Optimization and Prediction of Different Building Forms for Thermal Energy Performance in the Hot Climate of Cairo Using Genetic Algorithm and Machine Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Objectives and methodology are clear. The results equally so. Some issues, however, are poorly understood and need to be better explained:

1-do the shape variations maintain the same volume as the cube-shaped reference building? I imagine so.

2- What do the Attributes for each parameter refer to, e.g. numbered 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9? There is no table describing them, apart from the one referring to static parameters (Table 5).

3-The numbering of the Figures needs to be rechecked: it goes from 8 to 13.

it is suggested to better explain these aspects and to make the results more usable for architects by making explicit, for example, dimensional variations in plan and elevation and not only geometric, material characteristics of the envelope.

It is also suggested that the bibliography be arranged: the numbering is replicated. I would move the comma within the titles after the inverted commas.

The numbering of the paragraphs is incomplete. Paragraphs 3 and 3.1 and their titles are missing. The graphics of the paragraph headings are inconsistent some in bold, others in italics and above all not consequential.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed paper presents interesting and applicable research concerning office building form generation methods. The annual thermal energy consumption of the analyzed building concepts is analyzed. The main novelty of the research is the application of the Artificial Neural Network prediction model for the analysis of the effect of possible architectural forms on the energetic efficiency of the building. The carried out research is applicable as it can serve as guidance for architects. The proposed title of the paper represents the content of the manuscript. The principal results, the major conclusions, and the research methodology are described in the abstract. The authors properly presented the scientific background and the state-of-art of the investigated issues in the introduction section and referenced the up-to-date literature. The workflow is presented in the form of a diagram (figure 1) but it could be also generally described in the text of the manuscript. The results are adequately discussed and clearly presented, however, I recommend increasing the font size of the axis in figures 8 and 13. The conclusions are correctly drawn based on the obtained results. Some editorial issues should be corrected: figure 13 should be figure 9; reference numbers are doubled. Despite the above-mentioned minor issues, the paper is interesting, novel and of high applicability. Therefore, I recommend accepting it after minor revision.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf