Research Optimizing Building Ventilation Performance through the Application of Trombe Walls in Regions with Hot Summers and Cold Winters: A Case Study in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article investigates the effects of the Trombe wall on ventilation optimization through a case study in the Chinese city Wenzhou, with a cold winter and hot summer. It combines CFD simulations and measurements throughout different seasons, showing an average indoor wind speed increase during spring and autumn. This work's results can help designers use Tromble walls in the climates considered. The scientific criteria are noted, but some comments that this reviewer finds helpful to improve the work are left below:

. Title: The title appears to be more of a text sentence and could be updated to:

 Optimizing building ventilation performance through the application of Trombe walls in regions with hot summers and cold winters: A case study in China

. Abstract: Please mention the suboptimal performance in summer.

 . Keywords:

hot summer and cold winter zones, instead of summer hot and winter cold zone.

 1.       Introduction

. Line 37: Residential Building Design Code (GB50352-2005) – Please include the appropriate source in the list of references, as well as one used globally, such as Köppen climate classification, for example.

I suggest separating the subject of Tromble Walls (TW) into a specific sub-item in the introduction. Moreover, although several articles are cited in the theoretical framework about TW, few are from the last five years.

. Would it be possible to include more recent work?

. Could you add a short paragraph at the end of the Introduction section describing the structure of the rest of the paper?

2.       Research Methos

2.1   Study Areas

. Please include some numbers (average temperatures) when describing Wenzhou`s climate.

 . Figure 2: Please improve the quality or enlarge the image.

 . Would it be possible to include the thermal properties of the TW and other envelope materials?

2.4    Physical Model

 . Please include the version and references for the software used.

 . Figure 5: Include axis indication (x, y, z) and correct spelling errors in the caption.

 2.5   Grid

 . Figure 6: Could you please include an axis indication (x, y, z), or even change the Image for a 3D view? I believe it would enhance understanding.

 . Table 1: Figure 5 shows different inputs depending on the season.

Would it be possible to include this information in Table 1 to complement figure 5? (Inlet/inflow axes direction).

Moreover, was the position of the reference house adjusted in the domain depending on the inlet/inflow? (horizontal distance from 6H, for example?).

 . I am missing a mesh study/grid sensibility analysis, which is usually carried out to ensure the best model configuration.

 3.       Experimental Measurement (please update the title)

 8: Include a reference viewpoint/perspective position of Figure 9 so the reader can better understand indoor measuring points.

 . Figure 9: Include a caption for each of the two images based on the terminology and marking established in Figure 8.

 . Figure 10: Images a and b are duplicated. Please improve the caption by adding information for each image shown.

  4.       Parameter Analysis (I suggest the following adaptation: Analysis of experimental and simulated results)

. Figure 11 Suggestion for title change: Measured solar radiation

Would it be possible to include the seasons in the image and group the months according to this information?

 . Figure 12: Please improve image quality so one can read the numbers.

 . Figure 13 – 15: Would it be possible to include an indication of the measurement point on each of the graph lines?

. Line 425: Please reference the Grasshopper plugin/component used to create the psychometric charts.

  . Figure 16: Improve image readability.

An English review will enhance the paper's comprehension. It is possible to notice the literal translation of terms and expressions that compromise reading the text.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concemed, there are several problems that need to beaddressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensivecorrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listedbelow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Thanks for submitting your work to Sustainability. It is an interesting research; however, further refinements and improvements are needed prior to publication.

First and foremost, please revise your title as it is very lengthy and descriptive at the moment. 

The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the importance of climatic influences on architectural design, focusing on natural ventilation and specifically Trombe walls in improving indoor air quality and energy efficiency. However, there are several areas where clarity and precision could be improved:

The introduction lacks a clear statement of the specific research problem or objective of the study. While it mentions examining the seasonal ventilation performance of Trombe walls, it would benefit from a more concise and explicit statement of the research aim.

The introduction extensively cites previous research on Trombe walls and natural ventilation, demonstrating the relevance of the current study. However, it could be more concise in summarizing these previous findings to avoid overwhelming the reader with too much background information. In general, I believe that the introduction could benefit from a more structured approach, outlining the organization of the paper and the key sections that will be covered.

The introduction ends with a broad statement about the significance of Trombe walls in improving indoor ventilation, but it could be strengthened by clearly articulating the specific contributions or implications of the current research.

Section 3

The description of the instrumentation used for field measurements is thorough and indicates a comprehensive approach to monitoring wind environments and meteorological parameters. However, there are some areas that could be further clarified or expanded upon:

It would be beneficial to provide more specific details about the types of instruments used, such as anemometers for wind speed measurement, thermometers for temperature measurement, etc. This would help readers better understand the capabilities and functionalities of each instrument.

The mention of real-time remote monitoring connected to computers is relevant and highlights the advanced capabilities of the instrumentation. However, it would be helpful to explain how this real-time monitoring was utilized during the experiments and what specific benefits it provided in terms of data collection and analysis.

