ICARO—Innovative Cardboard ARchitecture Object: Sustainable Building Technology for Multipurpose Micro-Architecture
Julian Garcia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The whole construction initiative is really interesting. The following comments are only meant to improve further research on the described model.
1. It would be interesting to have a description of the life cycle of the complete construction, and of the materials separately. There’s no quantification of such issue in the paper, only emphasis on the virtues of the use of cardboard -that contrasts with the little importance given to other materials, such as the Siberian larch. It is unclear where materials come from; transport to Catania may involve an increase in energy costs that would undermine the efficiency of the whole construction.
2. There is no a priori analysis of comfort in the building under study. It would be good to know if the comfort achieved in future tests matches the one expected in pre-design or simulations.
3. It is of course not the aim of the paper, but ventilation and condensation performance of the building are not even addressed. These parameters must be studied when building in Mediterranean climate areas. The energy performance of the building will depend not only on its thermal insulation, but also in the proper integration of other bioclimatic strategies.
Author Response
Thank you very much for these advices, we will take in great consideration for the development of the research.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Page 2, line 55 has words repeated.
2. The quality of Figures 1 and 2 needs to be improved.
3. The method and position of prestress application shall be illustrated.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advices, we have taken them in great consideration in order to boost the article. We hope that the new version of it meet better your interest.
- Page 2, line 55 has words repeated.
Done
- The quality of Figures 1 and 2 needs to be improved
Done
- The method and position of prestress application shall be illustrated.
In the section 3. the pre-stress technology has been only introduced. The method and position of the application of pre-stressing has been wider explained in sections 4.1 (lines 211-214) and 4.3 (lines 316-318)
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors are commended for trying to come out with this manuscript. Although the topic seems interesting and the paper has the potential to get published, there are issues that must be resolved. Please see my comments below. I wish they can assist the authors to improve this manuscript.
1. The introduction of a full stop into the topic presents the topic in two parts. Please replace the full stop with a hyphen or colon. The topic must read as follows: “ICARO- Innovative cardboard Architecture Object: A sustainable building technology for multi-purpose micro-architecture”.
2. In the abstract, please check the full meaning of the abbreviation EWAS for clarity.
3. Please reword lines 12-13. As much as possible avoid the introduction of such sentences in a research manuscript.
4. Please rework the abstract. An abstract must include the following: a brief problem statement, the aim and specific objectives, a brief methodology, the key findings, and the implications of the findings.
5. Please pay attention to the introduction again. The introduction of a research paper must be able to supply readers with a brief background of the study. After this, the problem that has merited the study to be undertaken must be presented. The research gap or gaps identified in the literature that the study seeks to fill must be discussed. Getting towards the end of the introduction, the aim and specific objectives of the paper must be stated.
6. I would advise that the title ‘state-of-the-art’ be changed to ‘Literature review’. The contents of what is presented do not qualify as state-of-the-art.
7. As much as possible, please avoid lengthy sentences to make reading easy.
8. Please check line 75 for errors.
9. In lines 76-90, it is good to have a summary of the sub-themes. I would encourage authors to expand these sub-themes. For instance, lines 76-80 could further be expanded, etc.
10. Section 3, please modify the heading as follows ‘Research methodology’.
11. The methods and procedures used are well outlined. However, I would suggest to the authors to present these ideas in the form of a diagram or a figure which will properly summarize the procedures used.
12. Before Section 4 is introduced, I would suggest to the authors to introduce readers to the key findings. What was the output of the EWAS projects? What was the outcome of the ICARO technology? I presume the methodology used must be able to come out with these key findings. After this, the authors can now apply the technology to the proposed case as presented in Section 4.
13. I think Section 5 addresses my comment in line 12. I would advise that section 5 be moved to replace section 4, and section 4 move to section 5. The idea is that the technology must be generated first before it can be applied to the real-world scenario as done in section 4.
14. Line 348, please check the section number. It appears as section 6.6. If it is a new section then it must be section 6.
15. There is a need to rearrange some key sections of the paper. I think the current section 4 must be the last to be presented before the conclusion. This is because this is the section that tests the outcome of the study.
16. The conclusion must be restructured. First state the aim of the study, then followed by the key findings of the study. The practical and theoretical implications of the findings must then be discussed. Key limitations must be stated and recommendations based on the limitations must be made.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advices, thanks to them, we have taken them in great consideration in order to boost the article. We hope that the new version of it meet better your interest.
The authors are commended for trying to come out with this manuscript. Although the topic seems interesting and the paper has the potential to get published, there are issues that must be resolved. Please see my comments below. I wish they can assist the authors to improve this manuscript.
- The introduction of a full stop into the topic presents the topic in two parts. Please replace the full stop with a hyphen or colon. The topic must read as follows: “ICARO- Innovative cardboard Architecture Object: A sustainable building technology for multi-purpose micro-architecture”.
The advice has been accepted
- In the abstract, please check the full meaning of the abbreviation EWAS for clarity.
The advice has been accepted.
- Please reword lines 12-13. As much as possible avoid the introduction of such sentences in a research manuscript.
The advice has been accepted.
- Please rework the abstract. An abstract must include the following: a brief problem statement, the aim and specific objectives, a brief methodology, the key findings, and the implications of the findings.
In our opinion the Abstract has the features showed by you:
aim and specific objectives – lines 11-13
a brief problem statement – lines 13-14
a brief methodology – lines 14-17
the key-findings – lines 17-18
Application on site – lines 20-23
aim and specific objectives of the paper – lines 23-24
- Please pay attention to the introduction again. The introduction of a research paper must be able to supply readers with a brief background of the study. After this, the problem that has merited the study to be undertaken must be presented. The research gap or gaps identified in the literature that the study seeks to fill must be discussed. Getting towards the end of the introduction, the aim and specific objectives of the paper must be stated.
The introduction has been implemented on the base of your advices.
- I would advise that the title ‘state-of-the-art’ be changed to ‘Literature review’. The contents of what is presented do not qualify as state-of-the-art.
The advice has been accepted.
- As much as possible, please avoid lengthy sentences to make reading easy.
A grammar draft proof has been carried out by a tongue-mother reviewer.
- Please check line 75 for errors.
Done.
- In lines 76-90, it is good to have a summary of the sub-themes. I would encourage authors to expand these sub-themes. For instance, lines 76-80 could further be expanded, etc
Thank you for these advices, we will take in great consideration for the future developments.
- Section 3, please modify the heading as follows ‘Research methodology’.
The advice has been accepted.
- The methods and procedures used are well outlined. However, I would suggest to the authors to present these ideas in the form of a diagram or a figure which will properly summarize the procedures used.
The panel assembly procedure adopted has been summarized in the captions and better explained with references to the individual figures shown.
- Before Section 4 is introduced, I would suggest to the authors to introduce readers to the key findings. What was the output of the EWAS projects? What was the outcome of the ICARO technology? I presume the methodology used must be able to come out with these key findings. After this, the authors can now apply the technology to the proposed case as presented in Section 4.
The key findings of ICARO has been showed at the end of the methodology (section 3).
The output of EWAS have been showed in other different article, cited in the present one.
- I think Section 5 addresses my comment in line 12. I would advise that section 5 be moved to replace section 4, and section 4 move to section 5. The idea is that the technology must be generated first before it can be applied to the real-world scenario as done in section 4.
The advice has been accepted.
The realization of the prototype called Panel Zero has been shifted at the end of the methodology, in order to complete the description of the technology. The application in the site of Megara has been grouped and shifted after this section.
- Line 348, please check the section number. It appears as section 6.6. If it is a new section then it must be section 6.
Done.
- There is a need to rearrange some key sections of the paper. I think the current section 4 must be the last to be presented before the conclusion. This is because this is the section that tests the outcome of the study.
The advice has been accepted
The realization of the prototype called Panel Zero has been shifted at the end of the methodology, in order to complete the description of the technology. The application in the site of Megara has been grouped and shifted after this section.
- The conclusion must be restructured. First state the aim of the study, then followed by the key findings of the study. The practical and theoretical implications of the findings must then be discussed. Key limitations must be stated and recommendations based on the limitations must be made.
The advice has been accepted. Now the Conclusion is organized in the following way:
Aim of the study - lines 420-424
Key findings – line 425-427
Practical and theoretical implications – line 428-430
Discussion – lines 430-433
We add also the further development
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors provide a detailed description of the design and implementation process of a new sustainable building technology, the Innovative Cardboard ARchitectural Object (ICARO), and an outlook on its future application. The content of the article meets the requirements of this journal and is innovative. However, some contents need to be revised, and it is suggested to be accepted after revision.
The author may refer to the following specific comments:
1. Page 6-line 235 and line236: When the cardboard box size is approximately 0.50 × 0.50 × 0.20 m, deformation of the material and possible warping during the pre-compression of the panel can be avoided, please provide specific proof of this.
2. It is suggested that the contents in each picture of Figure 7 be identified in text (indicating each component).
3. Chapter 5.3 mentions ventilated façade and photovoltaic panels, which are not clearly observed in Figure 8, it is suggested that each part be labeled in the figure.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advices, thanks to them, we have taken them in great consideration in order to boost the article. We hope that the new version of it meet better your interest.
The authors provide a detailed description of the design and implementation process of a new sustainable building technology, the Innovative Cardboard ARchitectural Object (ICARO), and an outlook on its future application. The content of the article meets the requirements of this journal and is innovative. However, some contents need to be revised, and it is suggested to be accepted after revision.
The author may refer to the following specific comments:
- Page 6-line 235 and line236: When the cardboard box size is approximately 0.50 × 0.50 × 0.20 m, deformation of the material and possible warping during the pre-compression of the panel can be avoided, please provide specific proof of this.
The solution to contrast this risk has been described in lines 189-191.
- It is suggested that the contents in each picture of Figure 7 be identified in text (indicating each component).
The advice has been accepted.
- Chapter 5.3 mentions ventilated façade and photovoltaic panels, which are not clearly observed in Figure 8, it is suggested that each part be labeled in the figure.
As to the ventilated facade, we specified the construction phase in lines 361-364.
As to the photovoltaic system, there is a lack of images because it will be installed in the next weeks (lines 388). It will be better illustrated in a further contribution.
Reviewer 5 Report
- The problem is not clear, should be illustrated the problem in the introduction section.
- What's the effect of using this method on sustainable projects?
- The result section without references, the author should discuss and compare the result with previous studies.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advices, thanks to them, we have taken them in great consideration in order to boost the article. The organization of the structure of the article has been rearranged and the paragraphs have been implemented on the base of your advices.
We hope that the new version of it meet better your interest.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I wish to thank the authors for taking the time to address the majority of the comments I raised regarding the paper. Studies like these are important and must be encouraged. Good luck.
Reviewer 5 Report
accepted
