zero-energy buildings for energy consumption rates, nevertheless, it would be better to summarize different control systems into a figure or a table to easily compare data and understand their standards and regulations.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and incorporated a summarized figure outlining the structure of our study. Please refer to the introduction line 142.

12. The conclusion needs to be revised. 

We have thoroughly revised and updated the conclusion section in response to your suggestion. Please refer to the conclusion section 6.

Comments to be sent to the Authors:

• The title as it stands does not fully reflect the paper's contents, hence it could be enhanced to be more specific with energy transition and comfort strategies and standards.

We appreciate your insights. To address your suggestion, we have revised the title to better align with the paper’s focus.

• Initial Title: Control Strategies for HVAC systems in Buildings: Survey.
• Revised Title: Balancing sustainability and comfort: A holistic study of building control strategies meeting global standards for efficiency and thermal comfort.
• The objective is not clearly stated.

Please refer to lines 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21 and 22. we have implemented the following changes: Inclusion of objectives: The updated abstract now includes a clear summary of the study's objectives.

“Our aim is to pinpoint the areas for improvement in methods of control in buildings in hopes of giving future scholars a clearer understanding of the issues that need to be addressed. Accordingly, we focused on recent works that handle methods of control in buildings, which we filtered based on their approach and relevance to the subject at hand”

• The methodology and paper objective are not clear in the abstract section or the body of the paper

Please refer to lines 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21 and 22. The updated abstract now includes a clear summary of the study's objectives and methodology.

“Accordingly, we focused on recent works that handle methods of control in buildings, which we filtered based on their approach and relevance to the subject at hand. Furthermore, we ran a critical analysis of the reviewed works. Our work proves that model predictive control (MPC) is the most commonly used among other methods in combination with AI. However, it still faces some challenges, especially regarding its complexity.”

• Abbreviations are not all cited in the text, e.g., PMV and PPD

In the revised version, we have ensured that abbreviations PMV and PPD, are appropriately cited in the text. and also, we’ve also added a table of abbreviations.

• In line 106, CO2 emissions should be written first as carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, then CO emissions throughout the text

We appreciate your attention to detail. We have corrected this error. Please refer to the line 209.

• Lines 177 & 178 should be translated into English.

We have duly made the necessary changes in accordance with your suggestions.  Please refer to lines 286 and 287. Of the updated version.

• Spacing before and after tables needs adjustments as well

We have wisely reviewed and adjusted the spacing before and after tables.

• Some abbreviations are written in the wrong order as thermal regulations (RT).

We have carefully corrected the wrong order. Please refer to 268

 

• The authors cannot state according to [36], you shall add reference data instead of numbers, which has been repeated many times within the paper.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions.

• What is IDA ICE? You can’t write a whole paragraph without stating the full terminology.

IDA ICE is a multi-zone simulation application. We have added terminology to the paragraph, please refer to the lines 390.

• All sources for all tables and figures are missing, they should be stated under each caption.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions

• Section 4.2 introduction paragraph is missing

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have added an introduction to the section 3.3.2 in the updated version (4.2 in the initial version ). Please refer to543

“This section focuses on sophisticated control systems, with a particular emphasis on tree-based methods. We will thoroughly examine model predictive control, including its many forms and important aspects for comparison. We will also cover optimum and adaptive methods of control in a clear way.”

• Section 6 critical review font color and size shall be revised. Also, in line 784, 6. Critical review of control techniques in Building. Should be section 5, not 6.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions.

• Most figures are copied from the source reference and pasted into the manuscript. Some are of poor quality or blurred, in addition to copyright.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into account and have added the references and improved the quality.

• Spacing and justifying between paragraphs and tables or figures.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions.

• Poor formatting and presentation.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions.

• Manage all references with accessible dates.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have managed the majority of references with accessible dates.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good and valuable review has been done; however, the paper is not well organized. It could be accepted after the major corrections and re-evaluation.

The abstract needs to be rewritten. It is more appropriate to provide a bit with more details and within the limit of allowed words. Also, authors are recommended to emphasis the significance of this review in more detail.

The Introduction section is poor and haphazard. The author enlisted a few scholars' work without a linkage with the key issues of the paper (only 11 references in the Introduction section). Although, the literature cited in this review is sufficient, the authors should link it with the issues of the paper.

Considering the importance of part “Materials and Methods”, it is recommended to provide more complete explanations in this regard. No robust explanation is given for the chosen methodology, and honestly, this part is not clear, should be developed more.

Sections 2-7 are also poor and haphazard, and there is no planning for presenting the information properly. The description lacks coherence due to procedural weakness. The authors are advised to revise the whole sections by following a new methodology.

The conclusion section is not structured, it is forwarded in isolation that too without making comparison with the findings of previous researchers. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: sustainability-2782648

Original Article Title: Control Strategies for HVAC systems in Buildings: Survey

To: MDPI Sustainability

Re: Response to reviewers

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the chance to revise and resubmit our work in order to address the concerns provided by the reviewers.

