Influence of Facade Greening with Ivy on Thermal Performance of Masonry Walls
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments
In my opinion, this study can be considered for publication, but the manuscript needs to be revised and Authors should check the following comments for addressing mentioned issues.
The topic of the paper is interesting, within the scope of the journal, and worthy of investigation. The originality of the work is acceptable and the study performed is adequate. However, the manuscript deserves a major revision. I suggest that authors take into account the comments and questions below before it can be accepted for publication in Sustainability.
Based on the assessment, following points needs attention:
1) Work editing - the text of the work lacks appropriate indentation in accordance with the requirements of the journal
2) The originality of the paper needs to be stated clearly. It is of importance to have sufficient results to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper.
3) The Introduction should make a compelling case for why the study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how? An updated and complete literature review should be conducted and should appear as part of the Introduction, while bearing in mind the work's relevance.
4) Literature given in this paper is not sufficient. Literature should be enlarged
5) Table 1 - table title missing, please correct the formatting
6) Why didn't the researchers use a thermal imaging camera? The use of thermograms for calculations would be more appropriate; quite random temperature measurement would be avoided.
7) The formatting of the work is carelessly done. Tables are large, no bullets are used. This aspect of the article should be improved significantly.
Author Response
1) Work editing - the text of the work lacks appropriate indentation in accordance with the requirements of the journal
We have improved the formatting in accordance with the MDPI template.
2) The originality of the paper needs to be stated clearly. It is of importance to have sufficient results to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper.
We have added a clear statement that there is bare to none research about heat transfer coefficient in regards to the greening with ivy. line 60-70
3) The Introduction should make a compelling case for why the study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how? An updated and complete literature review should be conducted and should appear as part of the Introduction, while bearing in mind the work's relevance.
4) Literature given in this paper is not sufficient. Literature should be enlarged
We have improved the literature and tried to state more clearly where we see research gaps and why our research is usefull in the introduction.
5) Table 1 - table title missing, please correct the formatting
We have added the missing title and added formatting.
6) Why didn't the researchers use a thermal imaging camera? The use of thermograms for calculations would be more appropriate; quite random temperature measurement would be avoided.
We used thermal imaging only to make sure that the surface temperature of the walls are evenly spread and no thermal bridges are in near proximity to our measurements. However, for long-term measurements on the inside and outside of the building, thermal imaging is not a suitable option. Thats why we have chosen PT1000 sensors that were embeded in thermal paste and glued to the surface.
7) The formatting of the work is carelessly done. Tables are large, no bullets are used. This aspect of the article should be improved significantly.
We have improved formatting in accordance with the MDPI template.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see = review in the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- We have improved the number of literature significantly and now provide a more compelling explanation why our research is viable.
- Unfortunately we don't have deeper information about the foliage density and leaf area index of the examined plants. However, we have added the thickness of the masonry walls as additional description. No dynamic shading coefficients have been taken into consideration. We have added a statement regarding this. Line 99 - 101
- We have added statements to the introduction and discussion of the study. For example Figure 1 and Figure 2, aswell as Line 423 - 424.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work presented for publication in the Special Issue "Sustainable Energy Saving Building Envelopes" is a specific case study about the effect of ivy on thermal performance of masonry walls.
I find the paper very easy to understand and follow; methods, results and data are clearly presented and even not specialized readers can easily get both qualitative and quantitative information.
References is the main shortcomings, since only 10 papers are present, but still this does not prevent a good understanding of the background.
I think the paper provides useful information, but authors should try to add few elements to make more general considerations about the use of greening to improve buildings energetic performance.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. We have added ~10+ references to back up our research method and make a more compelling statement why our research is usefull and fills a research gap regarding heat transfer coefficient in the context of vertical greening with selfclimbing plants.
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a very interesting and informative Technical Article that was also very enjoyable to read.
The Halls of Ivy Authors are commended! (Halls of Ivy (Noun) An Institution of higher learning or College, University, or League; the academic world.) The Reviewer (Consultant), as a Civil Engineering Student (University of British Coumbia Ph.D., Vancouver) and an Academic/ Adjunct Professor (1971 to 2020) saw the Ivy directly at Universities in British Columbia, Ontario, and USA. Incidentally, also in Vienna when at PIRAC Meetings at the Vienna University of Technology.
The English is excellent, with just one minor "correction" asphalt should be asphalt concrete.
