Studying Energy Performance and Thermal Comfort Conditions in Heritage Buildings: A Case Study of Murabba Palace

#

Details

Response

1

The research on the protection of historical cultural relics is very meaningful. However, the depth of the research in this paper is not enough, the diagrams in the text are not standardized, and the research methods and conclusions are not innovative. It is recommended to reject the manuscript.

The authors have been fully addressed all comments provided by the reviewers. Thus, the manuscript has been improved based on all comments supplied by the reviewers.

#

Details

Response

1

The paper studies the Energy Performance and Thermal Comfort Conditions in Heritage Buildings: A Case Study Murabaa Palace. It is supported by 26 references. Comments are listed below:

A separate paragraph may be provide at the end of introduction to state explicitly the aims, objectives and novelty of the study.

The requested paragraph was added to the revised manuscript.

2

Relationship to Literature:  The conversion factor from Wh to kg CO2 equ should be provided.

A paragraph has been added with a reference at the end of the results section illustrating the conversion factor from kWh to Kg of CO₂ equivalent based on USA enegy information administration.

3

Approach to perform life cycle analysis for heritage buildings retrofitted with the proposed passive architectural features should be provided to enhance archival value, though this is the future work.

Life cycle cost and life cycle analysis will be introduced in another study in the future work

4

Comparison with results from similar studies should be made to support the reliability of the simulation.

A paragraph has been added at the end of the results section comparing the research findings with selected related previous studies using similar methodology and the same utilized software, the Design-Builder.

#

Details

Response

1

This manuscript is written clearly and logically. However, the literature review section does not indicate scientific novelty. Indicate the scientific novelty of the current study compared to the studies cited, namely reference numbers: 1-4, 16, 25, and 26.

This manuscript can be accepted if scientific novelty is proved.

Gaps of the previous studies have been added and illustrated at the end of the literature review section explaining the intended findings that needed to be covered in the recent studies. Also, the main aim and the objectives of the research are modified.

Moreover, the mentioned studies [1-4] were introduced in the introduction section describing the importance of heritage buildings and their classifications and showed frameworks used to develop a sustainability rating system for heritage buildings.

The research [16] had been stated in the literature review section, which showed using a machine learning method to predict cooling and heating loads for residential buildings.

Furthermore, the references [25-26] had been introduced in the case study section, illustrated detailed physical data and the case study building's properties, in which the reference [25] used the same case study to validate a developed sustainability assessment tool for heritage buildings, and the reference [26] is a conference paper used only three simulation scenarios to improve the energy efficiency of the given case study building.

2

Title: Wikipedia shows "Murabba Palace" but not "Murabaa Palace".

The name of the building has been rectified in the whole manuscript.

3

Line 97. Full name of BREEAM and LEED must be specified.

A full name for both was added to the revised version.

4

Line 138. Full name of ANOVA must be specified.

A full name has been added to the revised version.

5

Lines 223-224. Citation: "Murabba Palace is in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was built around 150 years ago." According to Wikipedia, the Murabba Palace was started in 1936, partly finalized in 1938 and fully completed in 1945. Please explain this discrepancy.

The authors obtained this information provided by the Saudi Authority in Riyadh.

6

Line 399, Figure 8. According to figure 8, there are three cases, namely Base case, Case 1 and Case 2. Base case is control. Each case 1 and case 2 contains four subcases namely case 1 contains subcases: subcases 3, 4, 5, and 6, while case 2 contains subcases: 7, 8, 9, and 10. Hence, Figure 8 shows the hierarchical (nested) structure of a design study. The abstract should also be noted the hierarchical structure of the design of the study.

The hierarchical structure of the design study has been mentioned in the abstract.

7

Line 433. There is no dot at the end of the sentence.

The authors added dot at the end of the sentence.

#

Details

Response

1

Dear Authors:

The topic of this article is good, and the protection and renewal of cultural relics is also a relatively important topic. However, the content of the whole article is relatively poor, and the graphic representation is not very accurate and clear. It needs a good improvement to meet the requirements of the journal.

The whole manuscript is revised to improve its content.

Figures from 8 to 12 are modified to improve their presentation.

2

Point1: In the introduction of section 1, this part of the content is rather messy, and the narrative purpose is not clear. This part of the content is recommended to be streamlined, closely related to the content of the topic, in order to achieve the goal of leading to the following.

This section is fixed in the revised manuscript.

3

Point2: In the literature review of section 2, the content of the literature review part is not closely related to the topic. The content of this part should sort out the current situation of the research on energy efficiency and comfort in cultural relics, and find innovative points to support the research proposed by the author himself. At present, this part of the content is rather messy and unclear.

New literature review section added to the revised version.

4

Point3: This paper only uses numerical simulation to study the energy consumption and thermal comfort of cultural relics by changing the construction of the building envelope. The application of the software is not verified, and the accuracy and applicability of the results cannot be guaranteed.

A paragraph has been added at the beginning of section 3.2, to illustrate the rationale of using numerical simulation. As well as, introducing studies that had proved the reliability of the tool outputs.

5

Point4: In the methodology of section 3, the expression of the graph suggests further optimization. Where is the source of material performance data?

The expression pf the graph has been optimized to be clearly readable. The references where material performance data were extracted, have been added.

6

Point5: In the results and discussion of section 4, this part of the elaboration suggests adding graphs to compare and analyze the expression, which can more accurately express the research effect.

Graphs have been added for monthly and annual total energy consumptions and carbon dioxide emissions.

#

Details

Response

1

In general

Scientific novelty (i.e., critical analysis of the nearest prototype) has not yet been proven.

This manuscript can be accepted if scientific novelty is proved.

Lines235-243. The last paragraph of the literature review section should contain evidence of scientific novelty. However, this paragraph contains only general provisions such as “most research”, “most studies”, and “the majority of literature”. This is not evidence of scientific novelty. Therefore the scientific novelty of this manuscript may be rejected due to a single study. This paragraph should contain a critical analysis of the nearest prototype. For example, reference 26.

Minor changes

It is logical to formulate research objectives immediately after a critical analysis of the literature. Thus, the objectives of the study should be carried over from the end of the introductory section (lines 122-129) to the end of the literature review section.

The title should contain "Murabba" but not "Murabaa".

The novelty in this study is the attempt to achieve lower energy consumption and increase the thermal comfort for occupants, preserving the whole architectural character and the significance of the heritage value of the case study building by using minimal envelope material retrofitting.

In this context, several combinations of wall materials and fenestrations was subjected to numerical simulations to select the best combination and scenario that achieves the minimum energy consumption and the highest thermal comfort.

The literature review section updated in the revised manuscript.

The objectives are added at the end of the “Introduction” section to address the reviewer’s comment.

The title fixed in the revised manuscript.