Assessing Overheating Risks in Moderately Insulated Irish Social Housing: Analysis of Building Energy Ratings and Indoor Temperature Profiles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear respected authors,   While the paper addresses an interesting topic, it is not publishable in its current form.       The most critical issue lies in the incorrect use of formulas and criteria. For example, Equation 3 is applied falsely, and this error extends to its usage in Table 1. Furthermore, the application of the PH criteria throughout a specific period (May to September), does not align with standard practices (24hr occupancy all year). Please clarify why you use different criteria to ass the sample.   Important citations are absent from the literature review, including key works such as the REHVA Resilience Guidebook, Heiselberg et al. 2016 (overheating residential). Incorporating these references is essential to provide a comprehensive context for your study.   The discussion section requires significant reworking, as it currently repeats many of the results. Instead, it should focus on interpreting and characterizing the findings, acknowledging any limitations, and discussing the broader implications of your work.   Minor comments:   In Table 3, it would be helpful to calculate and present the percentage of cases that fail for each BER. Additionally, the characteristics and specifications of the sensors used in your study are not included. I recommend transferring graphs and figures of minor importance to an appendix.   Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to thank you for your careful evaluation of our manuscript and for providing us with encouraging and constructive feedback.

In the revised version, we have updated the title of the manuscript to " Assessing Overheating Risks in Moderately Insulated Irish Social Housing: Analysis of Building Energy Ratings and Indoor Temperature Profiles."

Given that living rooms constitute the majority of the recorded zones and that there is considerable variability among other zone types, direct comparisons based on percentage distribution were deemed impractical. Therefore, this study focuses on the 900 living rooms as the primary occupancy spaces to assess overheating risks.

In this context, the bedroom data, including the associated table and figure, have been removed from the revised manuscript. However, the findings and results related to bedrooms are now presented in the discussion section to provide additional context (p.16, lines 570-589).

All changes made, along with the addressed reviewer comments, are highlighted in yellow throughout the revised manuscript.

Furthermore, we have reviewed and incorporated the following comments:

Comment 1:

Dear respected authors, While the paper addresses an interesting topic, it is not publishable in its current form. The most critical issue lies in the incorrect use of formulas and criteria. For example, Equation 3 is applied falsely, and this error extends to its usage in Table 1. Furthermore, the application of the PH criteria throughout a specific period (May to September), does not align with standard practices (24hr occupancy all year). Please clarify why you use different criteria to ass the sample.  

 

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the use of PH criteria.

This comment is addressed in Section 3.4.1 where the correct conditions for PH duration are highlighted in yellow (p.10, line 381-386), and Figure 4 (p.10, line 388-389).

The authors acknowledge the consideration of PH criteria annually. However, in this study, the criteria were evaluated seasonally from May to September 2022 to focus on the critical summer months, when overheating risks are highest. This approach allows for a more accurate assessment of passive cooling strategies during peak cooling demand, aligning with existing literature (e.g. [83, 84]) that emphasizes seasonal analysis for assessing overheating risks.

By evaluating the period from May to September, we provide a more realistic assessment of overheating risks under relevant conditions, complementing the standard year-round evaluation.

 

Comment 2:

Important citations are absent from the literature review, including key works such as the REHVA Resilience Guidebook, Heiselberg et al. 2016 (overheating residential). Incorporating these references is essential to provide a comprehensive context for your study.  

 

Response:

Thank you for the constructive comments from the reviewer to improve the manuscript. The section has been updated, and additional citations, including the provided reference (p.4, lines 160-171), have been added to the paper and incorporated into section 2: Literature Review, highlighted in yellow, to provide a more comprehensive context for the study.

The updated literature review is also highlighted in yellow for clarity (p.4-7, lines 138-315).

 

Comment 3:

The discussion section requires significant reworking, as it currently repeats many of the results. Instead, it should focus on interpreting and characterizing the findings, acknowledging any limitations, and discussing the broader implications of your work.  

 

Response:

Thanks for drawing our attention to this.

The section has been reworked and updated to focus more on interpreting and characterizing the findings, acknowledging the study’s limitations, and discussing the broader implications of the work.

Section 6. The conclusion is reworked accordingly (p.17, lines 628-642). The updated text is highlighted in yellow for clarity.

 

Comment 4:

Additionally, the characteristics and specifications of the sensors used in your study are not included.

 

Response:

Thanks for pointing these comments out.

The comments are addressed in section 5.1 (p.17, lines 604-608). The data for indoor temperature measurements was provided by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown (DLR) and was not installed by the authors of this work. As with all data of this kind, there is the risk that some of the data points could be misleading. Given the size of the dataset and following the filtering process we believe it is large enough to accommodate those potential issues.

Based on the provided info about the sensors, and mentioned in sectioned 3.1 (p.8, line 325-332), aside from the one-hour interval at which the sensors recorded data, other specifications, accuracy, variations in sensor calibration, or potential measurement errors for the sensors used were not available.

 

Comment 5:

I recommend transferring graphs and figures of minor importance to an appendix.   

 

Response:

Thanks for pointing these comments out.

According to the reviewer's comment,  many figures and one table have been removed from the manuscript. Additionally, some figures and tables have been replaced for better clarity.

It should be mentioned that since living rooms account for the majority of the recorded zones and there is considerable variability among other zone types, direct comparisons based on percentage distribution were considered impractical. Therefore, this study focuses primarily on the 900 living rooms as the key occupancy spaces for assessing overheating risks. In line with this, the details about bedrooms, along with the associated table and figure, have been removed from the revised manuscript. However, the relevant data findings and results of bedrooms are now discussed in the discussion section (p.16, lines 570-589) to provide further context.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates overheating risks in residential buildings in Ireland by analyzing indoor temperature profiles from social housing units.  The study addresses an important issue, however the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form and requires minor revisions. Below are specific concerns that should be addressed in order to improve the clarity, reliability, and impact of the manuscript.

1. The manuscript lacks details regarding the design criteria of the buildings, including  floor area/volume, HVAC systems, etc. Additionally, information on the orientation of the buildings should be included.
2. References are missing for key equations, such as Formula 3 and Formula 4. The authors should provide appropriate citations to support these calculations.
3. In the discussion section the authors mentions the necessity of retrofitting efforts to achieve at least a B rating or higher. It would strengthen the manuscript if the authors also suggested specific retrofitting strategies to mitigate overheating risks.
4. The manuscript does not specify where temperature sensors were placed within the dwellings. Since it is uncommon to have sensors in multiple zones of  residential buildings, the authors should clarify sensor locations and discuss how this might influence the results.
5. The study does not sufficiently address potential uncertainties, such as sensor accuracy such as those used for indoor temperature measurement. Including a brief section discussing these limitations would enhance the transparency and robustness of the findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to thank you for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for providing us with encouraging and constructive feedback. In the revised version, we have updated the title of the manuscript to " Assessing Overheating Risks in Moderately Insulated Irish Social Housing: Analysis of Building Energy Ratings and Indoor Temperature Profiles."

Given that living rooms constitute the majority of the recorded zones and that there is considerable variability among other zone types, direct comparisons based on percentage distribution were deemed impractical. Therefore, this study focuses on the 900 living rooms as the primary occupancy spaces to assess overheating risks.

In this context, the bedroom data, including the associated table and figure, have been removed from the revised manuscript. However, the findings and results related to bedrooms are now presented in the discussion section to provide additional context (p.16, lines 570-589).

All changes made, along with the addressed reviewer comments, are highlighted in yellow throughout the revised manuscript.

Furthermore, we have reviewed and incorporated the following comments:

This manuscript investigates overheating risks in residential buildings in Ireland by analysing indoor temperature profiles from social housing units.  The study addresses an important issue, however, the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form and requires minor revisions. Below are specific concerns that should be addressed in order to improve the clarity, reliability, and impact of the manuscript.

 

Response:

Thank you for the constructive comments from the reviewer to improve the manuscript.

 

Comment 1:
The manuscript lacks details regarding the design criteria of the buildings, including floor area/volume, HVAC systems, etc. Additionally, information on the orientation of the buildings should be included.

 

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comments. The authors agree with your observations.

The comment addressed in the section 5 discussion (p.16, lines 560–569), identified the exact causes of overheating was challenging due to the difficulty in accessing all 100 dwellings. Multiple factors, including behavioural habits, occupancy patterns, building design, insulation levels, ventilation strategies, and sensor placement, among others, could have contributed to the observed trends in overheating.

Therefore, future studies should monitor these factors, alongside variables, to determine the exact causes of exceedance hours and the risk of overheating in dwellings.  This is addressed in section 5.1 limitations and further work (p.17, lines 622–627).

 

Comment 2:

References are missing for key equations, such as Formula 3 and Formula 4. The authors should provide appropriate citations to support these calculations.

 

Response:

Thanks for pointing these comments out.

Appropriate citations and references have been added to section 2.1 (p.5-7, lines 235-315), and section 3.4.2, especially for key equations, such as Formula 3 and Formula 4 (p.10, lines 390-442).

 

Comment 3:

In the discussion section, the authors mention the necessity of retrofitting efforts to achieve at least a B rating or higher. It would strengthen the manuscript if the authors also suggested specific retrofitting strategies to mitigate overheating risks.

 

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comment. The example of strategies to mitigate overheating risks added to the manuscript is addressed in section 5.1 limitations and further work (p.17-17, lines 594–627). With suggested specific retrofitting strategies to mitigate overheating risks in lines 617–6619).

 

 

Comment 4:

-The manuscript does not specify where temperature sensors were placed within the dwellings. Since it is uncommon to have sensors in multiple zones of residential buildings, the authors should clarify sensor locations and discuss how this might influence the results.

-The study does not sufficiently address potential uncertainties, such as sensor accuracy such as those used for indoor temperature measurement. Including a brief section discussing these limitations would enhance the transparency and robustness of the findings.

 

Response:

The authors are grateful for your comment.

The data for indoor temperature measurements was provided by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown (DLR) and was not installed by the authors of this work. As with all data of this kind, there is the risk that some of the data points could be misleading. Given the size of the dataset and following the filtering process we believe it is large enough to accommodate those potential issues. Comment addressed in Section 5.1 (p.17, line 604-608).

Based on the provided info about the sensors, and mentioned in sectioned 3.1 (p.8, line 324-332), aside from the one-hour interval at which the sensors recorded data, other specifications, accuracy, placement, and variations in sensor calibration, or potential measurement errors for the sensors used were not available.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

The analysis of the incidence of overheating in homes presented in the manuscript is certainly interesting from a practical point of view, and it may serve as the basis for other studies in other regions with similar or different climates. In addition, the results can be directly used to eliminate the problem of dwelling overheating in the considered area during their modernization. In general, the study left a positive impression, but several comments require your explanations and, possibly, correction of the manuscript.

 

 

1. In Chapter 5 (p.22, lines 551-553), as a method to increase the energy efficiency of dwellings and reduce the risk of overheating, it is proposed to modernize houses, thereby increasing their BER to B and higher. However, it seems that the reconstruction of a huge number of houses in a limited period can be very costly from an economic point of view. At the same time, given the moderate values of residential overheating in the summer shown in the work, a more rational way to solve the issue of overheating may be to use modern efficient air conditioning systems with a short payback period and a long service life. This issue can be considered in further research.

 

2. What is the reason for decreasing the number of dwellings for analysis from 1100 to 943 (p.9, line 352)?

 

3. Why was 2022 chosen for the analysis? The paper mentions that this year’s summer was abnormally hot (p.1, line 83) and it might have been worth choosing a longer year, with summer temperatures closer to the average over the last decade. This could influence the conclusions reached in the study.

