Optimization of External Environment Design for Libraries in Hot and Dry Regions during Summer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses the thermal comfort of users staying outside the building in various climatic conditions. The main parameter for assessing the external microclimate conditions was perceived environmental temperature PET. The results of extensive experimental research (measurements and surveys) and computer simulations were carried out and carefully described. The simulation model has been previously validated. Attention was paid to the importance of individual comfort parameters for the final PET value. I believe that both the research methods used and their results may be interesting and useful for future researchers of external comfort as well as for designers.

Questions for the authors:

1.      hat is the impact of large dimensions of a single element (mesh size) in the ENVI program on the simulation results. Taking into account the movement of the sun or the speed of the wind within a single 3 m module, very different conditions can occur at the same moment ?

2.      It was found that comfortable conditions are PET in the range of 27 to 31 oC. Meanwhile, in the case of the simulation variants analyzed further, the lowest value is as much as 47 oC. What's the point of analyzing such bad conditions ?

3.      How it is possible (line 420) that PET was within comfortable range when equal to 46.77oC ?

4.      Why do they write about “optimal Ta design” (line 423) when the main criterion is PET ?

5.      What sense is to write about the changes of air speed, humidity or PET that are much lower than the measurement or calculation error (line 426) ?

6.      What is PET value for “optimal scenario” ? Is it really optimal or the best among the very bad cases ?

Author Response

Thank you for your review. All your questions and suggestions have been answered, as detailed in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very interesting and has a high scientific value, it focuses on the comfort of a certain typology of spaces in hot and humid climates, interweaving objective and subjective data. In general, the document is very well structured, however, it can be improved in some aspects:

·         The title could be shorter and more precise, but expressions that do not contribute should be eliminated. It is suggested "Optimization of External Environment Design for Libraries in Hot and Dry Regions during Summer".

·         Authors should include more Keywords.

·         It is recommended to expand the introduction and state of the art.

·         It is suggested to review the publication: Solar decathlon Latin America and Caribbean: comfort and the balance between passive and active design.

·         You should review the author guidelines for this journal. The tables are not in the required format.

·         It is suggested that the authors include their own assessments in the conclusions; this is now a summary of the main data obtained from the study.

The reviewer congratulates the authors for their work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your review. All your questions and suggestions have been answered, as detailed in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 2 unreadable. Please improve the quality. Scale and captions are difficult to read.

In Table 2, should the SVF indicator have a unit given?

I suggest all abbreviations like PMV be explained at the beginning of the text.

In Table 4, do the indicators have units? 

Figure 6 is also not readable, especially the values in the red boxes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review. All your questions and suggestions have been answered, as detailed in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest accepting the manuscript after corrections:

 

1.- Include two or three most relevant references in the introduction.

 

2.- Provide a table indicating the advantages and disadvantages of the method used compared to other authors or similar works.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. All your questions and suggestions have been answered, as detailed in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf