Optimization of Architectural Thermal Envelope Parameters in Modern Single-Family House Typologies in Southeastern Spain to Improve Energy Efficiency in a Dry Mediterranean Climate
, Ángel Benigno González-Avilés, Antonio Galiano-Garrigós and Andrea Lozoya-PeralRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented article is a simulation of various building parameters in order to optimize its energy consumption in hot and cold seasons. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of construction, energy and optimal use of resources. The article deserves attention, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:
1. The authors should indicate what the scientific novelty of the work is - it should be indicated more clearly and in detail.
2. Also the authors should justify in more detail the choice of design and architecture of the building chosen for the study. The opinion of the authors to the design of the "Solar House", which is appropriate for the region under consideration, is interesting.
3. What is the rationale for choosing the software used by the authors?
4. Given the huge potential of solar energy in the geographic area under consideration, it is advisable to use photovoltaic thermal planar modules in building structures as structural elements of the roof and facade (for example, doi.org/10.3103/S0003701X18050146), as a modification of insulation to remove heat and use it to heat water for the needs of the consumer and the heating of the intra-house space at night and cold times of the day and season, as well as as part of additional insulation in winter.
5. Passive systems can also include visors and shutters with a variable or stationary geometry (movable shading device, façade overhangs) made of photovoltaic modules with an extended service life and capable of operating in hot climatic conditions with high humidity (for example, DOI: 10.4018/IJEOE. 2020040106), which will reduce the penetration of solar radiation into the interior of the house. Such constructive solutions may be promising in energy-efficient homes in countries with high solar radiation. It is expedient to use the received electricity for cooling the building in summer, and changing the geometry of the visors in winter with their optimal location to the Sun will make it possible to receive energy for heating buildings. The mention of such technical solutions in the work can become a reserve for further research by the authors, since this topic is very relevant and promising.
6. Authors should add separate sections Conclusion and Directions for further research in the text of the article.
7. Conclusions and findings should be slightly reduced, since the information is essentially the same, but it is simply described in different ways.
8. At the end of the article, the contribution of each author of the work should be indicated.
9. Source number 8 in the list should be adjusted to display correctly. Source 45 is not in the text, but there are source numbers 46, 47 and 48 in the text that are not in the list of sources - the authors should correct this.
In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, and after eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication and, at least, the following changes should be carried out:
1. The manuscript lacks enough novelty, originality and quality.
2. NZEB is nearly zero-energy building.
3. A more complete literature review should be carried out, adding recent references from high impact journals. Several works, published in high impact journals, about Royal Decree 732/2019 and Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in Spain should be taken into account.
4. The Spanish context should be introduced: residential building stock, energy consumption, regulation requirements...
5. The building studied is too unique. The building studied should be more common and typical.
6. The usefulness of the study is not clear.
7. Methodology should be explained in greater detail.
8. The cases studied should be clarified.
9. The main characteristics of the selected building should be indicated.
10. Floor maps of the building and location map should be added.
11. What is the composition of each element of the thermal envelope (roof, walls…)?
12. What are the main characteristics of frame and glass window (%, U-value…)?
13. Why did not the authors consider to add curtains or blinds to meet the requirement for q_sol;jul parameter?
14. Results and Discussion sections are very confusing. A more thorough analysis of the results should be carried out and the results should be compared with those of other relevant works.
15. Figure legends should be revised (heating and cooling energy demands.
16. The authors write about some modifications that they are or they are not “economically feasible”. The authors should add an economic study that supports these sentences.
17. There is not Conclusions section.
18. Some parts of the text are too repetitive.
19. The authors should avoid using “we”, “us” or “ours”.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Review Report Form 2
Open Review
Answer: Comments are welcome. All annotations have been taken into account to improve the article. It should be clarified that the title has been slightly modified to narrow down the case study.
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication and, at least, the following changes should be carried out:
- The manuscript lacks enough novelty, originality and quality.
Answer: It has been better explained why the research topic is important, and the novelty and originality of the article.
