Experimental Analysis of Thermal Performance and Evaluation of Vibration and Utility Function for the Readaptation of a Residential Building in an Experimental Housing Complex
, Alicja Kowalska-Koczwara 1,*, Piotr Stecz 1, Anna Shymanska 2 and Davide Ottaviano Palmieri 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors claimed that this study proposed a methodology to select the optimal utility function such as a shop, nursery or office for a residential building in an experimental housing estate, enhancing living conditions.. However, this paper must be revised before publication. My comments for improvement are below.
(1) The paper would benefit from the inclusion of a literature review section. This addition will help to contextualise the research by positioning it within the existing body of literature. The authors should discuss how their work builds upon, contrasts with, or extends previous research in their research field.
(2) Section 3 is titled "Materials and Methods," but it does not currently describe any specific methods. The authors should clearly outline the methodologies used in their research. Additionally, they should explain how these methods contributed to the results and how the results were derived from these methods. There are seven paragraphs and five figures between the title of Section 2 and Sub-section 2.1, and the author should reorganise these contents. Additionally, the connections among the three sub-sections of Section 2 is not clear. The authors should also explain the details how to calculate RMS and HPVR.
(3) It is advisable to revise the title of the paper, and the headings of some sections and sub-sections to ensure they are distinct and accurately reflect the content of each sub-section. For instance, "utility function and comfort analysis" are used in the title but are not reflected in the headings of sections or sub-sections. The authors should reorganise the contents in sections 3 and 4 to demonstrate the application of the early-mentioned methods and the inter-connections of contents among these two sections.
(4) The authors should include detailed explanations on how each figure or table was generated. Additionally, Figure 5 appears too simple to be presented as a figure, and a descriptive sentence would be sufficient to convey its content. The quality of some figures is too low.
(5) The first three paragraphs of the Discussion section should be merged into the Introduction section.
(6) The Conclusions section contains five items of "key conclusions" and another five items of "general conclusions". It is very difficult to accept these conclusions.
Author Response
First of all we would like to thank you very much for your valuable comments which allowed us to significantly improve our article. We tried to address all your concerns below.
Początek formularza
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors claimed that this study proposed a methodology to select the optimal utility function such as a shop, nursery or office for a residential building in an experimental housing estate, enhancing living conditions.. However, this paper must be revised before publication. My comments for improvement are below.
(1) The paper would benefit from the inclusion of a literature review section. This addition will help to contextualise the research by positioning it within the existing body of literature. The authors should discuss how their work builds upon, contrasts with, or extends previous research in their research field.
Considering the volume of the article and the considerable number of references to regulatory documents (7 references), adding a separate section devoted to the review of literary sources is not appropriate in the opinion of the authors.
The review of the used literary sources is fully carried out in the relevant sections of the article: in section 1. Introduction, the well-known concepts of relevance, energy efficiency analysis and the influence of the level of vibrations and thermal comfort on the well-being of residents/workers of wooden buildings are analyzed, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the 15 Minute concept Community Life Circle Located [1-21]; in section 2. Materials and Methods - the concept of improving the energy efficiency of buildings and the corresponding norms of thermal comfort, vibration levels and energy efficiency in accordance with current norms [22-31]; sections 3 and 4 contain the results of the measurements carried out by the authors for the object under study and a comparative analysis of the necessary costs for repair work of the building in the event that it performs the proposed utility functions in the future, which constitutes the actual new results to which this article is devoted.
(2) Section 3 is titled "Materials and Methods," but it does not currently describe any specific methods. The authors should clearly outline the methodologies used in their research. Additionally, they should explain how these methods contributed to the results and how the results were derived from these methods. There are seven paragraphs and five figures between the title of Section 2 and Sub-section 2.1, and the author should reorganise these contents. Additionally, the connections among the three sub-sections of Section 2 is not clear. The authors should also explain the details how to calculate RMS and HPVR.
The methodology is shown in Figure 2 Criteria for assessing the cost prospects of implementing a new utility function for a building located on the outskirts or some distance from the city.
The description of methodology was added to the main text:
The basic criteria in order to determine floor vibrations are measured, and then, after the analysis, the obtained values are compared to the standard values described in [28], Evaluation of vibrations influence on people in buildings. Polish Standard 2017, (in Polish)]. It should be noted that this is a more sensitive criterion compared to the impact of vibrations on the building structure [14], because before the vibrations are felt through the building structure, the comfort thresholds for people in the building will be exceeded long ago. For the purpose of comparisons, the Polish standard [28], Evaluation of vibrations influence on people in buildings. Polish Standard 2017, (in Polish)] introduced the HPVR ratio (in English, the human vibration perceptivity ratio) - it is a measure of human vibration sensibility. It is the ratio of the maximum RMS value obtained from the analysis (RMS max) to the vibration sensibility threshold (regardless of the direction) in the same frequency band. The value of the HPVR ratio is provided together with the information on the central frequency of the 1/3 octave band in which the HPVR is determined. WODL indicates directly how many times the threshold of perception of vibrations by people has been exceeded. Some researches in ISO [16] and other country standards shows, there is no clear and detailed guidelines how to make experimental tests in case of influence vibration on people inside buildings.
Thermal comfort is, as shown by surveys, one of the most important comfort sensations. The method for determining thermal comfort parameters is contained in ISO 7730 Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. The international standard for the assessment of thermally moderate environments was prepared in parallel with standard 55 developed by ASHRE. Human thermal sensations are mainly related to the heat balance of the body as a whole. The methodology developed by the authors assumes that the main factor felt by humans is the ambient temperature. According to the methodology, the sensor for measuring: temperature, met the stringent requirements according to ISO 7726 Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Instruments for measuring physical quantities [23]. The test was carried out using the measurement system shown in Fig. 5. This assumption allowed the test results to be compared with the indications contained in EN 16798-1 ‘Energy performance of buildings - Ventilation of buildings - Part 1: Input parameters of the indoor environment for design and assessment of energy performance of buildings with regard to indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics’ [22].
The methodology developed by the authors assumes as the second thermal comfort parameter to be tested the air-tightness of the building envelope. As is well known, leaks in the building envelope reduce thermal comfort in use by causing local cooling of the internal temperature. This was the basis for adopting this study as part of the authors' methodology. The airtightness test was performed according to the methodology developed in EN ISO 9972:2015-10 cited in the literature list as item []. The test was performed in triplicate, which was included in the methodology with the objective of achieving a leakage test result n50 of less than 1.0 [-]. This is better than the value recommended in the Technical Conditions applicable in Poland []. However, the authors considered that buildings with almost zero energy demand should meet higher standards.
The impact on the energy efficiency of the environment was expressed by the non-renewable primary energy indicator EP [kWh/m2rok]. This is the best indicator showing the environmental impact of a building.
(3) It is advisable to revise the title of the paper, and the headings of some sections and sub-sections to ensure they are distinct and accurately reflect the content of each sub-section. For instance, "utility function and comfort analysis" are used in the title but are not reflected in the headings of sections or sub-sections. The authors should reorganise the contents in sections 3 and 4 to demonstrate the application of the early-mentioned methods and the inter-connections of contents among these two sections.
Done
(4) The authors should include detailed explanations on how each figure or table was generated. Additionally, Figure 5 appears too simple to be presented as a figure, and a descriptive sentence would be sufficient to convey its content. The quality of some figures is too low.
Figures have been improved, fig 5 was removed
(5) The first three paragraphs of the Discussion section should be merged into the Introduction section.
Done
The requirement may be satisfied for the first paragraph.
(6) The Conclusions section contains five items of "key conclusions" and another five items of "general conclusions". It is very difficult to accept these conclusions.
General conclusions were removed
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA quality work on the conversion potential of existing wood building. A major concern is the potential of new knowledge if any? And a criticism of any relevance and applicability for others?
A couple of minor yet essential questions - (1) Why and how is the building being chosen? For instance, why not chose the house on the corner of the site which might subjected to climatic and environmental (noise) challenges?
(2) In the case of post conversion of usage of the building, is there any consideration accounting for ventilation requirements due to the presence of more occupants either the operators and visitors of the new shop or nursery, et. al.
(3) Was there any consideration for an extra air-lock provided to prevent contamination and negative impact on the indoor air quality due to the 'come and go' frequency of visit by visitors in a normal day?
The authors are requested to address and provide more information and explanation.
Author Response
First of all we would like to thank you very much for your valuable comments which allowed us to significantly improve our article. We tried to address all your concerns below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
A quality work on the conversion potential of existing wood building. A major concern is the potential of new knowledge if any? And a criticism of any relevance and applicability for others?
An innovation in this study is the analysis of the results of real measurements of vibration, thermal, accessibility comfort and energy efficiency environmental impact at the level of forming an offer to future investors in order to determine the most economically attractive option of utility function, namely the one that will require the least capital investment for repair work in the building so that it meets established standards for vibration, thermal accessibility, comfort and energy efficiency environmental impact, which are different for possible utility functions.
In this article, the analysis is carried out only for those utility functions that are of interest to the residents of the community living in the territory where the investigated building is located, and therefore, a priori, are promising from the point of view of investment.
A couple of minor yet essential questions - (1) Why and how is the building being chosen? For instance, why not chose the house on the corner of the site which might subjected to climatic and environmental (noise) challenges?
All the other buildings were inhabited. This was the only building we had access to in order to carry out long-term research in it. Furthermore, it is close to a larger group of buildings with a similar layout.
