Inward and Outward Opening Properties of One-Sided Windcatchers: Experimental and Analytical Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In the Abstract section, the sentence “and Lantern – that can help buildings to depend on natural energy from the sun and the wind –“ used the “-“ punctuation. I suggest that revise the “-“ by “,”.
2. The “wind catcher (Malqaf)” is the main subject in this study. Please provide more explanation for its history and function in the Instruction section.
3. Both “wind catcher” and “windcatcher” are used in the manuscript. Please unify it.
4. Line 72-80, I suggest listing these contents by a table. And to add a row at the top of this table to show the representative contents of each column.
5. Figure 1, please indicate which part is the “wind catcher” in this figure.
6. Line 88,206, 247, 250, 310, 348, 356, and 424, the references are shown as“Error!, Reference source not found”. Please double-check all of these references.
7. There are two Section 3 with different subheadings in line 177 and Line 211; please clarify.
8. Figure 2, please revise those words in upright formats, such as Computer study, to horizontal.
9. Figure 3 is unclear; please improve the figure quality.
10. Please rewrite the caption of Figure 5.
11. Line 487, it is concluded that “the second floor has been cooled down faster than the other two flours”. Please clarify whether it is “the other two flours” or “the other two floors”?
12. I recommend reasonably shortening the Conclusion section. It seems unnecessary to repeat the background information in the Conclusion section.

Author Response

1. In the Abstract section, the sentence “and Lantern – that can help buildings to depend on natural energy from the sun and the wind –“ used the “-“ punctuation. I suggest that revise the “-“ by “,”.

Response: Done

1. The “wind catcher (Malqaf)” is the main subject in this study. Please provide more explanation for its history and function in the Instruction section.

Response: An additional part has been added to the introduction “Line 45-116”

1. Both “wind catcher” and “windcatcher” are used in the manuscript. Please unify it.

Response: All of them have been unified to “windcatcher”

1. Line 72-80, I suggest listing these contents by a table. And to add a row at the top of this table to show the representative contents of each column.

Response: A new table has been added in line 149, Table 1: Arabic terms of the Passive cooling Devices and its meaning

1. Figure 1, please indicate which part is the “wind catcher” in this figure.

Response: Done

1. Line 88,206, 247, 250, 310, 348, 356, and 424, the references are shown as“Error!, Reference source not found”. Please double-check all of these references.

Response: Corrected “Lines 297, 488, …etc”

1. There are two Section 3 with different subheadings in line 177 and Line 211; please clarify.

Response: The second section was repeated, (deleted) “317”

1. Figure 2, please revise those words in upright formats, such as Computer study, to horizontal.

Response: Done

1. Figure 3 is unclear; please improve the figure quality.

Response: Done

1. Please rewrite the caption of Figure 5.

Response: Done

1. Line 487, it is concluded that “the second floor has been cooled down faster than the other two flours”. Please clarify whether it is “the other two flours” or “the other two floors”?

Response: Corrected “Line 592”

1. I recommend reasonably shortening the Conclusion section. It seems unnecessary to repeat the background information in the Conclusion section.

Response: The first paragraph has been removed “Lines 574 - 583”

Reviewer 2 Report

The study, although quite sectoral and specific, is interesting and the topic seems to be original and in line with the scope of the Special Issue of the Journal. The paper is well-organized, but the English needs substantial improvement, some parts are quite difficult to follow. Methodology and performed analyses seem to be objective.

However, in my opinion, some issues in the current version need to be addressed before the article can be published.

• References consistency: References are often missing throughout the text (“Error! Reference source not found”), especially in the Results and Discussion section (and specifically those regarding previous works by the authors), which makes it difficult to follow the discussion thread. reported in capital letters in the reference section while they are not throughout the entire paper, this is a bit confusing.

• The Introduction is a bit too short, in my opinion it is missing some text clearly stating the object of the work. This letter is, instead, reported at the end of Section 2, at page 4, Lines 163-176. Would it be possible to rearrange the text?

• Research findings seem to be coherent (even though the missing references make it hard to clearly understand that).

• The conclusions are more similar to an extension of the discussions, part of the text reported in the Conclusion section should go in Results and Discussion, in my opinion. Additionally, the Conclusion section could benefit a more sound point of view of the authors in light of the results of the performed work and of its possible future developments.

• Template consistency: Please check the template instructions. For instance:
  • In between lines 210 and 211 it is reported “3. Methods and materials”, which was already present at line 177
  • At line 259 “3.2.1. Mathematical Modelling:” should be in italics;
  • Figure 10 should be repositioned.

• Page 2, Line 71, “[5-7, 13]” too many lumped references, it could be argued whether or not the authors actually read all these papers. Try to expand more and/or divide references (since I suppose the text reported before and/or afterwards refer to these references), avoiding more than 3 lumped references per sentence. The same goes for page 4, line 179, “[8, 24, 25, 42-44]”.

• Page 2, Lines 72-80: I think this part could be put as a Table.

• Page 6, lines 237-237: I think the sentence “Pre-modelling analysis includes a spatial analysis, boundary condition and model setting” should go in bullet point 1) instead of 4).

In light of these considerations, I recommend acceptance after revision.

Author Response

The study, although quite sectoral and specific, is interesting and the topic seems to be original and in line with the scope of the Special Issue of the Journal. The paper is well-organized, but the English needs substantial improvement, some parts are quite difficult to follow. Methodology and performed analyses seem to be objective.

However, in my opinion, some issues in the current version need to be addressed before the article can be published.

•  References consistency: References are often missing throughout the text (“Error! Reference source not found”), especially in the Results and Discussion section (and specifically those regarding previous works by the authors), which makes it difficult to follow the discussion thread. reported in capital letters in the reference section while they are not throughout the entire paper, this is a bit confusing.

Response: Sorry for this mistake. References have been fixed. Corrected

• The Introduction is a bit too short, in my opinion it is missing some text clearly stating the object of the work. This letter is, instead, reported at the end of Section 2, at page 4, Lines 163-176. Would it be possible to rearrange the text?

Response: An additional part has been added to the introduction “Line 45 -116” and the part from  270 – 283, has been moved to line 103 – 116.

• Research findings seem to be coherent (even though the missing references make it hard to clearly understand that).

 Response: References have been fixed, thank you

• The conclusions are more similar to an extension of the discussions, part of the text reported in the Conclusion section should go in Results and Discussion, in my opinion. Additionally, the Conclusion section could benefit a more sound point of view of the authors in light of the results of the performed work and of its possible future developments.

 Response: The conclusion has been revised, one part has been removed and another art has been added for future work “Line 620 - 623”

• Template consistency: Please check the template instructions. For instance:
• In between lines 210 and 211 it is reported “3. Methods and materials”, which was already present at line 177

Response: The second section was repeated, (deleted) “317”

• At line 259 “3.2.1. Mathematical Modelling:” should be in italics;

Response: All Heading3 modified to be italic.

• Figure 10 should be repositioned.

 Response: the size of the Figures has been resized to reposition the table into the window margins. 

• Page 2, Line 71, “[5-7, 13]” too many lumped references, it could be argued whether or not the authors actually read all these papers. Try to expand more and/or divide references (since I suppose the text reported before and/or afterwards refer to these references), avoiding more than 3 lumped references per sentence. The same goes for page 4, line 179, “[8, 24, 25, 42-44]”.

 Response: the references [5-7, 13] in page 2 line 71 (Line 149 in the edited version), refer to the most famouos references for the most famous pinoeers in traditional architecture and passive strategies nd techniques, these Hassan Fathy, Paul Oliver and Baruch Givoni.  No author can talk about passive techniques without mentioning them. In addition that every reference was entioned before this line in the previous text. Refere to lines “102, 103, and 114”

For page 4, line 179, “[8, 24, 25, 42-44]”. (Line 286 in the edited version), all these references refer to my previous research on developing the research methodology and its application on reality and also they were cited before in the previous text in different parts of the article.

I would like to confirm to you that I did not cite any reference without reading it and using it in the paper. However, to respond to your comment, I removed the duplication in the reference citation.

• Page 2, Lines 72-80: I think this part could be put as a Table.

 Response: Done (Line 149 in the edited version)

• Page 6, lines 237-237: I think the sentence “Pre-modelling analysis includes a spatial analysis, boundary condition and model setting” should go in bullet point 1) instead of 4).

 Response: Definitely, you are right. The sentence has been moved as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors investigated the impact of the inward and outward opening properties of one-sided wind catchers design on the airflow inside the buildings. The topic is interesting and I know the importance to study and analyse wind catcher as passive techniques to ventilate buildings. However, this paper does not reach the adequate quality to be published by this high-quality journal. The authors carried out CFD simulations in Fluent environment. However, the only use of software cannot be published by international journal. Following my general and specific comments on this paper.

My general comments are:

1. Introduction section: sentences are not related to each other. Many topics are reported without the proper definition. For example, Internal Air Quality (lines 26-27); The main element disrupting the ventilation (lines 31-32); Malqaf outlet (lines 34-35); Bernoulli Effect or Venturi action (lines 35-36); Barricades (lines 37-38); Air humidity (lines 38-39); Baffles (lines 40-41). Therefore, this section should be rewritten because it does not provide the suitable information to the reader to understand the topic.
2. The authors stated the paper aim in lines 44-49. However, these objectives are different from that one defined in the abstract and I don’t understand the reason. This creates confusion into the reader. In addition, these objectives (i.e. investigate the previous related works; acquire information regarding the hourly climate; analyse the effectiveness of the guidelines) are not suitable for a scientific paper.
3. Reviewing previous studies cannot be the aim of the paper as the authors defined because I know that it is part of the research method. Every research started from analysing previous papers. I agree with the authors in creating a section for literature review. However, at the end of this section there is no lack of knowledge that the authors want to fill with this study.
4. The authors defined two different materials and methods section (line 177 and line 210). This is a big misunderstanding because I know that this section should be unique. Research cannot be conducted using two different methods.

