Design and Thermal-Optical Environment Simulation of Double-Slope Greenhouse Roof Structure Based on Ecotect
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper aims at studying the optimal spacing and width of roof windows of a double-slope greenhouse.
The problem of study is very relevant.
One strong comment to the authors:
Since Ecotect was employed to simulate and analyze the internal temperatures of shade rooms under varying window widths, to avoid the use of black boxes in numerical simulations, strictly from a numerical point of view, it is important to amend the discussion of the governing equations and the features of its numerical treatment. The paper provides details on the boundary conditions and design parameters, but one can not find the subtle details of the numerical analysis (stabilisation, integration methods, adaptation strategies, etc.), and these details are important, since diffusive processes have numerical stiffness; without futher information, figures 8 and 10 suggest that a slight unestability is present, which raises doubts on the results. Having in mind the sound validation data, in order to be able to reproduce the simulation, the more detail is given in the paper, the better.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study employed Ecotect software for simulating and analyzing the light and thermal conditions of a double-slope greenhouse shade system，to improve the uniformity of light distribution and optimize the light and thermal environment inside the shade room. To investigate the optimal spacing and width of roof windows. Results demonstrated that a double-slope greenhouse with roof windows of 300 mm width spaced at 3000 mm intervals achieved optimal performance. This configuration yielded a light distribution uniformity of 74.4% and an average temperature of 8.1°C. At the same time, I have doubts about some parts of the paper, and I hope the authors will respond to the confusion I have raised and elaborate on it.
1. Introduction, the overall length is still too simple, it is suggested to change, for example there are fewer references to Ecotect software.
2. The format of Tables 1 and 2 needs to be adjusted.At the same time, please explain emphatically why the simulated greenhouse size does not match the actual size, and no reasonable mathematical relationship has been found between the two.
3. Line 134-146, Figure 2 should be explained in more detail, or other drawing methods should be used to express the position of the greenhouse window opening, directly using the model in the software, where the relevant content of the window opening cannot be intuitively understood.
4. The preface and the following have always mentioned that the length of the thermal insulation blanket affects the performance of the solar greenhouse. Can you explain in detail whether the length or width of the solar greenhouse affects the light environment of the greenhouse?
5. The image quality of the format and annotation in Figure 3 is very inadequate, and it is suggested to modify it again. For example, there are fingers in the upper left corner of the first picture, and the annotations in Figure 2 are all white.
6. Regarding the experimental setup, should the light radiation probe be placed horizontally, is the small model reasonable: is the physical property parameter taken into account? Are structural parameters taken into account in the model?
7. In the results of Figure 8, as for the notes, the five figures are all the same, can we use one and adjust its clarity at the same time? As for the results of this figure, do the gables on both sides of the east and west not shade the interior? The results show that the ground light interception is uniform.
8. Line 361-363, Can 200-400 lux indicate uneven illumination, and should the analysis result be explained with a more reasonable value?
9. The details of Table 3 need to be revised. The illumination value needs to be corrected.
10. With regard to the results, the performance analysis between light and heat should be added, and the performance of the action between the two can be further analyzed on the topic and the performance of the designed greenhouse.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In order to improve the uniformity of light distribution and optimize the light and thermal environment inside the shade room for double-slope greenhouse, this paper employed Ecotect software for simulating and analyzing the light and thermal conditions of a double-slope greenhouse shade system. At the same time, experiments were carried out to validate the simulation.
Finally, the study received the optimal spacing and width of roof windows.
There are some suggestions
1) About spacing and width of roof windows, it is suggested to introduce the related researches in the part 1.
Now there are not enough introduction about them.
2) There are five double-slpe greenhouses, and the paper recieved the optimal size.
Do the five types of greenhouses differ in the actual investment and construction process? Suggest adding a little more discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper aims at studying the optimal spacing and width of roof windows of a double-slope greenhouse.
The problem of study is very relevant.
In the previous review round I posed a strong question (from the numerical point of view). It has been addressed satisfactorily. In my opinion, the paper is ready for publication.
Author Response
We appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewers. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The modification of the preface has basically met the requirements, and the preface has been well modified in terms of length and content, so that this part of the content is basically complete. 2. Image quality has improved, but images 9 and 11 are still lacking in clarity. At the same time, when the five simulation output pictures mentioned last time are marked as one picture note, the other four can be omitted to improve the clarity of a single one and make the picture more objective. 3. Figure 4 is marked as a 1:8 scale model, which meets 1:8 in terms of the height of the greenhouse, but there is a problem with this ratio in terms of the width. Please make more reasonable adjustments to this language description. 4. The test was conducted in the eastern part of the greenhouse, and the actual data used in the model verification should be discussed whether the eastern gable has any influence on the data collected in this area.Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor repairs can be done for the remaining local problems.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the significant suggestions. Considering the reviewer’s suggestions, we have revised the contents of some parts.
Comments 1: The modification of the preface has basically met the requirements, and the preface has been well modified in terms of length and content, so that this part of the content is basically complete.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the modifications to the preface. I am pleased to hear that the changes in length and content have met your expectations and that this section is now considered complete. I appreciate your valuable input and support throughout the review process.
Comments 2: Image quality has improved, but images 9 and 11 are still lacking in clarity. At the same time, when the five simulation output pictures mentioned last time are marked as one picture note, the other four can be omitted to improve the clarity of a single one and make the picture more objective.
Response 2: Agree. Accordingly, Figures 9 and 11 have been consolidated into a single image with an updated caption, and the clarity of the image has been improved.
Comments 3: Figure 4 is marked as a 1:8 scale model, which meets 1:8 in terms of the height of the greenhouse, but there is a problem with this ratio in terms of the width. Please make more reasonable adjustments to this language description.
Response 3: Agree. I have, accordingly, added an explanation of the model's scale in lines 208-214 on page 7. The content is as follows:
Due to the south-facing orientation of the greenhouse glazing, most of the interior are-as, except for those near the east and west gables, experience a relatively uniform light environment along the length direction. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse length on the internal light environment can be considered negligible. Considering the con-straints of the experimental conditions, the constructed greenhouse model approxi-mates a 1:8 ratio in terms of span and height, though this ratio is not maintained along the length direction.
Comments 4: The test was conducted in the eastern part of the greenhouse, and the actual data used in the model verification should be discussed whether the eastern gable has any influence on the data collected in this area.
Response 4: Agree. Accordingly, I have added a discussion on the impact of the east gable on the test results in lines 423-428 on page 13. The content is as follows:
During the actual testing process, it was observed that the east gable causes shading in the nearby areas, resulting in lower light intensity compared to other regions. The sim-ulation also accounted for the shading effect of the gables. The results indicate that both the simulated and measured data show a slight reduction in light intensity near the east gable, with discrepancies between the two being within 10%.
