TRNSYS Simulation and Experimental Validation of Internal Temperature and Heating Demand in a Glass Greenhouse
, Wook-Ho Na 2, Anis Rabiu 1, Qazeem Opeyemi Ogunlowo 1,3, Timothy Denen Akpenpuun 4, Adnan Rasheed 2, Yong-Cheol Yoon 5 and Hyun-Woo Lee 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review is for the article under the title: TRNSYS Simulation and Experimental Validation of Internal Temperature and Heating Demand in a Glass Greenhouse
The article presents advanced research including analytical and experimental work as well as simulations in TRNSYS.
It is very well prepared. The steps are clearly described.
The only doubt the reviewer has is the use of 'x' instead of 'in the formulas.' Is the whole analysis done on scalar, not vector, values? Please verify.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have not considered the effect of the crop (plants) in the simulations carried out. It is essential. Working in a greenhouse, nowadays, it makes no sense to make simulations without taking into account the crop. In bibliography you can find many previous works of simulations without cultivation and with cultivation.
The second reason, the authors do not explain in detail how all the terms of equations 11-13 are calculated. For example, how do you determine the ventilation flow at any given time? They do not indicate the size of the windows, nor the coefficients necessary to calculate the ventilation of a greenhouse. All terms must be explained in detail, the authors must explain what new contributions they have made to the model with respect to what already exists.
Other things to improve:
Temperature and humidity sensors should be at the height of the crop (Figure 3).
The properties/characteristics of all greenhouse components should refer to the materials used, and avoid using reference values of materials obtained from other bibliographic references (e.g., Valera et al., 2008). There may be important differences between reality and the data obtained from the bibliographic reference.
Outdoor climate data have been obtained from the Korean Meteorological Administration (KMA); the authors do not indicate the location of the weather station. This weather station should not be more than 25-50 meters from the greenhouse.
The wind speed at the height of the greenhouse is estimated from the wind speed in a place not indicated and at a height not indicated, and apply a coefficient ∝ not calculated by the authors (from bibliography).
Author Response
Please see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors modelled the temperature and heating demand of greenhouses with different shapes, and studied the effects of longwave radiation modes on the greenhouse internal temperatures and the heating demand. But the major revision is required.
1. The main purpose and novelty of the paper are vague, including the research gap based on the literature review, main findings and general rules in abstract and conclusion.
2. The abstract has an introduction to TRNSYS that is repeated inside the review section. A detailed description of the tool is not required in the abstract.
3. The references for the literature review is insufficient without full comments on the previous research. More existing studies need to be analyzed and summarized to highlight the significance of the work.
4. Figure 10 does not require a detailed description of the file import format of each software. The computational flow of the created TRNSYS model can be illustrated.
5. Figure 11 needs to be labeled A, B, and C on the picture.
6. Figures 17 and 18 are combined into one figure as much as possible.
7. Overall, the too many figures are included in this paper. It is suggested to reduce the number of the figures. Avoid the presentation of less important result and highlight the main conclusion.
8. The conclusion section needs to be reorganized, requiring an analysis and summary of the main findings and general rules.
Author Response
Please see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors conducted an extensive experimental campaign to understand the impact of several parameters on the heating demand and overall transient thermal performance.
In the paragraph before the Materials and Methods section, more than one line is introduced where the novelty and significance of the work are stated. For example, please write about: What is achieved through the study? And Why such a study was needed?
Comment on results:
Regarding the reported deviations of 27.7% and 7.6%, how do the calculated deviations compare to others found in the literature?
How do the daily heating demands compare to other studies in the literature and the same or similar climates?
In the Conclusions section, please comment on how the findings can be helpful for different users (e.g., academia, engineering, agriculture, etc.). Also, how do you expect that the results are used? Finally, what is further work needed?
Other specific comments:
Even though variables and parameters are defined next to the equations, it is strongly recommended that the authors add a Nomenclature section. The document has an extensive quantity of mathematical terms and variables.
Please add the type of Climate where the studied greenhouse is located.
Corrections on units: Hours, change “hr” to “h” in the text (line 158) and Figures 15 and 16
Figure 11. Please add dimensions and the orientation of the greenhouse to the figure 11
Please add the reference for KMA Korean Meteorological Administration information/webpage (line 133).
Author Response
Please see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The key aspects of the work have not been resolved satisfactorily.
The deficiencies of the work have not been resolved.
It is surprising that in the initial version the position of the temperature and humidity sensors was one, and in the corrected version the position changes completely (Figure 3). I wonder if they were wrong in the initial version, or if they have changed the position of the sensors in the figure in a misleading way.
I consider that the work meets the minimum requirements of scientific quality to be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
None
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have implemented all of the suggested improvements and corrections.
Author Response
We are grateful for the insightful comments for the improvement of our manuscript
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Based on previous reviews, the article should not be published. I consider that it does not contribute anything relevant, novel or of interest to the scientific community.
