Climatic Adaptation-Based Evaluation of Vernacular Anatolian Houses: A Comparative Analysis of Stone and Adobe Materials in Terms of Energy, Environment, and Thermal Comfort

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Abstract: “…superior thermal comfort conditions.”, it suggested to illustrate as better thermal comfort

Its needs to specify that the details of the building are collected based on the literature review, in the article.

 

In Table 1, The details of the 2^nd Bursa city building, reference need to check.

 

If provide more details of the buildings cited in Table 1, such actual thickness of the wall, materials, orientation, and so on shall give more insight and weightage for the existing study.

 

Provide the local and natural materials such as stone and adobe wall configuration schematic sketches or actual picture.

 

“………This highlights the need for numerical tools to comprehensively evaluate traditional buildings based on sustainability criteria.”. Briefly explain and provide details of the sustainability criteria.

 

“3. SCOPE, LIMITATIONS, and METHOD OF THE STUDY”…  need to provide in details

 

Provide the models developed in Designbuilder software tool for better understanding.

Based on the photography provided if figure 1, shows that the buildings are in a row form. The influence of the neighbourhood buildings and shade from the surrounding buildings are note addressed in the study.

In the Designbuilder, how occupants’ behaviour is modelled for the study, which directly effects the energy use pattern.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and coherence of our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have made the necessary revisions, which are detailed below. All modifications have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for clarity.

 

Reviewer Comment 1: In Abstract: “…superior thermal comfort conditions.”, it suggested to illustrate as better thermal comfort

Author Response and Revision: We revised “superior thermal comfort conditions” to “better thermal comfort” and specified the metrics to avoid overclaiming.

 

Reviewer Comment 2: Its needs to specify that the details of the building are collected based on the literature review, in the article. ‘Bina detaylarının literatürden derlendiğinin açıkça belirtilmesi isteniyor’

 Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for pointing this out. We now explicitly state the data source for all model inputs and cite the relevant reference. The clarification was added to Section 3.3 (Model inputs and data sources) and to the Figure 1 caption.

Inserted text (Section 3.3):

“All geometric and construction details used in the simulations—plan dimensions, storey height, window sizes/WWR and orientation, and the layered make-up and material properties of walls/roof/floor—were compiled from a structured literature review of vernacular houses in Elazığ/Harput and Anatolia, rather than from a new site survey. The plans in Figure 1c–d are adapted from Yaman & Coşkun (2021).”

 

Reviewer Comment 3: In Table 1, The details of the 2nd Bursa city building, reference need to check.

 Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for pointing this out. We verified the source for the “Bursa–2” case and found an inconsistency between Table 1 and the References list. We have corrected the citation in Table 1. Table 1, and References are now consistent. Access link to the source: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/202668.

 

Reviewer Comment 4: If provide more details of the buildings cited in Table 1, such actual thickness of the wall, materials, orientation, and so on shall give more insight and weightage for the existing study.

Author Response and Revision:

 

Thank you for this helpful suggestion-we fully agree. We have expanded and standardized Table 1. For each representative dwelling we now report: (i) structural system, (ii) primary wall/roof materials, (iii) measured exterior-wall thickness (cm) where documented in the source, (iv) storey arrangement, (v) roof type, (vi) plan typology (e.g., inner/central sofa), (vii) cardinal orientation and settlement logic (e.g., south-facing courtyard, street alignment), and (viii) notable envelope features (e.g., glazing type, oriels/şahnişin, timber ties). All changes have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment 5: Provide the local and natural materials such as stone and adobe wall configuration schematic sketches or actual picture.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. In figure 3 presents scale-free schematic layered cross-sections of the two vernacular exterior wall assemblies (adobe and stone), annotated with layer order (interior plaster – structural core – exterior plaster), material names, nominal layer thicknesses (cm), and the steady-state U-values used in the simulations. For context, Figure 3 also includes representative on-site photographs from the study area. These photographs were taken by one of the authors during fieldwork. The Methods text and the Figure 3 caption have been updated accordingly.

 

Reviewer Comment 6: ………This highlights the need for numerical tools to comprehensively evaluate traditional buildings based on sustainability criteria.”. Briefly explain and provide details of the sustainability criteria.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for pointing this out. We replaced “sustainability criteria” with “environmental sustainability criteria” and added a brief definition of what is evaluated in this study. Specifically, in related section (“Output metrics, post-processing and carbon factor,” p. 10, highlighted in red), we now state:

“In this study, environmental sustainability is assessed with three operational indicators: (i) annual heating–cooling energy and site electricity; (ii) operational CO₂ calculated from energy use with a fixed grid emission factor; and (iii) thermal comfort based on PMV/PPD and comfort hours (-0.5 ≤ PMV ≤ +0.5). Out-of-scope items include embodied impacts (materials/site), water and circularity metrics, and other IEQ dimensions (e.g., acoustics).”