A technical point. Tsi should probably also consider humidity.
It would also be of interest to have typical annual temperatures for Vienna over say the past twenty years; with the impacts of climate change adaptation and mitigation (sustainability focus).
Author Response
Thank you for your enjoyable review. We have considered adding humidity to our results, but since our research is mainly focused on outside surface temperature and heat transfer coefficient, we refrained from doing so. As stated in the article, results regarding the surface temperature on the inside of the building are not reliable and were mostly discarded because of the heavy influence from the bulding users.
We have added two figures with typical temperatures for Vienna in 2022 and a graph with average and maximum temperatures in Vienna for 2000-2022.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please use subscripts for parameters considered (Ts,Tsi, Tse etc.)
"Heat flux density also referred to as heat flux" - are not the same parameters; this is a wrong statement
The formatting of Mathematical Components and Tables is wrong. Please fallow journal Instructions for Authors.
Please correct the rules including values and units (space or not space between).
Fig. 7 - U values depends on ambient and internal temperature. It is worth showing such temp. volatility over time on the charts. Why were U for November and January identical for RK?
Heat transfer coefficient - please use the U symbol in your work and not the U -value
Table 13 - please correct mistakes. What do the values in parentheses mean?
Fig. 11 and 13 - please change the date notation to days only since the month is indicated. Please sign the x-axis that this is a date/day
Author Response
Please use subscripts for parameters considered (Ts,Tsi, Tse etc.)
We have added subscripts to the corresponding parameters.
"Heat flux density also referred to as heat flux" - are not the same parameters; this is a wrong statement
We have replaced the statement and replaced "heat flux" with "heat flux density" throughout the article.
The formatting of Mathematical Components and Tables is wrong. Please fallow journal Instructions for Authors.
We have edited the mathematical components (equation) according to the MDPI template.
Please correct the rules including values and units (space or not space between).
We have added a space between all values and units.
Fig. 7 - U values depends on ambient and internal temperature. It is worth showing such temp. volatility over time on the charts.
Since the mathematical formula and relation is the quotient of heat flux density and the temperature difference between exterior (ambient) and interior (internal) a dependency is obviously existing. We don’t think it is viable or beneficial to show this in a graph since our main result is the comparison of two relatively similar obtained data, that was filtered extensively.
Why were U for November and January identical for RK?
We have edited Fig. 7 in such a way so that the difference between values for November and January are more visible.
Heat transfer coefficient - please use the U symbol in your work and not the U –value
We have replaced „U-value“ with „heat transfer coefficient“ in the text passages and the Symbol „U“ in the tables.
Table 13 - please correct mistakes. What do the values in parentheses mean?
We have added a table footer with an explanation oft he values in parentheses.
Fig. 11 and 13 - please change the date notation to days only since the month is indicated. Please sign the x-axis that this is a date/day
We have changed the notation from f.e. „28.07.“ to „28.“ And added a sign (date/day) to the corresponding x-axis.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors made a satisfactory revision according to remarks presented in the review (round 1). Thus, I recommend the paper for publishing in present form.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback and review.
Best Regards,
Alexander Pichlhöfer
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made appropriate changes to the article. However, I have further comments on several of them.
1) Fig. 11 and 13 - please change the date notation to days only since the month is indicated. Please sign the x-axis that this is a date/day
date/day - please use date or day (one of these)
2) Tables: please use periods not commas to express numerical values
3) Fig. 7 - U values depends on ambient and internal temperature. It is worth showing such temp. volatility over time on the charts.
I disagree with the explanation of the authors of the paper. Such charts can show a lot and give more opportunity for interpretation by the reviewer, the reader of the results presented in the paper.
Author Response
1) Fig. 11 and 13 - please change the date notation to days only since the month is indicated. Please sign the x-axis that this is a date/day
date/day - please use date or day (one of these)
We've corrected the figures.
2) Tables: please use periods not commas to express numerical values
We've replaced all commas.
3) Fig. 7 - U values depends on ambient and internal temperature. It is worth showing such temp. volatility over time on the charts.
I disagree with the explanation of the authors of the paper. Such charts can show a lot and give more opportunity for interpretation by the reviewer, the reader of the results presented in the paper.
We have added a figure (Figure 7) with volatility of interior/exterior and heat transfer coefficient for an exemplary period in december 2021.
