Quantification of the Improvement in Sustainability after a Comparative Experimental Study of Single-Family Homes with Façade Rehabilitation Using the External Thermal Insulation Composite System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the document provides a thorough overview of the study conducted on the quantification of sustainability improvements through the use of ETICS in building rehabilitation, there are several areas that could be criticized or improved upon:

1. What specific criteria were used to select the two single-family homes for this study?

2. Can you elaborate on the methodology used to collect temperature data from the facades of the homes, including the placement of thermocouples and the frequency of data collection?

3. How were the external environmental conditions, such as temperature variations and humidity levels, accounted for in the analysis of the thermal performance of the facades?

4. Could you provide more information on the statistical analysis conducted to compare the thermal behavior of the renovated and non-renovated facades?

5. Were there any unexpected challenges or limitations encountered during the study, and if so, how were they addressed?

6. Can you discuss the broader implications of the study's findings for sustainable building practices, particularly in regions with similar climates to Madrid?

7. What are the next steps or potential areas for future research based on the outcomes of this study?

8. How do the authors ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected and the conclusions drawn from the study?

 

9. Lack of Discussion on Limitations: The document does not adequately address any limitations or potential biases in the study. Every research endeavor has limitations, and it's essential to discuss them transparently to provide a balanced interpretation of the findings.

10. Generalization of Results: The study focuses on two single-family homes in Madrid, and while the findings may be relevant to similar contexts, the document does not explicitly discuss the generalizability of the results to other regions or building types. This lack of discussion on the broader applicability of the findings weakens the study's impact.

11. Statistical Analysis: While the document mentions statistical analysis, it does not provide detailed information on the specific statistical methods used, such as the significance level or confidence intervals. Without this information, it's challenging to assess the robustness of the statistical findings.

12. Incomplete Discussion on External Factors: While the study acknowledges the influence of external factors like climate and orientation, it does not delve deeply into how these factors may have affected the results. A more comprehensive discussion on external influences would provide a clearer understanding of the study's context.

13. Formatting and Clarity: The document could benefit from improved formatting to enhance readability. Clearer section headings, bullet points, or visual aids could help break up the text and make key points more accessible to readers.

14. Future Directions: The document lacks a discussion on potential future directions for research in this area. Identifying areas for further investigation could enhance the study's contribution to the field of sustainable building practices.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and comments, we have incorporated and or modified everything you have indicated to us.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract needs to be rewritten to illustrate the objectives, and methodology used in the study. Also the contribution of this study needs to be highlighted in the Abstract. 

2. Please explain the location selection to place the thermalcouples. Why the selected measurement location entails valid and reliable measurement data? 

3. Please explain the climate condition of the case. 

4. The measurement period is relatively short. Please explain why the measurement conducted during the two weeks time reflect the accurate performance of the facade. 

5. Please explain the case selection criteria. Why choose the two "home" to conduct research? Are they significantly reflect the ordinary homes in Spain? 

6. The paper lacks a comprehensive discussion to bring out the value and research merit of this study. Please discuss the results. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should go through thorough editing before the next submission. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and comments, we have incorporated and or modified everything you have indicated to us.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents in-situ thermal measurements collected in case study buildings. The paper is relatively well-prepared, and the results look complete. I think there is scope for improvement, particularly in the method and results, which can be a bit unclear in some parts. I have recommended some comments and suggestions, which I hope the authors helpful, in my remarks below.

1. The opening sentence could be clearer. I think it means that 40% and 36% come from countries located in the European Union, and not the European Union itself.

2. “Therefore, in Spain.” This does not make sense in the new paragraph. Please move it to the paragraph above it.

3. Thank you for including the topic of renovation to existing buildings. To add to the discussion on renovations in the third paragraph, sometimes it is more feasible to retrofit the existing systems with low-cost and affordable technologies (e.g., LEDs or fans) that can produce large energy savings, instead of new construction. For example, ceiling fans can reduce energy up to 32% in a zero-energy building, while maintaining high thermal comfort (see: Kent et al. Energy savings and thermal comfort in a zero energy office building with fans in Singapore.)

3. “Studies have demonstrated that.” Something missing from this narrative is human comfort. Saving energy is great, but this can only occur when human comfort is not negatively impacted by the intervention.