We have uploaded our detailed response to the remarks (the response to reviewers), along with a revised manuscript that includes highlighted revisions in yellow.

Best regards,

Amal Azzi, Mohamed Tabaa, Badr Chegari, Hanaa Hachimi

 

Reviewer 2

• The abstract needs to be rewritten. It is more appropriate to provide a bit with more details and within the limit of allowed words. Also, authors are recommended to emphasis the significance of this review in more detail.

We appreciate your comments and ideas for improving our review paper's abstract, and we thank you for taking the time to provide them. Your feedback has been thoroughly reviewed, and in response. We have taken into account all the remarks mentioned on the abstract. Please refer to the lines 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21,22 and 23. we have implemented the following changes: Inclusion of objectives: The updated abstract now includes a clear summary of the study's objectives. This updated summary provides readers with an overview of our survey results by including a brief discussion of the methodology used in our study, as well as a summary of the main findings. We believe that these changes have considerably improved the summary.

• The Introduction section is poor and haphazard. The author enlisted a few scholars' work without a linkage with the key issues of the paper (only 11 references in the Introduction section). Although, the literature cited in this review is sufficient, the authors should link it with the issues of the paper.

Thank you for your pertinent comment. The updated abstract now includes a clear summary of the study's objectives and methodology. We have also expanded the introduction to ensure providing more detailed relevant literature. We aim to present a continuous flow of information, maintaining consistency with the abstract while expanding on key points to enhance clarity and context. We have also added a figure (figure 1) to summarize the New structure of the article. Please refer to section 1 (Introduction).

• Considering the importance of part “Materials and Methods”, it is recommended to provide more complete explanations in this regard. No robust explanation is given for the chosen methodology, and honestly, this part is not clear, should be developed more.

Thank you for your relevant comment.  We have included a supplementary section labeled "Methodology" as section 2. This section provides an overview of the methodology employed in the paper. Additionally, we have included a diagram (figure 2), that visually represents the organized approach utilized in writing this review article. Please refer to section 2 (Methodology).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                              Figure 2: Research process

 

• Sections 2-7 are also poor and haphazard, and there is no planning for presenting the information properly. The description lacks coherence due to procedural weakness. The authors are advised to revise the whole sections by following a new methodology.

We really value your important and constructive feedback. we have revised all sections using a new methodology to improve structure and clarity.We have included your idea and revised the strategy and procedure to organize the sections of this study as seen in Figure 1.

• The conclusion section is not structured, it is forwarded in isolation that too without making comparison with the findings of previous researchers.

We have thoroughly revised and updated the conclusion section in response to your suggestion. Please refer to the conclusion section 6.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have effectively presented their research. However, in order to further improve the clarity and impact of the manuscript, I recommend addressing the following issues. Once these aspects have been appropriately revised, it is possible that the paper will be accepted for publication.

1. Rewrite or delete the paragraph in line 86, and rearrange the title, such as "5.1. Intelligent control systems." should be "4.3. Intelligent control systems."
2. Figure 3 in line 245 should be Figure 4
3. "as presented in figure 4." in line 453 should be "as presented in figure 8."
4. "As seen in figure 7" in line 471 should be "As seen in figure 9."
5. "figure 1" in line 580 should be "figure 11"
6. Change the picture number in line 670 and change the picture number after that. The correspondences like Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 16 in the article are also wrong.
7. It is suggested that the tables and pictures in the article should be mentioned and explained.
8. It is suggested to highlight the author's work in this article in the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: sustainability-2782648

Original Article Title: Control Strategies for HVAC systems in Buildings: Survey

To: MDPI Sustainability

Re: Response to reviewers

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the chance to revise and resubmit our work in order to address the concerns provided by the reviewers.

We have uploaded our detailed response to the remarks (the response to reviewers), along with a revised manuscript that includes highlighted revisions in yellow.

Best regards,

Amal Azzi, Mohamed Tabaa, Badr Chegari, Hanaa Hachimi,

Reviewer 3

• Rewrite or delete the paragraph in line 86, and rearrange the title, such as "5.1. Intelligent control systems." should be "4.3. Intelligent control systems."

Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We appreciate your careful and constructive feedback. After careful consideration of your recommendations, we have significantly revised and rewrite the paragraph line (86 initial version) to improve its completeness and clarity. We have taken into account all the remarks mentioned. Please refer to lines 136,137,138,139,140,141,142and 143.

“The paper is structured as follows Figure 1: Section 2 is a description of our methodology for constructing this review. Section 3 provides a detailed Analysis of our review regarding the building modeling approaches as well as the categorization of control strategies in buildings. Section 4 is a discussion of our findings. Section 5 Hardware implementation provides a detailed description of the implementation of smart building technologies. Finally, we will summarize our afterthoughts in the conclusion.”