 

Reviewer Comment 7: 3. SCOPE, LIMITATIONS, and METHOD OF THE STUDY”…  need to provide in details

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you. To meet the requested level of detail, we thoroughly rewrote and restructured Section 3. It now explicitly states the study’s scope and limitations; reports the climate data and orientation assumptions, model inputs and sources, and the simulation setup and algorithms; and systematically lists the output metrics together. All new and updated passages are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment 8: Provide the models developed in Designbuilder software tool for better understanding.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. To improve clarity, we added a visual of the DesignBuilder model (Fig. 4): a 3D perspective view and a plan view with a north arrow. The zone labels in the figure correspond to Tables 4–5; the layered envelope assemblies and U-values are summarized in Table 3, and the principal solver/algorithm settings are reported in Section ‘3.3 Numerical Modelling Parameters and Simulation Inputs.’

 

Reviewer Comment 9: Based on the photography provided if figure 1, shows that the buildings are in a row form. The influence of the neighbourhood buildings and shade from the surrounding buildings are note addressed in the study.

Author Response and Revision:

Response: Thank you for this observation. Although the case parcel sits within a row-house fabric, to isolate the envelope-material effect we modelled the prototype as a free-standing block. Accordingly, neighbouring building masses and inter-building (mutual) shading were not parameterized in the base model. This choice and its rationale are explicitly stated and discussed in the Methods, Simulation Setup, and Limitations sections. In addition, Figure 4 now shows the DesignBuilder model used in the study: (a) 3D perspective and (b) plan view with a north arrow.

 

Reviewer Comment 9: In the Designbuilder, how occupants’ behaviour is modelled for the study, which directly effects the energy use pattern.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for raising this point. We have fully documented the occupant-behaviour inputs and added two summary tables (Tables 4–5; pp. 14–15, highlighted in red).

• Thermal zoning. All interior spaces were modelled as separate thermal zones (rooms, sofa/common area, halls, kitchen, bathroom/WC, storage).
• Schedules & templates. DesignBuilder Residential Spaces templates were used in alignment with CIBSE TM59.
• Behaviour/comfort inputs. Occupancy density, Met, seasonal Clo (winter/summer), heating/cooling set and setback points, lighting level, and CO₂ generation rate were taken from the UK NCM and ASHRAE 90.1/62.1 libraries.
• Scenario consistency. To isolate the envelope material effect, these inputs were kept constant across all climate–material scenarios.

These additions clarify how occupant behaviour is represented and strengthen the transparency and reproducibility of our simulations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study comparatively examines the performance of stone and adobe envelopes as vernacular passive building strategies under three different climate conditions in Turkey. The performance metrics analyzed include wall heat balance, heating and cooling energy use, operational carbon emissions, and thermal comfort (PMV-PPD).

While the study addresses a relevant topic, the importance of traditional passive strategies for low-energy and sustainable buildings, it lacks depth. The analysis is overly simplified, the methodology remains at a preliminary level, and the findings largely reiterate well-established outcomes from previous studies without delivering meaningful new insights.

Rationale for Review and Suggestions

1. Insufficient background, problem statement, and literature review:
The paper claims that prior research has focused mainly on aesthetics, not environmental performance, and that material-based sustainability has been insufficiently examined. However, there is a substantial body of work on adobe and stone in passive building design. Studies using both advanced simulations and physical experiments have demonstrated thermal transfer characteristics, while carbon and comfort analyses have also been widely reported. The submitted work does not provide a critical review of this literature nor does it adequately situate the contribution within the field.

2. Insufficient simulation information:
Simulation settings are insufficiently described. While the base model and material types are briefly mentioned, essential details are missing: wall thicknesses, construction assemblies, heat transfer algorithms (used by DesignBuilder/EnergyPlus), HVAC system definitions, operational carbon assumptions, and PMV-PPD calculation methods. Key assumptions, such as asymmetrical radiant exchange, are not stated. Without these, the results are difficult to evaluate.

3. Over-simplified assumptions and predictable results:
The envelope models appear to use single-layer walls of equal thickness. In such a case, only thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity drive performance differences. Because adobe has lower conductivity and higher thermal capacity, its superior performance in all metrics (heat balance, energy use, carbon emissions) is entirely expected. These results, while accurate, do not add novel insight.

4. Lack of meaningful conclusions:
Most of the paper’s conclusions (p.27), aside from the PMV-PPD discussion, are predetermined by the simulation setup and add little beyond the obvious material property differences. As such, they cannot be considered new findings.