4. The final paragraph of the introduction outlines the general method and does not include the research aim or objectives. I would recommend reframing this part of the paper to make sure these aspects are clear to the reader.

5. “Local climatic During the study period, a comprehensive” -> “During the study period, a comprehensive.”

6. Please move Figures 1 and 2 underneath the first paragraph of Section 2.1.

7.  Table 1. What are the datalogger values in the column?  Also, I found it difficult to understand “lower” and “first floor.” Is the lower floor a basement or the ground floor? For the thermocouples, perhaps the model can be specified, and in the table, these can be simply label: 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The four numbers can be included in the architectural floor plan instead of the original text labels, which are difficult to read. Please also avoid using the pink font in Figures 3 and 4. Please use a darker font that is more legible.

8. Figures 3 and 4. Please use a north compass to indicate this cardinal direction, and remove the south and north labels, which are not very clear.

9. “28.75 cm, consisted of ½ foot.” Please consider removing the “½ foot.” This is not necessary.

10. “total thermal transmittance” -> “U-value.”

11. “indoor environment was maintained at values.” Is there a graph to show these values for both daytime and nighttime?

12. Section 2.2. Please remove “optimization” from the title. Were the thermocouples placed on surfaces, particularly outdoor surfaces, that were exposed to a lot of direct sunlight?

13. “ensuring identical external conditions.” I am not sure this can be achieved with the actual external conditions (e.g., solar, wind, and rainfall.) There should be some variation, albeit probably quite small if the locations were near to each other. I assume that this meant that the timestamps that were logged were the same, allowing for analytical comparisons to be made afterwards (i.e., the meaningful comparison?)

14.  Figure 10. What is along the x-axis of the plot? The scale of the y-axis for the outdoor conditions makes the indoor conditions unclear, which is understandable. For each other the four conditions included in the legend, I would suggest including both the mean and standard deviation for temperature. This will help readers understand the average temperature and how much it varied. The variation will be a better indication of thermal performance than just the min and max in Table 2. I think the authors could include these statistical values in the figures without needing an additional table.

15. I was not able to understand why both the correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination were presented in Table 4. They both have unique objectives, and the correlation coefficient (Pearson’s, r) does is not determined by which variable is placed on which axis, while the r2 value does rely on this (i.e., predictor on the x-axis and the outcome on the y-axis. Please consider only included on analysis and not both.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and comments, we have incorporated and or modified everything you have indicated to us.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is of practical significance and closely related to the needs of energy efficiency and sustainable development in architecture. The authors have evaluated the energy-saving effect of ETICS in the facade renovation of single-family homes through on-site measurements, which is relatively rare in existing literature and deserves recognition. The research method is reasonable, and the on-site measurement data can reflect the energy-saving effect of ETICS. My suggestions for improvement are aimed at further enhancing the readability and understandability of the article.

1. The abstract can further highlight the innovative aspects of this paper, such as the method of evaluating the energy-saving effect of ETICS through on-site measurements, to attract readers' interest.

2. A brief introduction to the principles of thermal insulation materials can be provided.

3. From an energy-saving perspective, in the analysis section, is it possible to assess how long it would approximately take for a household to recoup the costs of using ETICS

4. The authors could focus on some energy-saving methods such as phase change blankets (which can be installed inside the building envelope) in future research, conducting some on-site experimental tests to enrich the research findings.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and comments, we have incorporated and or modified everything you have indicated to us.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be published in the current form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising your paper based on my previous comments. I think that there were some notable improvements to this work. I had some further, relatively more minor comments, which could be considered.

1. "Therefore, in Spain." Please move this paragraph to the previous one as it does not need to be separated.

2. Figures 3 and 4. Thank you for revising the figures; it is much clearer. One minor suggestion would be to make "N" on the compass larger, as it is not legible.

3. Are Figures 5 and 6 a figure image or a table? The information is difficult to read as it stands. I think some column and row lines are needed to help align the information better.

4. Table 2. Please check the decimal point and comma. They are not consistently used.

5. Table 4. The decimal places can be rounded consistently. Also, please include which correlation coefficient was used (e.g., Pearson or Spearman.)

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf