Study on the Combined Effect of Multiple Passive Energy-Saving Methods for Rural Houses with Cold Alleys

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is up-to-date and worth of investigating. Authors are focused on the rural houses. In the literature review they reveal the great achievements of the energy efficient technologies implemented in big cities and indicate a knowledge gap in the field of houses in rural areas. The work promotes passive system for achieving thermal comfort in building and improve ventilation. Such approaches should be promoted.

The paper is well structured. The main improvement that has to be done is about description of the model. In this form the numerical tools are used as a black box without validation and without listing the assumptions. Giving only the name of the simulation tool / software is not enough for the scientific journal.

 

 

1) Could you explain in text or convert the units used in the introduction: Mtce, kgce/cap?

Please clearly indicate if the values are for China or for other country or for the whole world?

 

2) I have a doubt if references [5] and [6] are properly used. Are you sure that those papers prove your statements from the introduction about what kind of buildings are used to achieve energy savings and about the unsatisfactory results of implementing them?

 

3) There is a lack in the description of the calculation model. Please specify the boundary conditions of the simulations. Please refer to the previous other studies where such parameters/boundary conditions were used.

 

4) Some specific calculations methods are described in the TRNSYS documentation and they do not need to be repeated but for ANSYS simulations there are many parameters that have to be assumed. Please describe extensively the boundary conditions, the mesh generation, the mesh validation (how was chosen the mesh density), the model validation etc. Please prove that the mesh is appropriate for used turbulence model. Please describe the assumptions for radiation heat transfer which is typically very complex and sophisticated.

 

5) Models in TRNSYS and ANSYS and Energy Plus should be validated against the experimental data to prove the accuracy of the assumed boundary conditions and simplifications. The problem that is taken into account is very complex. From this reason validation is needed to prove the accuracy and that the results are reliable.

It is impossible, you should find in the literature similar investigation and refer to them listing the assumptions and comparing your approach with the validated approach to prove the reliability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The draft is not well written and difficult to follow. The writing is not clearly organized and articulations are not focused on the parts that are most relevant to the main topic, which is evident in several sections. It can use an extensive effort in rewriting and polishing.

I found a paper that is published by the authors (Yao, X., Dewancker, B. J., Guo, Y., Han, S., & Xu, J. (2020). Study on Passive Ventilation and Cooling Strategies for Cold Lanes and Courtyard Houses—A Case Study of Rural Traditional Village in Shaanxi, China. Sustainability, 12(20), 8687.).

This draft has a very similar topic and shares many similarities in the writing, figures, and findings with the published paper. However, the published paper is not cited and not discussed. It is essential to explain in this paper what are the main differences and unique contributions of this paper when compared with the already published one.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is improved. The description of the methodology is significantly better.

I have only one suggestion to (optionally) change the title into more representative – you could put the “cold alleys” somewhere to highlight what method is being analyzed in the paper. For example: Study on Combined Effect of Multiple Passive Energy-Saving Methods for Rural Houses WITH COLD ALLEYS. In my opinion it would better reflect the range of the paper and would be more clear to the Reader, attracting more interest in the article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

My previous comments were not sufficiently addressed.

The draft needs more than editorial changes. It needs rewriting and re-organizing than retyping.

The authors added reference to their previous study but the description of additional contribution of this paper is ambiguous. Just saying "this is a more in-depth study" and "issues that were not mentioned in the previous research were analyzed and discussed" is not enough. The authors need to explicitly present what things are "more in-depth" and what are the "issues that were not mentioned". Then, the authors need to articulate why these additions are valuable and worth being published as a new paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is improved and adress all my comments. Paper is interesting and should be taken into consideration to publish it in Applied Sciences.