- NZEB is nearly zero-energy building.
Answer: Proceeded to correct.
- A more complete literature review should be carried out, adding recent references from high impact journals. Several works, published in high impact journals, about Royal Decree 732/2019 and Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in Spain should be taken into account.
Answer: The literature review has been completed, and more recent references from high impact journals have been added. Regarding the regulations mentioned, no references have been found in high impact journals about them because they are very recent.
- The Spanish context should be introduced: residential building stock, energy consumption, regulation requirements...
Answer: An attempt has been made to better contextualise the selected case study.
- The building studied is too unique. The building studied should be more common and typical. Nos están dando por la peculiaridad de la cajita…
Answer: Examples and explanations have been provided to complete the justification of the selected case study, and the title and subject of the study have been better specified.
- The usefulness of the study is not clear.
Answer: Se ha completado la explicación de la utilidad del estudio para la mejora de los criterios de diseño y rehabilitación energética en casas unifamiliares en clima mediterráneo seco.
- Methodology should be explained in greater detail.
Answer: The methodology section has been completed.
- The cases studied should be clarified.
Answer: Examples and explanations have been added to clarify the selected case study.
- The main characteristics of the selected building should be indicated.
Answer: The graphic and constructive description of the selected building has been completed.
- Floor maps of the building and location map should be added.
Answer: The graphic documentation of the project has been completed.
- What is the composition of each element of the thermal envelope (roof, walls…)?
Answer: The description of the constructive composition of the façades, roofs and the lower slab has been completed.
- What are the main characteristics of frame and glass window (%, U-value…)?
Answer: The glazing and framing features of the original dwelling have been completed.
- Why did not the authors consider to add curtains or blinds to meet the requirement for q_sol;jul parameter?
Answer: A clarification on the possible use of blinds has been added, and a specific explanation on the possibility of adding curtains has been included.
- Results and Discussion sections are very confusing. A more thorough analysis of the results should be carried out and the results should be compared with those of other relevant works.
Answer: The Discussion section has been modified with a more comprehensive analysis of the results, and compared with other relevant work by introducing references on similar topics from research in other climate zones.
- Figure legends should be revised (heating and cooling energy demands.
Answer: Figure legends has been revised.
- The authors write about some modifications that they are or they are not “economically feasible”. The authors should add an economic study that supports these sentences.
Answer: This point has been better emphasised.
- There is not Conclusions section.
Answer: Separate Discussion and Conclusion sections have been added.
- Some parts of the text are too repetitive.
Answer: Repetitive parts of the text have been avoided.
- The authors should avoid using “we”, “us” or “ours”.
Answer: The use of "we", “us” or “ours”, has been avoided.
Submission Date
31 January 2022
Date of this review
10 Feb 2022 20:31:07
Reviewer 3 Report
The publication entitled – "Optimisation of the parameters of the architectural thermal envelope to improve energy efficiency in a dry Mediterranean climate. Case study: a single-family house in south-east Spain", presents a research study on improving the energy efficiency of a single-family house in Spain chosen by the authors.
In order to prepare the improvement of the energy efficiency of a selected existing building, the authors have presented a series of calculation simulations. The aim of the presented research is to present a method for the modernisation of buildings in hot semi-arid climates in southern Europe. In the opinion of the reviewer, there is a lack of current research in the subject of work, therefore the presented work is very important.
In the next part of the review, I provide general comments, to be analysed by the authors of the publication.
General comments:
- Introduction. The paragraph is written in very general language with a number of linguistic gaps. The authors use multiply complex sentences and do not use the punctuation in the right place. As a result, the written statement in the paragraph has no continuity - which results in not understanding the topic by the reader (reviewer), e.g. 36-47; 48-56; 60-70; 75-82 ...
Authors of scientific papers should write in clear and to the point language, lack of this level shows lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
In general, the introduction to the work is missing bibliographical references to similar topics in other climates, e.g.
