SLICE: An Innovative Photovoltaic Solution for Adaptive Envelope Prototyping and Testing in a Relevant Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• line 35: there's too much of a disconnect between the introductory themes and the description of SLICE. I would supplement with some concept that connects the introductory themes with the research
• the introduction must be better integrated with respect to the structuring of the paper, sometimes too technical, therefore, it is necessary to clearly describe the steps of the paper
• from page 200 there is some confusion between the list of aspects addressed and those described (3.1 Material, 3.2 Automation and kinematics, 4 methodology). It is not clear why points 3.1 and 3.2 are described outside the methodology. This distinction is not stated
• line 280: the point must be described in a more fluent and comprehensible way, putting in note the technical specifications and codes and highlighting the modality and innovation of the movement with respect to what has been done up to now. This problem is also in point 5.5 Functional test
• more attention to the relationship between the facade component and the envelope would have been appreciated, through diagrams or drawings, to identify different possible scenarios
• the location of the context of the research with respect to the funds obtained should be better specified in its terms

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewers for their comments and suggestions that allow us to give a big improvement of this article.

In the following, we give the response below to each comment.

 

REVIEWER ONE

 

• line 35: there's too much of a disconnect between the introductory themes and the description of SLICE. I would supplement with some concept that connects the introductory themes with the research

It has been inserted a paragraph to connect the two parts. Please, see lines 35-43.

 

• the introduction must be better integrated concerning the structuring of the paper, sometimes too technical, therefore, it is necessary to clearly describe the steps of the paper

The introduction has been integrated with the structure of the paper. Please, see lines 134-141.

 

 

• from page 200 there is some confusion between the list of aspects addressed and those described (3.1 Material, 3.2 Automation and kinematics, 4 methodology). It is not clear why points 3.1 and 3.2 are described outside the methodology. This distinction is not stated

We agree with the Reviewer remark.

So we had modified the structure of this part of the article. In particular, the aims of the research describes the state of art, while material,  automation and kinematic are illustrated in the first part of the methodology. The title of this chapter has been changed in Material and Methods.  Please, see line 222

 

• line 280: the point must be described in a more fluent and comprehensible way, putting in note the technical specifications and codes and highlighting the modality and innovation of the movement with respect to what has been done up to now. This problem is also in point 5.5 Functional test

We made the text more fluent. With this aim the technical specifications are illustrated in Table 1 and 2, please see 277 and 313.

 

• more attention to the relationship between the facade component and the envelope would have been appreciated, through diagrams or drawings, to identify different possible scenarios

We agree with the Reviewer for this interesting observation.

Currently, the prototype SLICE has a TRL 3-5, so the attention was mainly addressed to improve technical and functional aspects. The research team has already taken into consideration the development of relationships between the facade component and the envelope. In particular, we are going to design several versions of SLICE in order to fit it with different architectural types. Thus we will investigate different materials and colours of the frame, curtain and cells, the pattern of the fold, the actuation system, etcetera. 

 

• the location of the context of the research with respect to the funds obtained should be better specified in its terms

The context of the research has been specified, see lines 36-40

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript: "SLICE: an innovative photovoltaic solution for adaptive envelopes - prototyping and test in relevant environment" presents a solution to a significant and current scientific problem related to improving the energy performance of a building through the use of photovoltaic panels as mobile systems for shading the transparent partitions of the building.
I believe that the article may be admitted to the next stages of the procedure provided that the following comments are taken into account:

1. You need to describe the research position in more detail, how long, in what seasons and in what climate were the empirical research conducted?
2. Were there any research / computational simulations of the application of the tested solution in other types of climates?
3. You need to increase the quality and readability of the descriptions of Figures 9-10, 13-15.
4. You must complete section "5. Conclusions" of the mauscript with specific figures related to the potential benefits that can be obtained from the prototype under study.
5. The bibliography should be supplemented with more articles from prominent journals in order to present the current state of knowledge to the readers more precisely. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewers for their comments and suggestions that allow us to give a big improvement of this article.

In the following, we give the response below to each comment.

REVIEWER TWO

1. You need to describe the research position in more detail, how long, in what seasons and in what climate were the empirical research conducted?

 

We are sorry for the lack of information on these topics. We have specified the location, as well as the date when the survey was conducted.

Moreover, we have added  data on  solar irradiations which allows to obtain a figure of the weather conditions, which occurred during the experimental phase

2. Were there any research / computational simulations of the application of the tested solution in other types of climates?

 

At the moment, the prototype of SLICE has a TRL 3-5, so the attention was mainly addressed to improve technical and functional aspects. The research team has taken into consideration the development of further analysis considering a wider test campaign, in different regions and with different building use (houses, schools, shops, etcetera). 

3. 
   You need to increase the quality and readability of the descriptions of Figures 9-10, 13-15.

 

We are sorry for the scarce quality of the figures as well as their description.

Following the suggestion of this Reviewer, In the revised version of this paper,  the quality and the description of the figures has been improved.

Moreover, as in the old version some fallacies occur,  a couple of figures have been removed and consequently, the number of the figures has been redefined.

Figure 15 was removed because we noticed that there were some incongruences. Please, see lines 355, 420, 437, 439, 452, 454.

4. 
   You must complete section "5. Conclusions" of the mauscript with specific figures related to the potential benefits that can be obtained from the prototype under study.

 

We are sorry for the incompleteness of the Conclusion. Following the suggestion of this Reviewer, We have tried to enrich this section adding the potential benefits that can be obtained from the prototype under study.

5. The bibliography should be supplemented with more articles from prominent journals in order to present the current state of knowledge to the readers more precisely. 

 

The following references from prominent journals have been added.

 

- Candelas, F. A. et al. (2015) ‘Experiences on using Arduino for laboratory experiments of Automatic Control and Robotics’, IFAC-PapersOnLine. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.11.221.

- J. Böke, U. Knaack, and M. Hemmerling, “Automated adaptive façade functions in practice - Case studies on office buildings,” Autom. Constr., vol. 113, p. 103113, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103113.

- J. Freitas, J. Cronemberger, R. Soares, and C. Amorim, “Modeling and assessing BIPV envelopes using parametric Rhinoceros plugins Grasshopper and Ladybug,” Renew. Energy, vol. 160, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.137.

- K. Johnsen and F. V. Winther, “Dynamic Facades, the Smart Way of Meeting the Energy Requirements,” Energy Procedia, vol. 78, pp. 1568–1573, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2015.11.210.

- X. Li et al., “Optimal design of photovoltaic shading systems for multi-story buildings,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 220, pp. 1024–1038, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.01.246.

- X. Shi, T. Abel, and L. Wang, “Influence of two motion types on solar transmittance and daylight performance of dynamic façades,” Sol. Energy, vol. 201, pp. 561–580, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2020.03.017.

- Yahya Ibraheem, Eric R.P. Farr, Poorang A.E. Piroozfar, Embedding Passive Intelligence into Building Envelopes: A Review of the State-of-the-art in Integrated Photovoltaic Shading Devices, Energy Procedia, Volume 111, 2017, Pages 964-973, ISSN 1876-6102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.259.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf