A Discussion on the Conceptual Design of Multifunctional Exoskeletons for Sustainable Regeneration of Buildings in Urban Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The key question is: what is the novelty of the paper?
The paper is in general well written, but its content is not sufficient for publication in the actual form. The title and the following paragraphs provide a sort of fascinating discussion on the general principles relative to the exoskeleton intervention, while in no particular indications are given. In other words, to have a :
- What is the normalized cost (in terms of GER and GWP) of every intervention simply listed/drawn in figure 5?
- Is it possible to give information about the economic advantages of the proposed solutions (i.e. cost-benefit analyses)?
- Is it possible to have a correction of the schematic flow chart proposed in figure 6 to contextualize a general regeneration path for exoskeleton refurbishment interventions?
Please, completely reformulate the paper addressing the above mandatory questions and rewrite the conclusions after the integrations. A case study would be welcome, if available to the authors, or comparisons with literature cases.
Finally, althoug this referee appreciates the paper form, nevertheless a general revision of the text is suggested (see for example “it has been showed” at line 328)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions.
Please, see the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is a discussion on the multifunctional exoskeleton and sustainable regeneration in the city.
1. Since there is no source and calculation basis for each figure (Fig 4. Fig 5. Fig7. Fig8. Fig9), it is impossible to confirm the contents.
2. The content is not linked. In each chapter it is difficult to find a reason as to why an exoskeleton structure should be used.
3. The combination of several elements should be made with the structure of the exoskeleton, but it is difficult to confirm the relationship. It is difficult to understand, especially from an urban perspective. Because it is difficult to identify the part where each element extends from the culture and economy of urban regeneration to the material of walls and roofs.
If these parts are not reviewed, the value as a thesis cannot be confirmed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions.
Please, find the file attached.
Kind Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The answers of the authors to the question posed by this referee are unsufficient, since the word exoskeleton in the paper can be substituted with every other word pertaining to retrofit and figure 7 changed with every other intervention. The authors do not give information about the role of this intervention in the process, this last not a new one, if the retrofit case is not well defined in term of economy, GWP and GER values. General statements without numerical normalized parameters are not welcome. This referee asks for the second time consistent answers, since reference to useful parameters for the reader are necessary. Finally, please take care of the general structure of the paper. As an example, figure 7 is wrongly cited in the text (as in lines 360 and 369).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find the response to your comments attached .
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There appear to be many changes and developments.
However, Figures 7, 8, and 9 that were in the old file have been deleted. (Figure 7. System resilience after disturbance, Figure 8. BSUR resilience after disturbance event and performance loss out from resilience area, Figure 9. BSUR resilience after disturbance event and performance loss in resilience area)
These figures have important implications and their role in the conclusion must be explained.
However, it is a pity that these Figures are deleted in the new file.
I think it would be better to extend the part of the study by adding pictures and adding explanations as a conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find the response to your comments attached.
Kind Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