Passive House in Different Climates The Path to Net Zero by Mary James, James Bill;
Bioclimatic Housing Innovative Designs for Warm Climates by Richard Hyde;
Passive Houses for different climate zones, Jürgen Schniedersa, Wolfgang Feistab Ludwig Rongenc;
In my opinion, the introduction is lacking in information on why the research topic is important.
- Materials and Methods. In my opinion, the authors should reconsider the building that was chosen for the study. The example presented is very interesting but its architectural form is far from the typical building in Spain. In order to prepare research that will result in conclusions to be applied in the modernisation of typical buildings in Spain. The authors should prepare a research database of examples together with a key for the selection of these buildings. Only on this basis, the most typical single-family building in Spain should be selected and studied.
- Results. In my opinion, the results refer only to elements of the building which we cannot call construction elements. Therefore, the study should be specified that it refers mainly to the designed windows in the building.
- Discussion. In my opinion, the discussion is lacking reference to other similar papers. There is no reference to any scientific work in the entire paragraph.
- Conclusions. None - to be completed.
After review, the publication is suitable for publication in a journal Sustainability MDPI.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Abstract. The abstract does not reflect the results of the research. I would recommend including precise results into Abstract.
Line 156-157. I would recommend to the authors to explain the scientific novelty of the research. Because even considering the fact that the research is case study, new and relevant results should be demonstrated.
Discussion. Detailed description of the results makes reading of this section very difficult, I would recommend structuring the section in a different way, maybe including a kind of graphic interpretation of the results.
Conclusion section: All the results combinations are spreaded through the section. I would recommend adding major results, formulated in one sentence, which should be also included into the abstract
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was improved, but several changes are still needed:
1. Abstract should be improved:
(a) The authors should avoid using acronyms.
(b) The authors should clarify if the building studied complies with EPBD 2010 or Spanish transposition of EPBD 2010 (lines 25-26).
(c) The authors could indicate some of “the main geometric and construction parameters” (line 28).
2. In Introduction section, the literature review could be improved adding recent references, from high impact journals, about Spanish regulation and EPBD in Spain, such as those whose DOIs are 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111570 or 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102962.
3. Materials and Methods section should be improved:
(a) The case studies should be explained in greater detail.
(b) Location map could be useful to know the Spanish climate zone.
(c) The composition of each element of the thermal envelope (roof, walls…) should be indicated (thickness, thermal conductivity…). The thermal transmittance of each element of the thermal envelope should be added. All these data could be included in a table.
(d) The main characteristics of frame and glass window (%, U-valued…) should be indicated. For instance, the thermal transmittance of glass is presented in Table 1 in the present manuscript, but the thermal transmittance of windows is not indicated.
4. Results section should be improved:
(a) Text in lines 510-516 and Fig. 9(a) are contradictory. The legend should be revised. The same occurs with Figs. 10 (a), 15(a) and 21(a) and their corresponding texts. It is not clear if Fig. 11 (a) was changed properly.
(b) The authors should revise all the figures thoroughly.
(c) Lines 838-846 should be revised: How was energy consumption assessed? What were the heating and cooling systems used? Did the building comply with Spanish regulation? How did the building achieve NZEB requirements and other Spanish regulation requirements? What was the energy cost (€/kWh)? This part is very weak.
5. Discussion section should be improved:
(a) Taking into account all the previous changes, this section should be improved.
(b) Lines 997-1002 should be revised and the relationship between energy consumption and energy demand should be clarified.
6. Conclusion section could be improved, taking into account all the changes carried out.
7. The English should be improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Review Report Form 2
Open Review
Answer: Comments are welcome. All annotations have been taken into account to improve the article.
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript was improved, but several changes are still needed:
- Abstract should be improved:
(a) The authors should avoid using acronyms.
Answer: The use of acronyms has been avoided.
(b) The authors should clarify if the building studied complies with EPBD 2010 or Spanish transposition of EPBD 2010 (lines 25-26).
Answer: It has been clarified in the abstract that the building under study complies with the Directive. 2010/31/EU but are not specifically adapted and optimized for the special characteristics of the dry Mediterranean climate.
