Structural Behavior of Water Flow Glazing: Stress and Elastic Deformation Considering Hydrostatic Pressure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a clear overview of the research on Water Flow Glazing (WFG) and its structural considerations. It addresses the need for solutions to withstand pressure loads while meeting deflection and stress standards. The filling process of WFG panels and its impact on tension and compression stress is well-explained. It highlights the structural challenges associated with WFG due to the linear pressure distribution created by the fluid inside the glazing panel. Therefore, I recommend this paper to publish here.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful review. We have carefully studied the comments and suggestions from other reviewers and revised our paper accordingly. You can find a new version of the manuscritp both in Word and pdf.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents linear and non-linear models to predict the structural behavior of the water flow glazing panels. The objectives, novelty and significance of the study have been clearly stated in the introduction. The main concern in this manuscript is related to the reliability and accuracy of the models. Since no validation has been performed, the models shown in this work lack accuracy and reliability. Therefore, I recommend a major correction to this manuscript.  

1.       Please revise the abstract. The abstract should be the summary of the manuscript, consisting of background, objectives, methodology, major findings and conclusion.

2.       All figures are blurry, and thus, they are unacceptable to be published. Please improve the resolution of the images.

3.       The caption of Figure 3 should be modified. Please include the description of each sub-figure in the caption.

4.       On page 6; line 190, k_mod in equation (1) should be defined.

5.       On page 6; line 215, the symbol of density of the fluid in the text is different from in the equation. Please use the same symbol to represent the density of the fluid.

6.       On page 14; line 380, please revise this sentence ‘This chapter lists the design…..’. This is not a chapter but a research article.

7.       The models were shown to predict the structural behavior of water flow glazing panels. However, no validation has been made to support and verify the reliability and accuracy of the models. In this case, how did the authors ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results without performing validation?

 

8.       The conclusion is too generic. Please rewrite the conclusion concisely and specifically. The conclusion should summarize the major findings obtained from the work. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful review. We have carefully studied the comments and suggestions and revised our paper accordingly. The following are our point-by-point responses to the general and specific comments. We hope that the revisions are acceptable and that our responses adequately address the comments. You can find our responses in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Article ID: sustainability-2598431

Title: Structural behavior of Water Flow Glazing: stress and elastic deformation considering hydrostatic pressure

The authors developed a mathematical model in Water Flow Glazing. In mathematical modeling, acceptable results have been obtained for linear and non-linear models with the Higher Order Finite Difference Method.

In the main question addressed in the study, it has been seen that the dimensioning of Water Flow Glass thickness with structural mathematical modeling and the addition of columns or strips as a solution to the hydrostatic pressure problem are effective. These mathematical modeling results conclude that the linear plate model is sufficient to size the WFG panel in terms of width, length and thickness of the glass panels. Adding columns or strips in modeling has also proven to be an effective solution to the hydrostatic pressure problem. As a result, it has been observed that Water Flow Glazing will be designed more efficiently. The first priority in the calculation is the design of components that will provide homogeneous flow distribution within the WFG panel, the second priority is to reduce the pressure drop in the WFG; Also, thirdly,

An original issue has been examined in terms of examining the problems in Water Flow Glass systems and achieving positive results with the mathematical modeling discussed. The authors developed a mathematical method for Water Flow Glazing, taking into account the hydrostatic pressure produced by the liquid chamber on the glass, in order to reduce the glass thickness and allow larger glass sizes, and achieved positive results.

The draft has no methodological flaws. Only detailed information can be given about the simulation method.

The article is acceptable with minor corrections.

1. Details and literature regarding Higher Order Structural Simulation can be given in the method section.

2. 2. In the literature, there are no expressions such as replaceable glasses and liquid-filled glasses that do not change their behavior and adapt to changing environmental conditions. Double shells, shading devices and coatings are considered passive technologies. Dynamic solutions, including switchable glasses and liquid-filled glasses, among others, adapt their behavior to changing environmental conditions” [2].

3. The text and numbers on the axes of figures and graphs are not clear. The resolution of figures and graphics can be improved. Is FFG a functional nutrition group? It should be written clearly.

4. The English of the guide is good.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful review. We have carefully studied the comments and suggestions and revised our paper accordingly. The following are our point-by-point responses to the general and specific comments. We hope that the revisions are acceptable and that our responses adequately address the comments. You can find our responses in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a good job revising the manuscript based on the comments. However, a minor modification is still required to make the article attain the desirable publication standard. At this stage, I’d recommend acceptance of the manuscript after minor revision.

1. The abstract has been corrected, but it’s too long. Please shorten the abstract. Generally, the abstract of a research article should be limited to 200 words. It should be written concisely, reflecting the key points of the manuscript.

2. All the images in this manuscript are still blurry. Please improve the resolution of each image. Please contact the journal if there is a technical issue.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you again for your suggestions. We believe that all reviewer's comments helped us improve the quality of the article.

We have shortened the abstract to 207 words:

"The fluid inside a Water Flow Glazing (WFG) panel creates a linear pressure distribution along the vertical dimension. Tension stress can cause problems with the sealant; compression stress can cause deflections in the glass panel. Increasing the glass thickness until the deflection is below the required limit implies more weight and cost of the glazing. Another solution is to limit glass deflection by inserting pillars or stripes into the cavity between two glass panes. The novelty of this article was to test a High Order Finite Difference Method for linear and non-linear models to evaluate the effect of hydrostatic pressure produced by the fluid chamber on WFG panels. The methodology was tested on two case studies to assess the tension and deflection of the glass panes to guarantee the structural stability of WFG. The main conclusion was that a linear plate model was sufficient to dimension the width, length, and thickness of the WFG panel. Furthermore, the mathematical model provided criteria to keep the glass tension below 45 MPa for tempered Glass and the maximum deflection as the minimum between 1‰ of the glass height and 10% of the water chamber thickness. Introducing pillars or stripes solved hydrostatic pressure problems when the panel's height was above 1.5m."

We have also changed 3 references as per the editor's suggestions.

Finally, we have contacted the editor about the image quality. We followed the journal's instructions and provided all images at high resolution (300dpi). We inserted the images in Word as high-quality and printed a PDF version keeping the image quality. We have opened the Word and PDF versions of the article on different computers and all figures look well as we zoom in. The editors have suggested that there might be a reduction in quality during the download. We are committed to providing the editors with whatever they request.

We hope that the article can be accepted for publication in its latest uploaded version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf