Influence of Opposing Exterior Window Geometry on the Carbon Emissions of Indoor Lighting under the Combined Effect of Natural Lighting and Artificial Lighting in the City of Shenyang, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study used quantitative simulation and statistical analysis to examine the associations between the geometry of the external windows and indoor air quality in a prototype academic building in China. Interesting findings were emerged showing the statistically significant association between WFR, WWE and other geometric parameters, and indoor carbon emissions in the case study university building.
The paper is well written and presented. The only recommendation is to enlarge the fonts of the figures to make them readable, and to numerically discuss the main findings in the Discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Authors should start by briefly contextualizing the study. This sentence does not allow to understand what are they referring to. It could be used in other parts of the text, as in conclusions, for example.
“Abstract: In related studies, there was no dynamic quantitative correlation between the geometry of exterior windows affecting the utilization of natural lighting and carbon emissions.”
Spacing needs to be overall checked. As well as italics on parameters.
“windowsill height (Hws),”
Also, before units are presented: “2.55m”
As I am sure authors are aware, the reference number needs to be presented near the author’s names, which are not correct by the way, only last name should be used.
“Zhao, Y and Mei, HY”
Why write the same way every time?
“Research has been conducted”
Please try to avoid this listing style and better contextualize content.
“2.1. Workflows The research progress mainly consists of six steps: (1) Problem formulation and goal setting; (2) Sample analysis and selection; (3) Model establishment, parameter setting, con- dition filtering, simulation analysis; (4) Parameter analysis and prediction model estab- lishment; (5) Description and explanation; (6) Summary and conclusion (Figure 1).”
Once again, please try to avoid the listing style.
“and the index performance and evaluation criteria are set as follows:”
Please see that the caption should be self explanatory on its own analyzing the caption, it is not clear to what context are the authors referring to. universities where? what kind of universities? what time frame?
“Table 1. Research on the types of professional drawing classrooms in universities”
Space geometry perhaps, instead? “Space form”
7 is in GREY colour, explain under NOTES below the table, then
This English is perfectly non comprehensive to me also. I do not need to know to what our authors referring to. Please add the necessary references.
“Based on Rhinoceros and Grasshopper as the modeling and visualization platform, Ladybug and Honeybee as the performance simulation plug-ins for daylighting simula- tion calculation, verification and screening of models that meet the standards.”
Reading the text, we can see that many sentences should switch place, for example, in the simulation tools, should the author’s not start by this sentence?
“Rhinoceros and Grasshopper are among the mainstream software for para- metric modeling programming and data design.”
and add references... every time...
We have a set of grouped figures here, so each one should be identified by a different letter. And some are but not contained in the final caption after the main caption.
Also, we have new rules now on personal data, so we should not have persons being identified in the figures...
“Figure 3. Analysis of the space and zoning of a professional drawing classroom of architecture in a university in colleges in Shenyang area.”
Grouped figures here again. once again, the caption is not clear to me.
“Figure 4. Unit plan diagram of single span.”
Why the list again here?
“3.2. Simulation modeling”
“dimensions: ①”
Please do not start headings with the term “The”.
“3.6. The value of the independent variable”
I never understand why authors refer to a study as if it were a person. This is not the kind of language to use.
“3.9. Statistical analysis This study uses relative analysis,”
Please use plural.: “4. Result”
Please check the italics and spacing all over the manuscript.
Please say that the front letter used in figures should be the same or similar to the one used in the text, otherwise they contrast.
When I see a set of similar figures, I believe they should be grouped.
Or just present the ones more relevant.
There is no interest in seeing a figure after a figure after a figure with similar captions.
Please limit figures information to the relevant information.
you have 6 figures which have the same aspect. you could group 3, twice.
revise spacing, aspact: “ward＜northward.(Figure 14)”
Orientation of what? be clear in axis legends...
I hope the authors understand my comments on listing it. is very easy to write like this because content can be easily disconnected the difficult relies in connecting content. So I am strongly against lists most of the time.
“Based on the analysis of the simulation results, the following discus- sions can be concluded:”
I understand the work involved in this manuscript, which is rather extensive And in fact, it could be used to write more than one article. I understand that authors aimed at having everything here, but they should consider removing some non-necessary information.
Once again, please use plural.
Once again, please strongly avoid the listing..
“6. Conclusion”
“The find- ings of this research are summarized as below:”
Authors should start by briefly contextualizing the study and the methodology.
Then, main findings practical implications, limitations and future prospects.
Leave it very clear why is this study relevant, important, original and highlight novelty.
Considering the expensive of the documents, the number of references is rather scarce. Authors could try to include more relevant recent and international references.
English needs entire revision.
