Study on Skywell Shape in Huizhou Traditional Architecture Based on Outdoor Wind Environment Simulation
Dhiraj Kumar Singh
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting article that is very closely related to a certain type of development and local conditions.
In the article I am missing:
1. Abstract - what methods of scientific work led to the results? it is appropriate to add briefly.
2. Chapter 1 Introduction - there is a lack of broader regional knowledge / comparison on the given issue, the absence of a broader "state of the art".
3. Does the literature record a list of all used software?
4. Authors from other, for example, Western countries are completely absent in the bibliography. Only 3 links are given, this is completely insufficient.
5. I recommend finalizing the Discussion chapter, whether it is possible to apply or compare the results with another (similar) type of development and territory.
6. What is the benefit of the results for further practice and knowledge?
Author Response
Please check the attachment for the detailed reply.Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
stainability-2329567
: "Study on the Skywell Shaped of Huizhou Traditional Architecture Based on Outdoor Wind Environment Simulation" by Authors: Huanhuan Fang et al.
Recommendation: Minor Revision
Comments to the Author
The manuscript presents a new approach to a study skywell natural ventilation design technique using PHOENICS software simulation with control variables. In addition, the impact of various aspect ratios on traditional residential skywell on the outdoor wind environment conditions. So this paper can significantly contribute to the design Huizhou architecture skywell. The discussion is well-structured, with findings emphasized, but some parts could be clarified and better justified. The well-written manuscript provides new insights into the HUI-Shaped building skywell aspect ratio for the best wind environment. I recommend it for publication in sustainability. However, minor comments about the Two-dimensional wind velocity field provided for different AO-shaped D/H ratios. But how the Two-dimensional wind velocity field is obtained is unclear to the reader and should be addressed before accepting this manuscript.
I recommend the publication of this manuscript after minor revisions in light of the comments below.
Major comments:
What is uncertainty/error in estimating wind velocity, height, etc., should be addressed separately. Please include the roughness of the surface and its effects on vertical wind profiles.
Minor comments
[L-55] Please check the reference.
[L-63] Please check the reference.
[L-179] Please provide the longitude and latitude of the location of the three villages.
Figure 1 is repeated. Please provide the length bar scale in Figures 1, 2, and 3 if possible.
Please check the unit style, which should be consistent: for example, m2, not m2.
What is av. temp? please clarify
Please check the significant digit in Table 7. Ex: 30.0oC and 16.0oC. Please be consistent
Table 8. What is wind speed (1.5 H)? H? H is defined in line 241. You should define where used the first time.
[L-273] Please check the reference
[L-275] Please define all variables carefully. It is confusing.
Table 10. Please provide a high-resolution figure wind field.
In general, the manuscript would benefit from proofreading.
Author Response
Please check the attachment for the detailed reply.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Good work on the study of skywell for indoor and outdoor
A few clarifications are needed
1. Table 2 & 3 data based on D/H value in ascending or descending is better for each category of example.
2. skywell AO, HUI, H & RI were defined, but in Table 4, RI is missed out.
3. Figure 4 shows one image without any information example, overall size,
4. section 3.2, does not include information about mesh count and quality of mesh
5. Figure 6 shows a wind speed diagram which is the numerical result, and it is validated with practical data or reference data for any one case
6. In Table 9, V is equal to 2.14 m/s for Lvfu Hall. Is it correct
7. section 41 states that in this experiment....line 355...364 369 is it correct. It looks like, you have carried out only numerical analysis....
Author Response
Please check the attachment for the detailed reply.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is relevant to the Journal and can be accepted after the following Major corrections.
1. The abstract section looks too lengthy and can be reduced only to the results obtained. Highlight the main results only.
2. Some references need to be explained for example see "of the sky"[4-7]."
3. See line # 55 for "Error! Reference source not found.."
4. See Line # 63 "Error! Reference source not found."
5. Tables and line spacing are not compatible, modify, please.
6. Page # 119, see Zhijia et al[19]. Use full stop after et al.
7. See lines 130, 132, 135, 142, 146, 149, and so on. adjust et al. and write the name in the proper way of the authors. They look messpilled.
8. If Figure 1 is copied, it may be properly cited.
9. See line # 272, "Error! Reference source not found."
10. Conclusion may be added in bullets.
11. References are not sufficient, please add relevant references from 2020-2023.
Author Response
Please check the attachment for the detailed reply.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I agree to publish in the submitted version.
Author Response
我们非常感谢您的热情工作，这些意见都是有价值的，对修改和改进我们的论文非常有帮助，对我们的研究也有重要的指导意义。再次真心感谢！
Reviewer 4 Report
Accept in current form.
Author Response
We really appreciate for your warm work, Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.Once again, thank you sincerely!