5. Weak PMV-PPD analysis:
PMV and PPD outcomes are strongly influenced by HVAC system definitions, control strategies, humidity, surface temperatures, and clothing assumptions. Yet the paper provides no detail on these inputs or justification for variations across climate zones. Presenting PMV-PPD results without such critical analysis risks misleading conclusions.

Overall Assessment:
The study remains at a preliminary stage, reiterating findings already established in prior research. Its contribution would be strengthened by: 1) Comparing adobe and stone to modern envelope systems; 2) Narrowing the scope to a few meaningful performance metrics; 3) Providing detailed simulation methodology and a more critical interpretation of results.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and coherence of our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have made the necessary revisions, which are detailed below. All modifications have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for clarity.

 

Reviewer Comment 1: Insufficient background, problem statement, and literature review:

The paper claims that prior research has focused mainly on aesthetics, not environmental performance, and that material-based sustainability has been insufficiently examined. However, there is a substantial body of work on adobe and stone in passive building design. Studies using both advanced simulations and physical experiments have demonstrated thermal transfer characteristics, while carbon and comfort analyses have also been widely reported. The submitted work does not provide a critical review of this literature nor does it adequately situate the contribution within the field.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for this valuable comment. We substantially strengthened and reorganized the Introduction to situate our work within the field and to clarify the problem and contribution.

1. What is known (new subsection): We now summarise core findings on the thermal transfer/thermal mass and hygrothermal behaviour of adobe and stone, drawing on both experimental and BPS studies, and briefly frame the PMV–PPD and operational carbon literature.
2. Balanced claim: We toned down earlier wording suggesting a general lack of studies. The revised text recognises the breadth of prior work while identifying the specific gap: multi-climate, material-isolating comparisons under standardised assumptions are limited.
3. Gap & contribution clarified: We state explicitly that our study uses a standardised vernacular prototype (fixed plan/WWR/orientation/schedules) and varies only exterior wall material (stone vs. adobe) and climate (three zones), jointly reporting energy–CO₂–comfort and documenting all BPS inputs and algorithms transparently.
4. Conceptual framing & signposting: We added a short Conceptual Framework that outlines material–climate relations in Anatolia and directs readers to the methods sections (model setup, evaluation metrics).

Key references were added/retained to support these revisions (e.g., vernacular/environmental context; adobe/stone thermal behaviour; PMV–PPD and operational carbon). All changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment 2: Insufficient simulation information:

Simulation settings are insufficiently described. While the base model and material types are briefly mentioned, essential details are missing: wall thicknesses, construction assemblies, heat transfer algorithms (used by DesignBuilder/EnergyPlus), HVAC system definitions, operational carbon assumptions, and PMV-PPD calculation methods. Key assumptions, such as asymmetrical radiant exchange, are not stated. Without these, the results are difficult to evaluate.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for this valuable remark. We expanded the Methods section and added all items you identified as missing.

• Envelope and thicknesses. The layered build-ups, total thicknesses, and U-values of the exterior wall/roof/floor/openings are now reported in detail in Table 3.
• Algorithms and solver settings (Sec. 3.3). The model was run in DesignBuilder 7.3.0.043 (EnergyPlus) with a 30-min time step (2 per hour) and 6–25 warm-up days; heat conduction CTF; interior/exterior convection TARP/DOE-2; solar distribution Full exterior; shadow clipping Sutherland–Hodgman; sky diffuse Simple sky diffuse modelling.
• HVAC and operation. Zones were conditioned with residentially appropriate thermostat setpoints.
• Operational carbon. CO₂ was not post-processed externally; we used DesignBuilder’s “CO₂ emissions” output with a fixed grid emission factor (EF), kept constant across all scenarios (Sec. 3.3).
• PMV–PPD method. Thermal comfort was computed per ISO 7730/ASHRAE 55; Met and Clo values and heating/cooling setpoints are given in Table Z. Mean radiant temperature (MRT) and radiant asymmetry were handled using EnergyPlus defaults (Sec. 3.3).

These additions explicitly document all inputs and assumptions necessary to evaluate the results.

 

Reviewer Comment 3: Over-simplified assumptions and predictable results:

The envelope models appear to use single-layer walls of equal thickness. In such a case, only thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity drive performance differences. Because adobe has lower conductivity and higher thermal capacity, its superior performance in all metrics (heat balance, energy use, carbon emissions) is entirely expected. These results, while accurate, do not add novel insight.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for raising this point. We regret that our description may have suggested single-layer walls. (i) Both envelope variants are multi-layer assemblies (interior earthen plaster – structural core – exterior earthen plaster). The layer order, nominal thicknesses and the resulting U-values used in the simulations are now explicitly shown in Figure 3 and summarized in Table 3. (ii) We deliberately adopted an equal-total-thickness normalization to isolate material effects from geometric confounders and provide a relative comparison focused on material–climate interaction. This rationale is now stated in Methods §3.3, and the Limitations section explicitly proposes alternative normalizations (equal-U / code-minimum layered walls) and hygrothermal coupling as future work.

