Coupled Model of Heat and Power Flow in Unventilated PV/PCM Wall-Validation in a Component Scale
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. It is suggested to include the quantitative results of the research in the abstract.
2. It is recommended to add 1 or 2 more keywords to improve the visibility of the paper.
3. In line 42, include the unit for the temperature.
4. Improve the introduction part including discussion on the recent relevant papers. The following papers can be included in the discussion.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143582
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.419
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13195079
5. Line 90-98, What does it mean? I think it's a serious accidental error. It is strongly recommended to proof read the article before the submission.
6. The novelty of the work is to be highly emphasized at the end of introduction.
7. In line 102, What is OSB? Give the full form of abbreviations at their first instance of appearance in the text. Further, include the list of abbreviations and the list of symbols at the end of manuscript.
8. In fig 1, it seems that the panel is fixed vertically. Is it fixed so? In which direction? If so, how the radiation could be obtained throughout the day? Please explain with justification.
9. The quality of figures 2 to 8 need to be improved.
10. Why paraffin was chosen as PCM? Give justification with proper references.
11. Give the thermal properties of the PCMs used?
12. Line 118 need to be elaborated. What kind of encapsulation used? Material of encapsulation? Method of mixing with the mortar?
13. Include the uncertainty analysis of the real time experiments?
14. Lines 164 to 166, What does it mean?
15. Mention the references for the equations 1, 2, 3 and 4.
16. Mention the assumptions made during the simulation in virtual environment.
17. Throughout the manuscript is to be checked for grammar and typos. For example, in line 220, there is a mistake in the sentence.
18. The results must be discussed in detail in comparison with the earlier literature under 'Results and discussion'.
19. Conclude the investigation with the critical findings under the heading 'Conclusion'
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper concerns the problem of the modelling of the thermal interaction between the phase change material (PCM) and photovoltaic (PV) panel using the Esp-r software. The topic is interesting. Some suggestions are as follows:
1. The introduction of the experimental system is not clear enough, so it is difficult to understand how the system works.
2. The test scheme of the experimental system should be more clearly described, and it is recommended to use schematic representation. Since its system is an off-grid system, the discharge method of the battery is also recommended to introduce clearly for the state of battery will also affect power generation performance of PV system.
3. Generally speaking, the power generation performance of PV module is more affected by irradiance than other factors such as temperature of PV cells. Figures 3 and 4 show that the irradiance on the day1 is weaker than that on the day2, but the power generated on the day1 is higher than that on the day2. Please explain the reason for this phenomenon.
4. It is not enough to analyze and introduce the calculation model of the software Esp-r. It's like a black box.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the submission of this paper. I do not think it can be published in its current form for the following reasons:
- There are language issues throughout. Not major, but they do need addressing by a proofreader.
- ESP-r jargon is too heavily leaned upon. It needs to be explained in order to understand the decisions you make in model implementation as well as in terms of how the equations you share interact with the calculation engine.
- The explanation of the various models is not very clear. For example, how do the two different methods for PCM layer transient heat tested interact with the panel temperature equation? If the equations presented for AHC and CHC don't matter (and a linear function is employed instead), why is the linearized form not provided?
In addition:
- It would be very useful to benchmark your methods against a more typical ventilated BIPV installation.
Other comments I had while reading are below:
- "M-era project" - what is this, and why should a reader care about it? There is no context provided.
- What is the exploitation temperature of a PV panel? This is not a common usage.
- What is a "subroutine special material"? If program-specific jargon is used, it should be well-defined or generalized to common scientific terms.
- What are the "direct solution method", "explicit scheme"?
- This is left in carelessly: "The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight 90
why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be carefully reviewed and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions. As far as possible, please keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists outside your particular field of research. References should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6]. See the end of the document for further details on references."
- Please expand "Wp" to W peak. Isn't a 30 W peak a very low performance panel? How large is it in terms of area?
- "The selection was made in accordance with the typical climatic data for a specific location that was investigated." - Can't you name this area appropriately to your experiment? Otherwise this sentence is very bizarre.
- The terms in Eqs. 1-4 are not fully defined in the manuscript.
- How do Eqs. 5-6 or 7-8 interact with Eq. 4?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is sufficiently improved. Appreciations to the authors. However, the paper can be accepted after removing the typo in line 104. The authors are advised to go through the proof thoroughly before submitting to the journal.
Author Response
The typo in line 104 was removed.
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the effort put into the reviewing process and for helping to improve the quality of the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed what I recommended in the revised submission and so I suggest to accept it for publication.
Author Response
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the effort put into the reviewing process and for helping to improve the quality of the paper.
