Determination of Solar-Surface-Area-to-Volume Ratio: Early Design Stage Solar Performance Assessment of Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with “ Determination of Solar-Surface-Area-to-Volume Ratio “.The following comments or suggestions are listed for the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1- The abstract not only briefly explains the research goal, but also briefly gives the main results and the main conclusions. 

2- Please present in-depth analysis and interpretation in connection to results.

3- An updated and complete literature review should be conducted.

4-          A more creative and descriptive argumentation should be given to the outcomes:  Besides, the applicability of outcomes to other studies rather than same studies should be discussed.

5- Results should be compared to those presented in the new references.

6- The font size used in most of the figures is too small. A bigger font size is recommended.

7- The clarity of the Figure should be enhanced

8- The author is encouraged to provide a greater depth of discussion about each figure and Table, improve the figure quality and modify the conclusion as well.

9-        The equations in the manuscript presented should be additionally explained by text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

To start with, I would like to thank authors for their work in terms of interesting topic and well written article.

The paper is devoted to reconsideration of the surface-area-to-volume ratio commonly used as an essential indicator of energy efficiency so as to utilize active solar systems as a sustainable energy source, that is to providing the solar-surface-area-to-volume ratio.

Overall, the paper if high quality in terms of scientific methodology, results and paper design..

Reviewing the paper, I could not highlight any serious problems:

·         The theme of article is in the scope of SI topic “Building Energy, Physics, Environment, and Systems”.

·         The research is carried out as accepted in scientific society

·         There are all essential sections, they are cohesive and coherence

·         Abstract is adequate to article content while conclusion give the main findings

·         References are sufficient and up-to-date, no self-citation is detected

·         Figures are clear

·         Used English is in high level, text is easy to read.

It is worth that authors compare both ratios in terms of proposed ideal geometrical shapes of houses and present the results of case study for five buildings in Bratislava

Only two comments for authors:

1.     The flowchart of the algorithm of Solar-Surface-Area-to-Volume Ratio must be redrawn. There are no input\output blocks as well as Terminal ones…  Please, follow ISO 5807 for this goal

2.     Section 8 “Visualisation and Accessibility of Data” looks significant but in fact it is a useless reference as it gives not new information which is not presented in paper

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the revised version of manuscript is sufficient for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer1, 

in the name of our team I would like to thank you for your revision and the recommendations for improving our research in the process.

Kind regards

Peter Morgenstein