Implementation of BIM Energy Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation for Estimating Building Energy Performance Based on Regression Approach: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has presented the energy performance prediction of buildings considering the case study. The topic is very much relevant to the current need of the society. The results are well presented and explained. The following points need to address before this reviewer can make any recommendations:

1. The last paragraph of the introduction needs to address the limitation so literature ad originality of the present work
2. A close comparison with the existing literature would be good for the readers. 
3. In-depth discussion of the results would be good.
4. In line 226: "in the modeling pro-226 cess of the case study, some simplifications were made to the realistic model" - cite proper literature mentioning the logic of assumptions.
5. Add some quantitative values in the conclusion and abstract.

 

Author Response

The first reviewer’s comments	Authors’ reply
The last paragraph of the introduction needs to address the limitation so literature ad originality of the present work	Limitations have already been addressed, see comments in the document. The main contribution of this paper is to provide a robust analytical solution to determine the energy efficiency in designing buildings.
A close comparison with the existing literature would be good for the readers.	I believe that the literature review section has provided sufficient information and comparisons.
In-depth discussion of the results would be good.	This is a limited study, and all of the available results were comprehensively discussed.
In line 226: "in the modeling pro-226 cess of the case study, some simplifications were made to the realistic model" - cite proper literature mentioning the logic of assumptions.	The relevant references were added.
Add some quantitative values in the conclusion and abstract.	Some quantitative values were added.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

The objective of this study is estimating building energy performance based on regression approach.

The document has 26 pages.

I have done a reading and checked its parts. The article is well written and organized and contains the sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Literature review, 3. Methodology, 4. Results, 5. Discussion and 6. Conclusions. But there are some comments:

1. Introduction - Since the article is of considerable length, for the convenience of the reader, it is necessary to provide a brief description of each section at the end of the introduction. For example:

“The article consists of six sections. The first section contains an introduction to the subject and ... The second section presents a literature review on …. The third section contains…etc.”

2. It is recommended to highlight scientific novelty in the introduction.
3. Lines 109, 114, 120, 122 – it is better to start the sentence not with a link to the source, but with the name of the author.
4. It is necessary to improve the quality of figure 6.
5. Figure 7 requires additional explanation and enlargement, since the shapes of the buildings are not obvious.
6. There are now references on Appendix A in the manuscript. Is the appendix being necessary?
7. Lines 457-462 not related to the topic of the article.
8. Should add the references of the commercial software.
9. Author Contributions is not written.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The second reviewer’s comments	Authors’ reply
Introduction - Since the article is of considerable length, for the convenience of the reader, it is necessary to provide a brief description of each section at the end of the introduction.	The relevant sections were added.
It is recommended to highlight scientific novelty in the introduction.	The main contribution of this paper is to provide a robust analytical solution to determine the energy efficiency in designing buildings.
Lines 109, 114, 120, 122 – it is better to start the sentence not with a link to the source, but with the name of the author.	It was added.
It is necessary to improve the quality of figure 6.	It was improved.
Figure 7 requires additional explanation and enlargement since the shapes of the buildings are not obvious.	Enlarged. Explanation added in the figure caption.
There are now references on Appendix A in the manuscript. Is the appendix being necessary?	This section is mainly to show the models and the related energy and location settings in Autodesk Revit. So references are not necessary in my opinion
Lines 457-462 are not related to the topic of the article.	The paragraph was kept from the template and should be deleted. A brief explanation of the appendix was added.
Should add the references of the commercial software.	It was added.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting and the study was carried out correctly.

However, there are a lot of studies concerning prediction models. I agree with the authors we need additional studies in this realm; indeed, my main concern is not about the content developed, but about the form of this paper.  

I suggest making the introduction more concise, pointing out where the originality of your contribution lies, clearly. For example, at the end of your literature review you simple affirm that “…energy modeling simulation still needs to be implemented on other platforms”. Sorry, but I have not seen how your introduction support your statement.

Furthermore, I have found your abstract and conclusion a little bit vague. Because this paper is based on a case study, in my opinion the analytical results from this case study represent the additional contribution.  However, Authors report again generic assumptions e.g.“.…the study developed several regression models based on the results of building energy simulations”.

Please see the sentence line 75”Literacies indicated that BIM simulation could provide the chance to explore alternative solutions in the early building design stage”. Are you sure that "Literacies" is the correct word?

Thank you

Author Response

The third reviewer’s comments	Authors’ reply
I suggest making the introduction more concise, pointing out where the originality of your contribution lies, clearly.	Some sentences were added.
Furthermore, I have found your abstract and conclusion a little bit vague. Because this paper is based on a case study, in my opinion the analytical results from this case study represent the additional contribution.	Some analytical results were added in the conclusion.
Please see the sentence line 75”Literacies indicated that BIM simulation could provide the chance to explore alternative solutions in the early building design stage”. Are you sure that "Literacies" is the correct word?	Changed to 'Articles'

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is okay.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for revising the manuscript.