(c) The authors could indicate some of “the main geometric and construction parameters” (line 28).
Answer: The main construction and geometrical parameters considered in the calculations of this work have been indicated.
- In Introduction section, the literature review could be improved adding recent references, from high impact journals, about Spanish regulation and EPBD in Spain, such as those whose DOIs are 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111570 or 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102962.
Answer: The literature review has been improved adding recent references, from high impact journals, about Spanish regulation and EPBD in Spain.
- Materials and Methods section should be improved:
(a) The case studies should be explained in greater detail.
Answer: The case study has been explained in more detail.
(b) Location map could be useful to know the Spanish climate zone.
Answer: The location map of the case study in relation to the climate zone has been added.
(c) The composition of each element of the thermal envelope (roof, walls…) should be indicated (thickness, thermal conductivity…). The thermal transmittance of each element of the thermal envelope should be added. All these data could be included in a table.
Answer: A table has been added indicating the thicknesses and thermal conductivity of the opaque enclosures.
(d) The main characteristics of frame and glass window (%, U-valued…) should be indicated. For instance, the thermal transmittance of glass is presented in Table 1 in the present manuscript, but the thermal transmittance of windows is not indicated.
Answer: A table has been added indicating % of frame and % of glass, thermal transmittance and solar factor of the glass, thermal transmittance and absorptivity of the frames.
- Results section should be improved:
(a) Text in lines 510-516 and Fig. 9(a) are contradictory. The legend should be revised. The same occurs with Figs. 10 (a), 15(a) and 21(a) and their corresponding texts. It is not clear if Fig. 11 (a) was changed properly.
Answer: The legend of the figures has been revised to avoid confusion or contradiction. The figures 9(a) and 10(a) show that improving the thermal insulation reduces the heating need in winter but increases the cooling need in summer. The figure 11(a) show that reducing the solar factor of the glazing reduces the cooling need in summer but increases the heating need in winter. The figure 15(a) show that reducing the window area reduces the cooling need in summer but increases the heating need in winter. Finally, the figure 21(a) show that increasing the overhang decreases the cooling need in summer but increases the heating need in winter.
(b) The authors should revise all the figures thoroughly.
Answer: The legend of the figures has been revised to avoid confusion.
(c) Lines 838-846 should be revised: How was energy consumption assessed? What were the heating and cooling systems used? Did the building comply with Spanish regulation? How did the building achieve NZEB requirements and other Spanish regulation requirements? What was the energy cost (€/kWh)? This part is very weak.
Answer: It was explained how the energy consumption was calculated. The air conditioning systems used have been described. It has been clarified that the total annual primary energy consumption of the current house complies with the Spanish nearly zero energy buildings standard but without the proposed improvement measures the house does not comply the solar control parameter limit. Also explains that the energy performance of the house can be greatly improved. The energy cost has been explained.
- Discussion section should be improved:
(a) Taking into account all the previous changes, this section should be improved.
Answer: The Discussion section has been improved.
(b) Lines 997-1002 should be revised and the relationship between energy consumption and energy demand should be clarified.
Answer: The relationship between energy demand and energy consumption has been clarified.
- Conclusion section could be improved, taking into account all the changes carried out.
Answer: The Conclusion section has been improved.
- The English should be improved.
Answer: The text has been improved.
Submission Date
31 January 2022
Date of this review
03 Mar 2022 12:52:37
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was improved, but some changes are still needed:
1. Text in Section 3 and several figures are contradictory. At least, the authors should revise legends in Figs. 10(a), 11(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 21(a).
2. Final energy consumption, non-renewable primary energy consumption and total primary energy consumption per service (heating, cooling and domestic hot water, at least) and overall should be indicated.
3. In Spain, the buildings that achieve NZEB requirements must comply with non-renewable primary energy consumption and total primary energy consumption limitations for new buildings. Moreover, the authors should verify the compliance with Spanish building thermal regulation for buildings.
4. The authors should highlight the best option and the improvements achieved.
5. The English should be revised.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