The comparison between simulated and actual wind speeds provides valuable insight into the accuracy of the simulation model. However, there are some points to consider:

The explanation of the larger deviation observed in summer due to measurement errors caused by convective weather and instability in chimney airflow is reasonable. However, it would be helpful to provide more specific details about the nature of these measurement errors and how they were identified and accounted for in the analysis.

The mention of real-world conditions such as obstructions, monsoons, and extreme weather affecting wind speed is relevant, but it would be beneficial to discuss how these factors were considered in the simulation model and whether any adjustments were made to account for their impact on the results.

Can you also please accept the limitations of your research? Also, it would be good to see the future directions of your research in an explicit way. 

I suggest moderate English editing, plus try to standardize terms and terminologies used in the paper. 

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concemed, there are several problems that need to beaddressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensivecorrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listedbelow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

- The title is a statement and not a title - please change that.

- Please fix the affiliation description: font, size, etc.

- Figure 1 has no source

- When citing please indicate also the year: e.g. Shi et al. Year ...

- Figure 2 is not readable

- Figure 9 caption: please fix the font size

- Figure 10 is not readable

- Figure 16 is not readable

English is fine

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concemed, there are several problems that need to beaddressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensivecorrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listedbelow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Review of the manuscript ID number : sustainability-2882439-peer-review-v1

Entitled : Research on optimizing building ventilation performance through the application of Trombe walls is pivotal in regions experiencing hot summers and cold winters

General comments:

-        In general, the paper topic is in line with the scope of “sustainability” journal.

-        The scope and the type of cited literature is appropriate, but not enough, it should be updated specially in the introduction with free (natural), forced  and optimal ventilation systems with Trombe walls, concerning the outdoor temperature in geo-climatic areas.

MAJOR revisions are needed to improve the quality of this manuscript before acceptance. 

1-    Your title doesn’t reflect exactly the core of the material contained in the manuscript, so the title should be reedited to be acceptable, my proposition is: Research on optimizing building ventilation with Trombe walls is crucial in regions with hot summers and cold winters.

2-    The same problem is with your abstract, your abstract doesn’t reflect what you have done, it seems that you are telling a fairy tale. Your main mention the achievement and added values of your paper etc. it is difficult to accept such superficial abstract .

3-    In “Figure 1.Seven building climate zones in China and location of Wenzhou.” It is very advisable to put the temperature range beside the description of each region, for example Cold zone (x – y ^oC) , mild zone (z – u ^oC)…etc.

4-    The descriptions mentiond in Fig. 2 is unreadable on X or Y axis or else, it is very necessary to put a readable pictures or figures in your manuscript. So you should change all clarifications, descriptions in figures such: no. 2, no.3, no.6, no.8, no.10, no.11, no 12, no.16.

5-    Fig. no 3 is very speechless and incommunicative, it should show some engineering sens, it is advisable for example to mention with arrows where is the Trombe walls, in which season (summer, or winter) , the heights of these walls etc.

6-    On row 181 Figure 5. Fluent software computing domain set tings, please correct the word settings.

7-    For Figure 8. Layout of indoor measuring points. It is necessary to add a table where the results of measurements for the layout from A1 to A7 and B1 to B7 are performed.

8-    On row 151 you mentioned the subtatile (2.3. Model Control Equation) , but for which model, I guess you are mentioning the Air movement equation  and not model control equation, so please verify what you want to say. There ar many such subtitles which are not written precisely in you manuscript 2.4. Physical Model  (on row 171) , physical model of what??? , or subtitle 3.2. Experimental Equipment on row 251 …may be you want to say experimental setup !!! , Etc.

9-    It is not clear for the reader the main assumptions of your model, please dedicate a subtitle for these assumptions.

10-        Did you compare your results with similar experimental case studies?, Please compare your results with similar CFD investigation results.

11-        It is necessary to add a subtitle for the measurements error analysis of the analysed system.

The English language is not so bad; it can be enhanced.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concemed, there are several problems that need to beaddressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensivecorrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listedbelow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors' dedication in addressing the issues raised by this reviewer is remarkable.

However, some points have been misinterpreted and the description of the CFD model is rather superficial.

I have left some comments in blue in the response file in order to facilitate this review stage.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 I am not an English expert, but I suggest performing an english review with a native speaker or a language professional.

Author Response

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and madesome changes marked in red in revised paper which will notinfluence the content and framework of the paper. Weappreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope the correction will meet with approval. Onceagain,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed the given comments, thus can be considered for publication. 

Moderate editing of the English language is required prior to publication. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the positive and constructivecomments regarding our paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have successfully addressed my forwarded comments on the initial submission and in my view, and after going through the work that has been done on the manuscript in responding to the comments, my recommendation is to accept the manuscript for publication in “sustainability” journal.

 The English language of this manuscript is acceptable for publication 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the positive and constructivecomments regarding our paper.