(2) In the case of post conversion of usage of the building, is there any consideration accounting for ventilation requirements due to the presence of more occupants either the operators and visitors of the new shop or nursery, et. al.
Yes, this has been taken into account, but within the costs, as the entire analysis is based on the optimization of costs and social benefits
(3) Was there any consideration for an extra air-lock provided to prevent contamination and negative impact on the indoor air quality due to the 'come and go' frequency of visit by visitors in a normal day?
Yes, the authors considered this option in public spaces also within the cost analysis.
The authors are requested to address and provide more information and explanation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle:
According to different authors, functionality and thermal comfort are composed of different variables that are not part of the article or research, so it is suggested to correct the wording of the title so that the object developed specifically in the research is mentioned, as well as the purpose, so that it does not lead to confusion of the content of the article. Example: Experimental analysis of thermal performance, evaluation of vibration and... for the readaptation of a residential building for the purposes of... in a housing complex.....
Abstract:
Line 14: The abstract: "Recent energy supply uncertainties and high costs necessitate the pursuit of green solutions", being the supply of energy a topic of study not addressed and high costs (topic of economics), it is suggested to specify the statements that are part of the problem that begins the research: Did he mean: Energy supply in buildings?, or other; the same with high costs, he meant: high costs of building construction?
Line 16: Specificity is requested in the concepts used, wood is a construction material, it differs from construction system and construction technology. Proofread wording.
Line 16: Did you mean?: service infrastructure..., to use the appropriate concepts used in the field of architecture and urban planning.
Line 17: Correct what is stated, the article does not propose a new methodology, a mixed methodology is applied for the evaluation of criteria..., it is requested to correct the wording based on what is developed in the article.
Line 22: Although the importance of the 15-minute city is highlighted, this topic is not part of the research as an object investigated or analyzed, but as a criterion to be achieved, it is suggested to correct the wording of the abstract mentioning what was developed in the research.
Keywords:
OK
Introduction:
Line 29-32: Citing or referencing concepts, ideas or statements. It is requested to reference the sources that support the aforementioned data.
Line 33: You meant: new construction technologies?, specificity is requested in the concepts used.
Lines 34-35: Referencing claims to evidence trends: The importance of investors, the concerns of timber building technology. Failing that, correct the wording and include references that support the statements in an appropriate way.
Line 44: ditto 34-35
Line 53: It is suggested to correct the wording by: wood being a natural insulator, the construction system with this material presents a good behavior as a thermal insulator....
Line 66: add: they have a low density per square meter of the envelope, as well as low conductivity. (Since this variable is also part of the thermal behavior of materials, evaluate mentioning other variables such as moisture content... etc.)
Lines 76-79: Cite or reference statements about the propagation of vibrations in buildings, in the same way avoid mentioning possibilities such as: "... can cause...", preference statements that have been studied or published should be mentioned and references should be used correctly for these statements.
Line 89: Mention why and how the object of study "Housing Complex X" was selected. Example: Housing complexes X... located on the outskirts present the problem....., so the complex ..... because it presents.....
Lines 108-109: According to the theory of needs there are different levels of needs, but this is not part of the object of research, it is requested to correct the wording based on what has been developed: Example: " The methodology developed in the study presented by the authors allows us to evaluate whether the existing infrastructure in residential complexes can be intervened by changing the function and satisfy the needs of the population of the area (prioritizing thermal comfort, comfort due to vibrations, economic aspects, among others). ). "instead of:"The methodology developed in the study presented by the authors can assess whether existing facilities can meet the daily needs of the people in the area".
Lines 130-134: What is shown in the research article starts by asking that question but is not part of what was researched itself, it is suggested to correct the object and the wording.
Materials and methods
Line 142: A survey and the multi-criteria selection method are not innovative, there are already several authors and research on the subject, it is requested to correct the wording. What would be the innovation with respect to methods of management and real estate development where the functions of infrastructure of complementary services are considered within the urban planning of residential complexes?
Line 144: It is suggested to consider the criteria mentioned in this line as the object of study developed in the article, in addition to adding airtightness, since this is mentioned below.
Line 148-149: There is a bias in mentioning optimal, it is requested to support the validation of an "optimal" criterion, failing which it is suggested to compare or apply or improve the multi-criteria selection method.
Line 159: Idem Lines 148-149.
Line 167: It is requested to mention how the identification of weaknesses in the technology was carried out.
Lines 168-170: Data are requested to validate the criterion of low thermal capacity, as well as to detail the description of the glazing, it is pertinent to carry out a measurement of previous values in situ to affirm the aforementioned, on the other hand, thermal comfort is subject to other values such as ambient humidity, wind currents, activity of the environments among others (review bibliography and authors).
Line 179-180: it is necessary to mention the type of previous study carried out for the diagnosis.
Line 181: accessibility was not evaluated, this is mentioned as a variable, although not studied, it is suggested to correct the wording
Lines 188-189: Support the selection or possibility of the object of study (1 house in the complex), since, for example, the vibration values recorded in the particular case differ from those located in different proximity to the highway, which as mentioned is the source of the vibrations, how would this variable and its behavior be extrapolated by proximity of the highway to the other houses? Will it be necessary to carry out intervention and investment (greater or less) in a building without or lesser vibrations?, to support it, failing that, the research presents a bias, so the article should be corrected and focus on the case study.
Line 198: The bias of supporting the functions proposed only by the residents is presented, it is suggested to validate this aspect with regulations, arguments of real estate development, theory of needs, others and complement the survey as the methods used in participatory management.
Line 218: to better argue the selection of temperature as an indicator of thermal comfort, different authors mention that this criterion also depends on other variables such as ambient humidity among others.
Line 220: Specify "standard for buildings"
Line 244: Specifying the Sensors Used
Line 246: in this line it is mentioned that the values of humidity and air velocity were recorded. Why was it not considered as part of the article or as criteria of thermal comfort?
Lines 284-285: Correct Units: kWh/(m²year) or kWh/(m-2year)
Line 293: Specify ISO Standard
Line 338: the statement "... the temperature reacted strongly to external conditions..." must be corrected, it is suggested: "... the measurements showed significant variations in temperature..."
Line 341: The statement presents contradictions, correct the wording
Line 343: avoid mentioning statements or conjectures that are not the subject of the study, such as temperature stabilization with the use of blinds as sunscreens. If they are part of the investigation, they should be mentioned throughout the article.
Line 349: Specify the conditions of: "unfinished state"
Line 360-361: It is mentioned that the measurement was made in the centers of the ground but in figure 12 it is observed that one of the sensors was placed near a wall, how was the measurement made?, it is requested to support the difference in position of that sensor since it is not in accordance with what was mentioned above.
Discussion
Lines 478-481: It is suggested to begin the discussion with what has been done in the research.
Conclusion
Line 511-512: "Non-renewable primary energy indicator" was not considered as an indicator evaluated in the research, considering the content carried out.
Line 522: The qualification "most economically attractive option" is not adequate, it is requested to consider objectively the adjectives of qualification or qualification.
Line 541: The conclusions must be precise based on what was found, avoid the possibilities: "... functions could be...".
Bibliography:
See previous comments
NOTE: The initial approach aims to be holistic on an urban scale or the analysis of the influences of specific criteria in an urban architectural reform project but what is researched reflects other dimensions, it is suggested to specify the variables of the research from the beginning as part of the state of the art and study problems to keep correspondence and a line with what has been done, In addition, it is necessary to cite additional sources and references, as well as to consider the appropriate terms and concepts.
Author Response
First of all we would like to thank you very much for your valuable comments which allowed us to significantly improve our article. We tried to address all your concerns below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Title:
According to different authors, functionality and thermal comfort are composed of different variables that are not part of the article or research, so it is suggested to correct the wording of the title so that the object developed specifically in the research is mentioned, as well as the purpose, so that it does not lead to confusion of the content of the article. Example: Experimental analysis of thermal performance, evaluation of vibration and... for the readaptation of a residential building for the purposes of... in a housing complex.....
Done: the tittle has been changed into: Experimental Analysis of Thermal Performance, Evaluation of Vibration and Utility Function for the Readaptation of a Residential Building in an Experimental Housing Complex
Abstract:
Line 14: The abstract: "Recent energy supply uncertainties and high costs necessitate the pursuit of green solutions", being the supply of energy a topic of study not addressed and high costs (topic of economics), it is suggested to specify the statements that are part of the problem that begins the research: Did he mean: Energy supply in buildings?, or other; the same with high costs, he meant: high costs of building construction?
"Recent energy supply uncertainties and high costs necessitate the pursuit of green solutions"
Replace with:
With the steady increase in the cost of energy carriers and the costs of energy production, the cost for consumers is also increasing, therefore the search for solutions capable of reducing energy consumption by increasing the energy efficiency of building structures, in particular the use of prefabricated timber frame technology.
Line 16: Specificity is requested in the concepts used, wood is a construction material, it differs from construction system and construction technology. Proofread wording.
The construction is made of wood – only the floor is. We changed the word wood to a timber in the whole document.
Line 16: Did you mean?: service infrastructure..., to use the appropriate concepts used in the field of architecture and urban planning.
It is replaced
Line 17: Correct what is stated, the article does not propose a new methodology, a mixed methodology is applied for the evaluation of criteria..., it is requested to correct the wording based on what is developed in the article.
