Analyzing Atrium Volume Designs for Hot and Humid Climates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research question is current in the regulatory and design framework and interesting for professionals and specialists in the sector (133 - 136). The literature review is well structured with a focus on technologies and heritage even in contexts other than those dealt with (such as china 120).

To make the results more meaningful, I would suggest specifying in the discussion / conclusions how the proposed simulations can guide the distribution, technological and construction choices both in the design of the new and in the intervention of regeneration.

Author Response

 

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper topic is of interest, and the document is generally well organized.

Before its final publication, however, it is important to improve / clarify some last aspects:

the research study investigates several windows configurations, assessing the corresponding ambient conditions. As far as windows and facades are part of buildings, however, it would be important to mention (in the revised introduction) that "structural" aspects can represent an additional challenge for design. This is the case of simple windows but especially complex facades, up to dynamic facades, where mechanical and thermal boundaries modify continuously and can possibly affect the mechanical performance of materials. Relevant considerations can be drawn in the revised paper with the support of these additional references: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710218311306?via%3Dihub and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710219300373?via%3Dihub section 4.1: this chapter must be rewritten. In the sense that the organization and presentation of results is actually not clear. The chapter is very long, and for the reader it is hard to follow a logical flow in the discussion. Please consider to shorten it, and / or add more sub-sections one weak  of the paper is represented by charts, whose readability is hard and requires interventions. Do the legend is significant for their understanding? If so, moving the charts to a final annex of the paper (where full page charts could be presented) would be beneficial for the reader. Or simply re-shape the current charts the actual section of "conclusions" must be shortened. Take advantage of bullet point lists, if needed, to emphasize methods and major results

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study analyzes optimum atrium volume design in hot and humid climate.

The research question they raised is not novel but worth the investigation. However, there are some gaps in the work, especially in the description of the methods and the presentation of the results that do not allow to adequately understand the work done.

 Here are my comments:

- The objective of the research is not clearly described. it is described in the review paragraph. in my opinion it deserves an independent paragraph.

- The type of building analyzed should be described more accurately. what is the typical plant? Are the offices open space? In my opinion, inserting a plant, even if with a variable atrium position, could help to understand better.

- What is the difference between medium-rise building and high-rise building? How many floors?

- In my opinion the research methodology should be better described.

- The results are described as a list of data. perhaps making comparative tables could better organize the amount of data and help us with reading and final evaluations.

- In my opinion the conclusions should better clarify what implications in terms of design have had such comfort analyzes. what final indications can be transferred?

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The study proposes to analyze different configurations of a central atrium used as a ventilation chimney in order to determine the correct thermal comfort.

The research is interesting, but there are some aspects that should be clarified and improved in the paper to better understand the real feasibility of the system.

The “Introduction” should be improved and synthetically reduced referring to a complete and exhaustive state of the art on this matter, considering and comparing simulation and experimental literature approaches and methodologies. 

From the paper it is not possible to know the orientation of the building analyzed and the position relative to other buildings if they have been taken into account in the simulations.

It would be beneficial to improve the study and analysis/application approach providing discussed and improved comparisons with the obtained experimental data in the form of graphics and/or tables. For example it would be useful for the reader a table with the parameters of PPD e PMV of every simulation and relating to the limit parameters.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been largely revised, and this is appreciated. Thanks

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have answered most of my previous comments. I believe the paper is improved.