 

4. A table of BER values from A to G can be added to the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We would like to thank you for your careful evaluation of our manuscript and for providing us with encouraging and constructive feedback. In the revised version, we have updated the title of the manuscript to " Assessing Overheating Risks in Moderately Insulated Irish Social Housing: Analysis of Building Energy Ratings and Indoor Temperature Profiles."

Given that living rooms constitute the majority of the recorded zones and that there is considerable variability among other zone types, direct comparisons based on percentage distribution were deemed impractical. Therefore, this study focuses on the 900 living rooms as the primary occupancy spaces to assess overheating risks.

In this context, the bedroom data, including the associated table and figure, have been removed from the revised manuscript. However, the findings and results related to bedrooms are now presented in the discussion section to provide additional context (p.16, lines 570-589).

All changes made, along with the addressed reviewer comments, are highlighted in yellow throughout the revised manuscript.

Furthermore, we have reviewed and incorporated the following comments:

Reviewer #3:

The analysis of the incidence of overheating in homes presented in the manuscript is certainly interesting from a practical point of view, and it may serve as the basis for other studies in other regions with similar or different climates. In addition, the results can be directly used to eliminate the problem of dwelling overheating in the considered area during their modernization. In general, the study left a positive impression, but several comments require your explanations and, possibly, correction of the manuscript.

Response: 

Thank you for the constructive comments from the reviewer to improve the manuscript.

 

Comment 1:

In Chapter 5 (p.22, lines 551-553), as a method to increase the energy efficiency of dwellings and reduce the risk of overheating, it is proposed to modernize houses, thereby increasing their BER to B and higher. However, it seems that the reconstruction of a huge number of houses in a limited period can be very costly from an economic point of view. At the same time, given the moderate values of residential overheating in the summer shown in the work, a more rational way to solve the issue of overheating may be to use modern efficient air conditioning systems with a short payback period and a long service life. This issue can be considered in further research.

 

 Response:

Thank you for the constructive comments from the reviewer to improve the manuscript. risks Comment addressed in section 5.1 limitations and further work (p.17, lines 620–621).

 

Comment 2:

What is the reason for decreasing the number of dwellings for analysis from 1100 to 943 (p.9, line 352)?

 

 Response:

Thanks for the reviewer's comment.

The reduction from 1100 to 943 dwellings was due to filtering the full 2022 dataset for the summer period (May 1st to September 30th). During this period, some dwellings did not have complete indoor temperature data. Consequently, 943 dwellings with consistent and reliable data were selected for the overheating risk assessment. The comment is addressed in (p.8, line 333-341).

However, in the revised manuscript, given that living rooms constitute the majority of recorded zones and that significant variability exists among other zone types, direct comparisons based on percentage distribution were deemed impractical. Therefore, this study focuses on the 900 living rooms as primary occupancy spaces to assess overheating risk. This clarification is addressed in (p.8, line 342-346).

 

Comment 3:

Why was 2022 chosen for the analysis? The paper mentions that this year’s summer was abnormally hot (p.1, line 83) and it might have been worth choosing a longer year, with summer temperatures closer to the average over the last decade. This could influence the conclusions reached in the study.

 

 Response:

Thanks for the reviewer's comment.

The year 2022 was chosen for this analysis because the indoor temperature data was provided by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown (DLR) for this specific period. The analysis of indoor temperatures commenced with the 2022 dataset as it was the most recent and comprehensive data available at the time of the study.

We acknowledge the reviewer's point regarding the unusually hot summer of 2022 potentially influencing the study's conclusions. A longer-term analysis, including multiple years with summer temperatures closer to the decade's average, would indeed provide a more robust assessment of overheating risks. If additional data from previous years become available from DLR, future studies could extend this analysis to compare trends over a longer period.

The selected period from May to September represents the five non-heating months when overheating is most likely to occur. This timeframe is consistent with existing literature on overheating risks in temperate climates, ensuring that the analysis captures the most relevant period for assessing occupant thermal comfort.

 

Comment 4:

A table of BER values from A to G can be added to the manuscript.

 

Response:

Thanks for the reviewer's comment

Table 1 (p.12, lines 459-460), replaced with the previous BER figure.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of the article