Line 17-18 “proposes”
Replaced with:
“uses”
Line 22: Although the importance of the 15-minute city is highlighted, this topic is not part of the research as an object investigated or analyzed, but as a criterion to be achieved, it is suggested to correct the wording of the abstract mentioning what was developed in the research.
This sentence was removed
Keywords:
OK
Introduction:
Line 29-32: Citing or referencing concepts, ideas or statements. It is requested to reference the sources that support the aforementioned data.
In 2021, compared to the previous year, there was an increase in the number and area of dwellings delivered. However, the area of non-residential buildings handed over for use decreased.
In 2021, 234,900 dwellings were handed over for use, with a total floor area of 21.8 millionm2 and a number of rooms equal to 917,800. Compared with the previous year, increases were recorded in: the number of dwellings - by 14,100 (6.4%), the floor area of dwellings - by 2.2 million m2 (11.3%) and the number of rooms - by 84,800 (10.2%). [https://stat.gov.pl/]
Line 33: You meant: new construction technologies?, specificity is requested in the concepts used.
Timber construction technology, in particular, addresses these concerns. Over the past five years, the number of timber framed buildings has more than doubled, with 905 timber framed structures built in Poland in 2020 [https://inzynierbudownictwa.pl/pojemnosc-cieplna-scian-o-konstrukcji-szkieletowej-drewnianej/]
Lines 34-35: Referencing claims to evidence trends: The importance of investors, the concerns of timber building technology. Failing that, correct the wording and include references that support the statements in an appropriate way.
It was added: The Polish housing construction market is a very traditional market based on masonry construction. The concerns of timber building technology refer to aspects such as structural safety, durability, etc. This approach of investors is slowly changing.
Line 44: ditto 34-35
It was changed into: This rate of construction leads directly to lower costs and a reduced carbon footprint during the construction phase
Line 53: It is suggested to correct the wording by: wood being a natural insulator, the construction system with this material presents a good behavior as a thermal insulator....
It was added: that the structure itself is an
Line 66: add: they have a low density per square meter of the envelope, as well as low conductivity. (Since this variable is also part of the thermal behavior of materials, evaluate mentioning other variables such as moisture content... etc.) .
It was added: “they have a low density per square meter of the envelope, as well as low conductivity”.
Lines 76-79: Cite or reference statements about the propagation of vibrations in buildings, in the same way avoid mentioning possibilities such as: "... can cause...", preference statements that have been studied or published should be mentioned and references should be used correctly for these statements.
The appropriate reference was added: The impact of vibration on buildings: Problems and solutions, Viktoriia Kovrova, Viktoriia Volkova and Leonids Pakrastins, E3S Web Conf., 534 (2024) 01010, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202453401010
Line 89: Mention why and how the object of study "Housing Complex X" was selected. Example: Housing complexes X... located on the outskirts present the problem....., so the complex ..... because it presents.....
The study site was chosen because of the possibility of conducting a long-term study in it. The other facilities were inhabited and their occupants did not agree to the placement of research equipment indoors. In addition, it was chosen because it represents a large group of similar facilities produced and sold by the developer.
Lines 108-109: According to the theory of needs there are different levels of needs, but this is not part of the object of research, it is requested to correct the wording based on what has been developed: Example: " The methodology developed in the study presented by the authors allows us to evaluate whether the existing infrastructure in residential complexes can be intervened by changing the function and satisfy the needs of the population of the area (prioritizing thermal comfort, comfort due to vibrations, economic aspects, among others). ). "instead of:"The methodology developed in the study presented by the authors can assess whether existing facilities can meet the daily needs of the people in the area".
done
Lines 130-134: What is shown in the research article starts by asking that question but is not part of what was researched itself, it is suggested to correct the object and the wording.
It is changed into: The research problem to be solved is an optimization analysis based on and validated by the results of measurements conducted on a real object.
Materials and methods
Line 142: A survey and the multi-criteria selection method are not innovative, there are already several authors and research on the subject, it is requested to correct the wording. What would be the innovation with respect to methods of management and real estate development where the functions of infrastructure of complementary services are considered within the urban planning of residential complexes?
Line 142 “innovative” delete
An innovation in this study is the analysis of the results of real measurements of vibration, thermal, accessibility comfort and energy efficiency environmental impact at the level of forming an offer to future investors in order to determine the most economically attractive option of utility function, namely the one that will require the least capital investment for repair work in the building so that it meets established standards for vibration, thermal accessibility, comfort and energy efficiency environmental impact, which are different for possible utility functions.
Line 144: It is suggested to consider the criteria mentioned in this line as the object of study developed in the article, in addition to adding airtightness, since this is mentioned below.
The remark is quite valid, the specified criteria are the object of the study.
