Kinetic Photovoltaic Facade System Based on a Parametric Design for Application in Signal Box Buildings in Switzerland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper the authors simulate the optimization of the production of electrical energy by photovoltaic panels in buildings. Following the current energy crises, this study is very interesting. My remarks:

- The figures must be improved (Figure 1, 2,4,5),

- the authors must add figures to show the improvements in the production of energy according to the orientations, seasons,...

- discuss experimental validation in buildings and industrial sectors - Specify the contributors authors in the field.

- Add a clear conclusion showing the contribution of the authors in the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should revise the paper based on the comments below

1) The first paragraph of the introduction should define the studied problem. The task, objective and constraints should be explained

2) Novelties and contributions of the paper should be clarified by using bullets

3) Section 2 should be improved by adding equations. No equations here are not accepted for a study. 

4) What do you obtain for the results and what is the unit of your objective?

5) All figures are very poor in quality. They must be improved.

6) Methods should be represented by using steps, equations and flowcharts.

7) Which software do you use in the study. You should add citation and explain this. What are the input data and output results of the software.

8) Author should improve the quality and explain Figure 5 and Figure 6 in detail for clarify the implementation and simulation results. You did not show the significance of your results.

9) Author should open a section to point out advantages and disandvantges of the study. Also, please indicate the difference between your work and others. Then, shortcomings as well as future study direction should be mentioned. The best way is to use references and citations for this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Kinetic Photovoltaic Facade System based on Parametric Design for Application in Signal Box Building in Switzerland

In this paper the author presents renewable energy Facade System based on Parametric Design for Application in Signal Box Building in Switzerland for the purpose of energy saving by the utilization freely available renewable energy. The work carried out by authors is appreciated and the following major comments need to be considered before publication of the final version.

1.      The main objective and novelty of proposed work is mentioned in the abstract is not clear to understand effectively.

2.      In the introduction section need to add a clear summary about literature review, research gap.

3.      The quality of figures available is in the entire article need to update with clear visibility (Figure 1 to 6).

4.      The clarity of software and algorithm is not sufficient to understand clearly?

5.      The discussion of results and data available in the table s are not discussed clearly for better understanding.

6.      In the entire article many valuable results are shown in improper manner without proper sequence. So, need to organize properly.

7.      Finally at the end conclusion section of the proposed article is missing.

 

After the above major corrections (revisions) are need to be update and resubmit the same for possible publications. The final decision about the manuscript is MAJOR REVISION.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article aims to harvest solar energy by installing solar panel over the facade of signal box an a parametric study was conducted. The article have little scientific soundness and it seems it doesn't add any additional knowledge to already existing literature. Following are some critical points:

1. Introduction section is weak. Need to do more literature review.

2. It seems there is no novelty in the research. Kindly clearly describe novelty and statement of objective in introduction section.

3. There are numerous studies available on parametric study of solar energy generated from solar photovoltaic placed on the rooftop. How this study is diffrent from them?

4. Result and discussion section is poorly presented.

5. Conclusion section is not presented.

6. Overall the manuscript is poorly written and presented.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the paper following my suggestions. I agree to publish the paper.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's sincere comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did not highlight the changes of the revised manuscript. So, the reviewer cannot see the improvement clearly. 

Author Response

We made highlights and explanations on the manuscript. Please refer to the attached file.

We appreciate the reviewer's sincere comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

As per comments paper revised so accept as it is.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript significantly. The manuscript can now be accepted as per the discretion of editor. 

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's sincere comment. 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted for publication in the journal.