Data Analysis and Optimization of Thermal Environment in Underground Commercial Building in Zhengzhou, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Underground shopping mall attracts more attention due to poor ventilation and numerous occupants. This paper thermal envrionment of underground shopping mall from the perspective of functional uses was investigated by field test and optimised by CFD simulaiton. The findings are useful and intresting. The following suggestion are provided for further revision.
1. In section 2.3.3 Boundary condition, how to consider the effect of indoor heat releasing by people on indoor air ? please give the defining condition of people in simualtion.
2. In section 3.3.2. Model validation, in figure 11 the comparion between simulation results and experiment resutls are transient. Please indicate the transient simualtion conditon.
3. How do you cosider the non-uniform ocupancy distribution in different fucntional areas, such as catering, garment and sundry goods area? Please discuss more about this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article deals with indoor environment in underground commercial building in Zhengzhou, China. Measurement results and computer simulation are interesting. However, there are many unclear points in the article. Authors should improve it according to the reviewer’s comments shown below:
1) “3. Results”: Relating with air-distribution system, there is no comment of ventilation flow rate. Authors should describe the air-flow rate and air change rate.
2) “3.3. Simulation optimization –"-: Authors should indicate the air flow rate and air change rate of ventilation system.
3) Table 2: It is difficult to understand the explanation. It is strongly recommended to show the drawings to make clear.
4) Table 2: The meanings of ”column” and “row” in this table should be explained.
5) Line 358-359: “the cold air in summer dropped and then formed a backflow near the dining tables at a height of about 0.6–2 m.”
But, in line 186-187, it is stated that “The tables and counters had no significant impact on the indoor thermal environment and were negligible.”
-> There is a contradiction between the two sentences. Authors should clarify.
6) Line 366: Fig. 9(a, b) and 10(a, d) -> Fig. 9(a, b) and 10(a, b)
7) Line 366-368: “The front side of the dining area was connected to the outside, which was affected by the external temperature.”
But, in line 179-180, it is stated that “There is no temperature difference between the other walls and adjacent rooms, which are in an adiabatic state.”
-> There is a contradiction between the two sentences. Authors should clarify.
8) Line 366-368: “The front side of the dining area was connected to the outside, which was affected by the external temperature.”
Line 371 - 372: “The temperature in the front side of the dining area was low and mainly affected by the outdoor temperature.”
->These two sentences are duplicated.
9) Figure 7: It is better to move the location of (a) and (b) to over (c) and (d).
10) Figure 10: It seems that (a) is the same chart as (b). Also, it seems that (c) is the same as (e).
11) Figure 10: It is unclear to which figures the two displays of temperature on the right side of the figure correspond.
12) Line 412: Figure 10 (b, e) -> Figure 10 (c, e)
13) Line 429: Fig. (c, f) -> Fig. (e, f)
14) Line 480: The definition of temperature difference should be clear.
ΔT = (indoor air temperature) – (wall temperature), or (wall temperature) – (indoor air temperature)
15) Line 482: The definition of C and D should be clear. The way how to calculate these two parameters should be indicated.
16) Figure 15: It is impossible to understand where the plots are. It is strongly recommended to show alternative charts.
17) Line 502-503: Figure 31 -> Figure 15
18) Line 528: “4.2. Comparison for of the three air supply schemes” -> “4.2. Comparison of the three air supply schemes”
19) Line 545: Definition of KT and Kv should be indicated by formula.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find my comments attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was revised almost properly according to the reviewer’s comments. However there two points for authors to add more explanations.
1. Relating to Fig.11, charts (a), (b) and (e) are almost the same.
It is confusing.
1) Chart (a) is for Scheme 1 in summer. Chart (b) is for Scheme 2 in summer. Schemes are different. Also in Fig.10, chart (a) for Scheme 1 in summer and chart (c) is Scheme 2 in summer. There is difference between two charts.
Why the chart (a) and chart (b) of Fig.11 are the almost the same?
2) Chart (a) is for Scheme 1 in summer. Chart (e) is for Scheme 2 in winter. Schemes are different. Also in Fig 10, chart (a) for Scheme 1 in summer and chart (d) is for Scheme 2 in winter. There is totally difference between two charts.
Why the chart (a) and chart (e) of Fig. 11 are the almost the same?
2. Equation (3): Authors should explain how to calculate C and R.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I want to thank the authors for the significant improvements, the manuscript's readability and quality have improved significantly. The comments have been addressed well and I believe the manuscript will be ready for publication with only a few minor corrections as stated below:
- Considering the last paragraph of the introduction: "...contribute to the utilization of underground resources." Why is this contribution important? What does "underground resources" mean? Do you mean the mechanical equipment used to adjust the airflow for the underground floor?
- Although the authors have given the explanation of variables, the units are still missing (eq. 1, eq. 2). E.g., is the considered meter per second (m/s) or feet per minute (f/m) for air velocity? for each equation and variable, the units should be given.
- Most of the figures’ quality should be improved to make sure the numbers and texts are readable.
- The figures' quality in Table 2 should be improved.
- “The first paper has been cited in the introduction, as follows: “Evaluation of ventilation performance of indoor and outdoor space, CFD model is the most relevant method because of cost-effectiveness, informative technique, and proficiency to predict air velocity patterns and ratios in buildings [40]”, on page 2, line 89-92.” Make sure all the papers are cited in the correct numbering order. e.g., the newly added article is cited 40 in the text but 41 in the bibliography reference list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.docx