Line 148-149: There is a bias in mentioning optimal, it is requested to support the validation of an "optimal" criterion, failing which it is suggested to compare or apply or improve the multi-criteria selection method.
Namely the cost prospects of implementing the utility functiont is the criterion for the optimal choice of one (the cheapest from the point of view of the cost of repairing work in the building) of the utility functions. The figure shows only the sequence of stages that must be implemented to form a proposal for choosing the optimal utility function.
Line 159: Idem Lines 148-149.
The same as for the Line 148-149
Line 167: It is requested to mention how the identification of weaknesses in the technology was carried out.
“By analyzing the features of the wooden frame construction, the authors identified weaknesses in the technology” Replaced with: “The analysis of literary sources [1-5] devoted to wooden buildings showed that along with their advantages there are imperfections in the technology of their detection”
Lines 168-170: Data are requested to validate the criterion of low thermal capacity, as well as to detail the description of the glazing, it is pertinent to carry out a measurement of previous values in situ to affirm the aforementioned, on the other hand, thermal comfort is subject to other values such as ambient humidity, wind currents, activity of the environments among others (review bibliography and authors).
Houses built using timber frame technology - due to their lightweight construction are characterised by low heat storage capacity - such houses heat up quickly, but at the same time lose accumulated heat quickly. Houses built using masonry technology - ceramic, silicate, concrete - are characterised by high heat accumulation which means that they take longer to heat up, but at the same time lose accumulated heat more slowly [https://ecohomes.pl/help/akumulacyjnosc-cieplna-w-domu-szkieletowym]. The study of heat capacity was not the aim of the multi-criteria analysis carried out by the authors. This is data that has been verified many times AND the authors did not aim to verify it. With regard to the study of thermal comfort, the authors deliberately assumed that the results of the operative temperature would be used for the analysis. This has the greatest influence on the feeling of thermal comfort.
Line 179-180: it is necessary to mention the type of previous study carried out for the diagnosis.
In the article Fedorczak-Cisak, M., Radziszewska-Zielina, E., Nowak-Ocłoń, M., Biskupski, J., Jastrzębski, P., Kotowicz, A., Varbanov, P. S., & Klemeš, J. J. (2023). A concept to maximise energy self-sufficiency of the housing stock in central Europe based on renewable resources and efficiency improvement. Energy, 278, 127812. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2023.127812] was presented an innovative method for the design of energy self-sufficient residential communities, emphasising active user participation. The general concept of creating such communities is first described, followed by current research - focusing on community electricity generation and storage. This research and analysis was conducted in the housing estate presented in this article. This article is an extension of the research from the experimental settlement.
In the article „Fedorczak-Cisak, M., Kotowicz, A., Radziszewska-Zielina, E., Sroka, B., Tatara, T., & Barnaś, K. (2020). Multi-Criteria Optimisation of an Experimental Complex of Single-Family Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Energies, 13(7), 1541. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071541 was presented a method for optimising single-family house complexes single-family houses, which takes into account elements such as direct construction costs, site organisation, urban layout and utility costs. Usage costs in the context of sustainability. Its authors analysed different 40 NZEBs in relation to each other and conducted a multi-criteria analysis of the complex, identifying optimal solutions that are sustainable.
The results indicated that the layout consisting of semi-detached houses scored highest among the proposed layouts with the parameter weights set by the developer. This layout also achieved the highest score when the parameter weights were evenly distributed during the test simulation.
Line 181: accessibility was not evaluated, this is mentioned as a variable, although not studied, it is suggested to correct the wording
It was removed
Lines 188-189: Support the selection or possibility of the object of study (1 house in the complex), since, for example, the vibration values recorded in the particular case differ from those located in different proximity to the highway, which as mentioned is the source of the vibrations, how would this variable and its behavior be extrapolated by proximity of the highway to the other houses? Will it be necessary to carry out intervention and investment (greater or less) in a building without or lesser vibrations?, to support it, failing that, the research presents a bias, so the article should be corrected and focus on the case study.
I t was added: The building selected for analysis is located in a newly constructed housing estate, where the access infrastructure is still being developed. In the future, there will be access roads, and they will be the source of dynamic forcing on the building. The forced vibrations were simulated precisely due to the anticipated future vibration load on the studied building. This approach to the issue should, in the future, eliminate the problem of underestimating the vibrations that were measured during the test.
Line 198: The bias of supporting the functions proposed only by the residents is presented, it is suggested to validate this aspect with regulations, arguments of real estate development, theory of needs, others and complement the survey as the methods used in participatory management.
Such a thorough approach to the comparison of the results of the survey on the issue of choosing the utility function of the investigated building with regulatory documents, arguments for real estate development, the theory of needs is not the subject of this study, although it is undoubtedly of interest to the field of real estate management.
Line 218: to better argue the selection of temperature as an indicator of thermal comfort, different authors mention that this criterion also depends on other variables such as ambient humidity among others.
The choice of ambient temperature as a thermal comfort parameter was deliberate and purposeful. Of course, thermal comfort is influenced by humidity, average ambient temperature, air velocity. However, of these parameters, ambient temperature has the greatest influence and was the best fit for the multi-criteria analysis carried out. The authors also investigated other comfort parameters, but temperature was the best fit for the methodology.
Line 220: Specify "standard for buildings"
It was changed into: residential building quality
Line 244: Specifying the Sensors Used.
It was added: Seismic sensors have sensitivity of 10V/g and measurement range of ±0,5g pk (4.9 m/s² pk). Frequency range is 0,15 Hz to 1000 Hz. Broadband Resolution: 0.000008 g rms (0.00008 m/s² rms).
Line 246: in this line it is mentioned that the values of humidity and air velocity were recorded. Why was it not considered as part of the article or as criteria of thermal comfort?
The choice of ambient temperature as a thermal comfort parameter was deliberate and purposeful. Of course, thermal comfort is influenced by humidity, average ambient temperature, air velocity. However, of these parameters, ambient temperature has the greatest influence and was the best fit for the multi-criteria analysis carried out. The authors also investigated other comfort parameters, but temperature was the best fit for the methodology.
Lines 284-285: Correct Units: kWh/(m²year) or kWh/(m-2year)
kWh/(m²year)
Line 293: Specify ISO Standard
It was removed. It is old ISO standard from 1985 Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration -, Part I : General requirements
Line 338: the statement "... the temperature reacted strongly to external conditions..." must be corrected, it is suggested: "... the measurements showed significant variations in temperature..."
It was changed into: the measurements showed significant variations in temperature
Line 341: The statement presents contradictions, correct the wording
The part of the statement “because the building is airtight and well-insulated and, above all, lacks solar shading” was removed
Line 343: avoid mentioning statements or conjectures that are not the subject of the study, such as temperature stabilization with the use of blinds as sunscreens. If they are part of the investigation, they should be mentioned throughout the article.
It was removed
Line 349: Specify the conditions of: "unfinished state"
The unfinished state was changed by reference, existing state
Line 360-361: It is mentioned that the measurement was made in the centers of the ground but in figure 12 it is observed that one of the sensors was placed near a wall, how was the measurement made?, it is requested to support the difference in position of that sensor since it is not in accordance with what was mentioned above.
The figure is consistent with the description, and the sensor was placed next to a partition wall – not a structural one, which should be noted. The sensor should be placed at the structural center of the room, not at its geometric center, which was done.
Discussion
Lines 478-481: It is suggested to begin the discussion with what has been done in the research.
Done
Lines 478-481 “This approach contrasts with the concept of cities and 15-minute areas, where quick access to essential and useful functions such as shops, kindergartens, or offices would enhance the comfort of housing estate residents”
It was deleted
Conclusion
Line 511-512: "Non-renewable primary energy indicator" was not considered as an indicator evaluated in the research, considering the content carried out. ?
Non-renewable primary energy indicator EP was one of four parameters investigated duromg evaluation of the cost prospects of the implementation of utility functions (see Table 7)
Line 522: The qualification "most economically attractive option" is not adequate, it is requested to consider objectively the adjectives of qualification or qualification.
It was replaced with: “economically beneficial option”
Line 541: The conclusions must be precise based on what was found, avoid the possibilities: "... functions could be...".
It was replaced:
“Evaluating the economic feasibility of different utility functions could be crucial for sustainable development, ensuring that initial investments and long-term benefits are balanced for optimal resource use.” Replace with: “Estimating the economic beneficianess of various utility functions on the basis of determining and comparing the levels of costs for relevant repair works allows to avoid unreasonable financial investments, which is the way to optimal resource use.”
Bibliography:
See previous comments
NOTE: The initial approach aims to be holistic on an urban scale or the analysis of the influences of specific criteria in an urban architectural reform project but what is researched reflects other dimensions, it is suggested to specify the variables of the research from the beginning as part of the state of the art and study problems to keep correspondence and a line with what has been done, In addition, it is necessary to cite additional sources and references, as well as to consider the appropriate terms and concepts.
DONE
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for submitting your manuscript to Applied Sciences Journal. Please find below some comments that you may wish to consider.
Title: Utility Function and Comfort Analysis for Repurposing a Residential Building in an Experimental Housing Estate
I am not sure that the title is clear enough to highlight the core idea of 15-minute city. Please discuss with co-authors and the Editor. I propose a title such as: "The 15-Minute City Concept: A Multicriteria Assessment for Repurposing the use of a Single-Family Residence in a Prefabricated Wood Housing Estate"
Line 72, when using references, it is not convincing to refer to 6 references if they all say the same thing e.g. [10–15]. In this case, you can choose a maximum of 2 or 3 references. Otherwise you need to add a sentence or two to explain the added value of what the the references are stating beyond or over and above what the first 2 or 3 references have already done.