All over, just see:
“The geometric parameter system that is constituted of Hw, Hws, Wwbw, Ww, WWR and WFR had a direct influence on carbon emissions.”?!!!!!
When we start reading the news carefully, we see that most sentences do not make sense. They seem to have been translated automatically.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This study takes as a prototype the professional drawing space of a university in the harsh cold regions of China. Based on the parameterized Rhinoceros and Grasshopper platforms, the Ladybug and Honeybee plug-in modules were used to check the complex conditions of the lighting environment and select suitable spatial models. Finally, the DIALux evo simulation was used to analyze the carbon emissions. It is O.K.
The conclusion is that there is a multi-linear relationship between the geometry of facing exterior windows and the carbon emissions of lighting in professional drawing classrooms at universities.
The introductory part referring to literary sources is relatively brief and mainly refers to sources from China. Among others, Pellegrino from Italy is quoted here, but I would add sources from other countries as well. For example, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315634 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030655 .
The flowchart is clear and understandable. Also research methodology (Chinese regulations and standards). Research methods are used in the article. The selection of types of drawing classes is limited to two types. Table 1 type 1 to 7 is uniform? Is it a free disposition? Types 8, 9 are clear. They are classrooms with a corridor. It seems clearer from Figure 3, but it is quite complicated to show.
The choice of example for the study is evident from Figures 5 and 6. Boundary conditions are described in tables (light reflections, operating time, values of independent variables...) Why do you have some headings in uppercase and some in lowercase in Table 2? Roof reflectance ratio?? Wall Reflectance Ratio??
The room-space design factor was limited to window height, window sill and wall width between windows (there could be more of those parameters, but it would be complicated). It is significant to note that up to 196 simulations show that the daylight factor is higher than 3.0% and the sDA(500 lx, 50%) is higher than 75%. Statistical analysis includes relative boxplot analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. The results include several simulations of carbon emissions under artificial lighting and data collection. Finally, multiple linear regression analysis is used to create a model for the geometric parameters of the exterior window of a professional drawing space and a prediction model for the carbon emissions of artificial lighting regulated by daylight, deriving a regression equation. Is this a sufficient assessment of the chosen area in the given study?
The results include: The impact of external window geometry on carbon emissions; Impact of different external window geometries on carbon emissions; The influence of different operating periods and different orientations.... Is it appropriate to write about the "external geometry of the windows" when the effects of changes in WWR and WFR are ultimately evaluated?
The result is the regression equations (lines 529-532)?
Line 533 not the value of R2 but R2 in table 5, write 0.000 on one line of Sig and DW values; 2.068 ....
In the discussion and in the conclusions, the same points 1., 2.... Can't it be put in one point, discussion and conclusions?
I miss specific light measurements in one of the classrooms at the university. I assume that this is a specific space at a specific university (there are photos of it). You could have performed some control measurement of daylight, artificial or combined light as a basis for fine-tuning the model for the basic geometry of the space shape.
There are a lot of used symbols and signs in the article, it would be convenient to put it in one table (list) of symbols and signs and mention it at the beginning or end of the article.
The article is interesting, easy to read, brings a lot of new information. My observations are of a recommendatory nature. The post is valuable; it still needs to be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Authors seem to not have not understood my coment:
“Point 6: Please see that the caption should be self explanatory on its own analyzing the caption, it is not clear to what context are the authors referring to. universities where? what kind of universities? what time frame?
“Table 1. Research on the types of professional drawing classrooms in universities”
The heading is unclear. needs revision.
I am sorry to say that this reflects the quality of the English used in the manuscript, which is poor. Authors will require a comprehensive English revision by qualified professionals in the scientific area. Without that, the manuscript language is perfectly non-comprehensible...
Please understand that.
Each grouped figure needs a main caption, before the subcaptions.
|
“Figure 4. (a) Single span unit with whole window opening ; (b) Single span unit with vertical three |
279 |
|
windows |
”
I previously specifically asked the authors to start the conclusions section with a brief contextualization, thus defending your study. They seem to have not understood it.
“
|
6. Conclusions |
644 |
|
This research takes Shenyang, China, as an example and conducts simulations, cor- |
645 |
|
relation, and multiple linear regression analyses on six design parameters to study the |
”
Authors aimed to improve the manuscript. However, the English used compromises the entire coherence.
We cannot write like this in a scientific paper, Every piece needs to be though, and thus revised...
“Among the numerous results,
”
Again, do not write like this... “This paper pro”
very poor, I am sorry to say.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors approached the correction of their contribution very responsibly. They corrected all the flaws that were in the first manuscript. The contribution is valuable, brings novelties, interesting for the reader. I recommend publishing it as is.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your feedback and evaluation. Your affirmation and support are of great significance to us.