We do not claim novelty in the direction of the findings implied by first-principles heat transfer. Our contribution is to quantify the magnitude of adobe–stone differences across three climates under standardized assumptions, and to report the seasonal trade-offs jointly in energy, operational CO₂, and PMV/PPD. To make this explicit, we added a short interpretive paragraph in the Findings/Discussion and clarified in the Conclusion that results should be read as climate-dependent trade-offs rather than universal dominance.

Revisions made:

• Methods 3.3: added explicit layered build-ups and a paragraph explaining the equal-thickness normalization.
• Figure 3 & Table 3: annotated with layers, thicknesses (cm), and U-values.
• Limitations: noted that equal-U / code-minimum comparisons and hygrothermal modelling are planned.
• Findings/Discussion & Conclusion: added text emphasizing quantified magnitudes and climate-seasonal trade-offs.

 

Reviewer Comment 4: Lack of meaningful conclusions:

Most of the paper’s conclusions (p.27), aside from the PMV-PPD discussion, are predetermined by the simulation setup and add little beyond the obvious material property differences. As such, they cannot be considered new findings.

Author Response and Revision:

Thank you for the comment. We have reorganized the Results/Discussion and Conclusion to foreground quantitative magnitudes and design-oriented takeaways. Our contribution is clarified as: (i) quantifying the magnitude of material differences under a standardized multi-climate setup, (ii) jointly reporting energy–carbon–comfort while explaining the seasonal trade-off between winter conduction and summer thermal-mass buffering, and (iii) increasing methodological transparency.

In the revision ( marked in red), we summarize adobe–stone deltas by climate clusters, add design implications, and frame the findings as climate-dependent trade-offs rather than universal superiority. We also completed the missing methodological details in the Methods section.

 

Reviewer Comment 5:  Weak PMV-PPD analysis:

PMV and PPD outcomes are strongly influenced by HVAC system definitions, control strategies, humidity, surface temperatures, and clothing assumptions. Yet the paper provides no detail on these inputs or justification for variations across climate zones. Presenting PMV-PPD results without such critical analysis risks misleading conclusions.

 

Author Response and Revision:

 

Thank you for your comment. We have clarified the inputs and constraints of the PMV/PPD analysis and documented them explicitly in Methods:3.3 (e.g., Met/Clo, heating–cooling set and setback points, Ideal Loads assumption, treatment of humidity and MRT; see Table 5).

 

Reviewer Comment 6:  Overall Assessment:

1)The study remains at a preliminary stage, reiterating findings already established in prior research. Its contribution would be strengthened by:

Comparing adobe and stone to modern envelope systems;

 

2)Narrowing the scope to a few meaningful performance metrics;

 

3) Providing detailed simulation methodology and a more critical interpretation of results.

 

Author Response and Revision:

 

Thank you for your overall assessment. Our study is framed as a standardized, multi-climate comparison that holds geometry/WWR/orientation/occupancy constant in order to isolate the effect of the exterior wall material (stone vs. adobe) at the typology scale. Our aim is to quantify material–climate interaction using energy, operational CO₂, and comfort indicators.

 

Modern envelope comparison

We agree this is valuable. As explained in the revised Limitations and Discussion, code-compliant insulated modern systems were intentionally excluded from the present scope because additional layers/equipment would blur the isolation of material effects. Equal-U and code-minimum scenarios are flagged as clear directions for future work.

 

Focusing on meaningful metrics

The revised manuscript already focuses on three decision-relevant indicators: annual energy, operational CO₂ calculated with a constant grid emission factor, and PMV/PPD comfort hours. The Findings and Conclusions have been reorganized to emphasize the magnitude of differences across climates, the seasonal trade-offs, and design takeaways.

 

Simulation method and depth of interpretation

The Methods section has been expanded substantially: layered assemblies and U-values; solver/algorithm choices; zone templates; Met/Clo and set points. All inputs are reported transparently in tables/figures, and key assumptions and limitations are discussed more explicitly (including how PMV/PPD is computed and reported).

 

We believe these revisions make our contribution—providing a transparent quantitative baseline of material–climate interaction for adobe and stone across multiple climates—clearer, and we plan to address the modern-envelope comparison in future work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for incorporating all the prior comments and update the manuscript accordingly. The manuscript now seems more solid, concise, and clear.