• Figure 3 in line 245 should be Figure 4

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions. Please refer lines 353 (figure 6 in the updated version)

 

• "as presented in figure 4." in line 453 should be "as presented in figure 8."

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions. Please refer lines 562 (figure 10 in the updated version)

• "As seen in figure 7" in line 471 should be "As seen in figure 9."

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions. Please refer lines 582 (figure 11 in the updated version)

• "figure 1" in line 580 should be "figure 11"

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We have made the necessary revisions.

• Change the picture number in line 670 and change the picture number after that. The correspondences like Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 16 in the article are also wrong.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions.

• It is suggested that the tables and pictures in the article should be mentioned.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into account and made the necessary revisions. We have also included all tables and images.

• It is suggested to highlight the author's work in this article in the conclusion.

We have thoroughly revised and updated the conclusion section in response to your suggestion. Please refer to the conclusion section 6.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to most of the review comments, but some minor issues are still unaddressed (e.g., images still appear in low quality and blurred), and the conclusion could be enhanced. Also, the abstract has been enhanced to address the study’s objective, methodology, and main results. In addition, the introduction has been extensively improved including the structure of the study. Moreover, the methodology section is depicted in the manuscript and the research questions and the analyses were modified to include sections about Spain and Morocco.  

The resubmitted manuscript has immensely improved and looks much better than the previous version. However, the authors need to address the following minor issues:  

·  The conclusion could be improved.

·   Figures 3, 8, 9, and 12 should be regenerated and enhanced,

·   The text in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be aligned to the left side to read better,

·   The following sections at the end of the manuscript (lines 1149 to 1158) are not written and completed:

-          Author Contributions

-          Funding

-          Data Availability Statement

-          Conflicts of Interest.

Thus, the authors should address the above points. 

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: sustainability-2782648

Original Article Title: Control Strategies for HVAC systems in Buildings: Survey

To: MDPI Sustainability

Re: Response to reviewers

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewer, 

We appreciate the chance to revise and resubmit our work in order to address the concerns provided by the reviewers.

We have uploaded our detailed response to the remarks (the response to reviewers), along with a revised manuscript that includes highlighted revisions in Green.

Best regards,

Amal Azzi, Mohamed Tabaa, Badr Chegari and Hanaa Hachimi

 

Point-by-point answers :

• The authors responded to most of the review comments, but some minor issues are still unaddressed (e.g., images still appear in low quality and blurred), and the conclusion could be enhanced. Also, the abstract has been enhanced to address the study’s objective, methodology, and main results. In addition, the introduction has been extensively improved including the structure of the study. Moreover, the methodology section is depicted in the manuscript and the research questions and the analyses were modified to include sections about Spain and Morocco.

We greatly appreciate your comprehensive and insightful feedback, which has greatly helped us to improve our work. We are pleased to inform you that we have carefully evaluated your comments and have implemented actions to resolve all the issues you reported. Specifically, we have improved clarity and reduced image blur. In addition, we have re-examined the conclusions section to make it more detailed and clearer.

• The conclusion could be improved.

Thank you for your valuable comments and for the opportunity to refine our manuscript. We have meticulously addressed each of the points you raised and believe that these improvements considerably enhance the quality and clarity of our work. Please refer to the lines 1146, 1147, 1148 to 1161.

• Figures 3, 8, 9, and 12 should be regenerated and enhanced,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revision. Please refer line 277(figure 3), line 477 (figure 8), line 490 (figure 9), line 835 (figure 12),

• The text in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be aligned to the left side to read better,

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions.

• The following sections at the end of the manuscript (lines 1149 to 1158) are not written and completed: -
• Author Contributions -
• Funding
• Data Availability Statement -
• Conflicts of Interest.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We have taken your advice into consideration and made the necessary revisions. Please refer lines 1164 ,1165,1166,1167

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your revised manuscript. No more comments on this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Original Manuscript ID: sustainability-2782648

Original Article Title: Control Strategies for HVAC systems in Buildings: Survey

To: MDPI Sustainability

Re: Response to reviewers

Dear Editor, 

We appreciate the chance to revise and resubmit our work in order to address the concerns provided by the reviewers.

Best regards,

Amal Azzi, Mohamed Tabaa, Badr Chegari and Hanaa Hachimi,

+--------------------------------------------+

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our article. Your knowledge and attention to detail have made our work so much better. Your intelligent comments and helpful suggestions not only helped to make the points clearer and stronger, but they also gave us new ideas for further study. With your help, the document has become more thorough, more precise, and more useful, which we believe will be of great benefit to the academic community. You gave us very clear instructions and helpful comments, which we really appreciated. They were very helpful during the revision process and made the article much stronger and clearer.

Best regards,

Amal Azzi, Mohamed Tabaa, Badr Chegari and Hanaa Hachimi,