In Equation 1 t0 is not defined. It is clear that it is the operational temperature but you need to write (tsubscript0) between bracket near "Operational Temperature" in the text above the equation and you need to add it under the equation together with the other abbreviations.
Please enlarge Figure 6.
Line 289: Are you sure that the non-renewable primary energy indicator should include appliances and "all other electrical equipment" ? According to the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, only space heating, space cooling, lighting, mechanical ventilation and water heating are to be included.
Line 300: What equipment did you use to record vibration? It is described much later on line 360.
Results are not convincing, especially with the economics section. Details on calculations and estimates are not sufficiently addressed. Moreover, it is not clear how the differentiation in costs between one repurposing and another were obtained. Moreover, it is not clear how the primary energy rating was calculated for the different repurposed buildings. For example, a Class A dwelling does not have the same energy rating as a Class A shop or kindergarten.
The Discussion section is not convincing because it is not discussing the results but summarising the paper.
All in all, the paper requires significant improvements.
Author Response
First of all we would like to thank you very much for your valuable comments which allowed us to significantly improve our article. We tried to address all your concerns below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Applied Sciences Journal. Please find below some comments that you may wish to consider.
Title: Utility Function and Comfort Analysis for Repurposing a Residential Building in an Experimental Housing Estate
I am not sure that the title is clear enough to highlight the core idea of 15-minute city. Please discuss with co-authors and the Editor. I propose a title such as: "The 15-Minute City Concept: A Multicriteria Assessment for Repurposing the use of a Single-Family Residence in a Prefabricated Wood Housing Estate"
After discussion with the co-authors, we changed the title to Experimental Analysis of Thermal Performance, Evaluation of Vibration and Utility Function for the Readaptation of a Residential Building in an Experimental Housing Complex.
Line 72, when using references, it is not convincing to refer to 6 references if they all say the same thing e.g. [10–15]. In this case, you can choose a maximum of 2 or 3 references. Otherwise you need to add a sentence or two to explain the added value of what the the references are stating beyond or over and above what the first 2 or 3 references have already done.
Done
In Equation 1 t0 is not defined. It is clear that it is the operational temperature but you need to write (tsubscript0) between bracket near "Operational Temperature" in the text above the equation and you need to add it under the equation together with the other abbreviations.
Of course, in equation 1 we insert in the description t0 - operational temperature [0C].
Please enlarge Figure 6.
We have, of course, enlarged Figure 6
Line 289: Are you sure that the non-renewable primary energy indicator should include appliances and "all other electrical equipment" ? According to the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, only space heating, space cooling, lighting, mechanical ventilation and water heating are to be included.
The non-renewable primary energy indicator also includes electricity for auxiliary equipment in heating, cooling and ventilation systems (such as circulation pumps).
Line 300: What equipment did you use to record vibration? It is described much later on line 360.
The equipment has been described in the text as fallows: Seismic sensors have sensitivity of 10V/g and measurement range of ±0,5g pk (4.9 m/s² pk). Frequency range is 0,15 Hz to 1000 Hz. Broadband Resolution: 0.000008 g rms (0.00008 m/s² rms).
Results are not convincing, especially with the economics section. Details on calculations and estimates are not sufficiently addressed. Moreover, it is not clear how the differentiation in costs between one repurposing and another were obtained. Moreover, it is not clear how the primary energy rating was calculated for the different repurposed buildings. For example, a Class A dwelling does not have the same energy rating as a Class A shop or kindergarten.
Differentiation between repurposing (change of utility function) was achieved by introducing a conditional cost unit of 1 c.c.o., which provides for capital investments needed to improve the building's condition for each proposed utility function assumes an increase in the class of each criterion by one point (e.g., from B to A) and the subsequent calculation of the necessary conditional cost units for carrying out repair work in such a way that the building meets the established requirements for thermal, vibrational comfort and energy efficiency in the case of the implementation of each of the considered utility functions.
The energy efficiency of the existing building is calculated in section 2 of this article, and the permissible levels of energy consumption for individual utility functions are outlined in regulatory documents.
The Discussion section is not convincing because it is not discussing the results but summarising the paper.
The results of this study are summarized in section 6. Conclusions, which presents detailed recommendations for choosing the most investment-attractive utility function for the future functioning of the investigated building after the necessary repair works.
Section 5. Discussion is dedicated to summarizing this research, namely the relevance of this research and outlining its prospects.
All in all, the paper requires significant improvements.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made significant revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors rectify the deficiencies and errors mentioned. The work may be published.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your review. I have no further comments.