My specific comments are:

1. Line 42: “These” but which one? I do not understand.
2. Lines 52, 150, 152, 157: references should be formatted properly.
3. Lines 72-80: I suggest the authors creating a table.
4. Line 82: reference 26 is not correct because the previous reference is [13] and the next one is [14].
5. Line 84: Reference is missing in Sanij et. al.
6. The are several reference sources that are missing, e.g. line 88, line 181, line 206, line 247, line 250, line 310, line 348, line 356, line 357, line 424, line 428, line 440, line 445, line 448, line 451.
7. Reference section should not be numbered.
8. Figures 5 to 8 are placed into the same figure. I ask the authors to create separate figures.
9. Equations 6 to 10 are not well-paginated.
10. Caption of table 2 is in red I do not understand the reason.
11. Lines 279-306: I suggest the authors to create a glossary section at the end of the paper.
12. I suggest the authors changing the first keyword because it is part of the paper title.
13. Tables and Figures should be named along the text and not only as caption.
14. Line 386-387: please rewrite this sentence.

Author Response

The authors investigated the impact of the inward and outward opening properties of one-sided wind catchers design on the airflow inside the buildings. The topic is interesting and I know the importance to study and analyse wind catcher as passive techniques to ventilate buildings. However, this paper does not reach the adequate quality to be published by this high-quality journal. The authors carried out CFD simulations in Fluent environment. However, the only use of software cannot be published by international journal. Following my general and specific comments on this paper.

Response: I could not understand the general comment “However, the only use of software cannot be published by international journal.” 

The paper includes the following:

• Analytical literature review,
• Scale modeling,
• Context analysis

And hence, the simulation is part of the paper for the experimental situations.

The papers, follows a detailed scientific methodology that has been developed by the author over several previous work.

Please, refer to section 3: Materials and Methods

My general comments are:

1. Introduction section: sentences are not related to each other. Many topics are reported without the proper definition. For example, Internal Air Quality (lines 26-27); The main element disrupting the ventilation (lines 31-32); Malqaf outlet (lines 34-35); Bernoulli Effect or Venturi action (lines 35-36); Barricades (lines 37-38); Air humidity (lines 38-39); Baffles (lines 40-41). Therefore, this section should be rewritten because it does not provide the suitable information to the reader to understand the topic.

Response: All these terms and expression are commonly used in this field “Environmental Design of Buildings”. In similar papers, the authors do not define them. However, the Arabic words such as “Malqaf” and “Salsabil” has been defined inside the text and in Table 1, line 149.

1. The authors stated the paper aim in lines 44-49. However, these objectives are different from that one defined in the abstract and I don’t understand the reason. This creates confusion into the reader. In addition, these objectives (i.e. investigate the previous related works; acquire information regarding the hourly climate; analyse the effectiveness of the guidelines) are not suitable for a scientific paper.

Response: The objectives in lines 44-49 “117 – 125 in the edited version” are the objectives that will fulfill the main aim of the research. Since the abstract is limited in the number of words, it can not include the main aim and the objectives. Therefore, the abstract stated the main aim only, while in the introduction the objectives have been listed to explain how the main aim could be fulfilled. 

1. Reviewing previous studies cannot be the aim of the paper as the authors defined because I know that it is part of the research method. Every research started from analysing previous papers. I agree with the authors in creating a section for literature review. However, at the end of this section there is no lack of knowledge that the authors want to fill with this study.

Response: Reviewing the previous studies is an objective and is a part of the scientific methodology to build the preliminary theory that could be tested later in the experiments.

However, I agree with the reviewer that the results of the analysis of the previous work was missing. A new section has been added “lines 246 - 269”

1. The authors defined two different materials and methods section (line 177 and line 210). This is a big misunderstanding because I know that this section should be unique. Research cannot be conducted using two different methods.

Response: The term “methodology” is different than “method”. Any research can follow one methodology “approach”, while it can use serval methods and techniques.

Again, the scientific methodology is an approach that rely on three steps:

1. Record facts from the field, “field study”
2. Building a preliminary theory, “theoretical study”
3. Experimental situation “computer-based study”

You can refer to the “Research methods in education” reference, by L Cohen, L Manion, and K Morrison

 My specific comments are:

1. Line 42: “These” but which one? I do not understand.

Response: the sentence has been fixed. “Line 117 in the edited version”

1. Lines 52, 150, 152, 157: references should be formatted properly.

Response: The references have been fixed

1. Lines 72-80: I suggest the authors creating a table.

Response: Done, thank you

1. Line 82: reference 26 is not correct because the previous reference is [13] and the next one is [14].

Response: The reference has been fixed

1. Line 84: Reference is missing in Sanij et. al.

Response: The reference has been added

1. The are several reference sources that are missing, e.g. line 88, line 181, line 206, line 247, line 250, line 310, line 348, line 356, line 357, line 424, line 428, line 440, line 445, line 448, line 451.

Response: The references have been added

1. Reference section should not be numbered.

Response: Numbering for reference section has been removed

1. Figures 5 to 8 are placed into the same figure. I ask the authors to create separate figures.

Response: The figures have been separated

1. Equations 6 to 10 are not well-paginated.

Response: Fixed

1. Caption of table 2 is in red I do not understand the reason.

Response:Fixed

1. Lines 279-306: I suggest the authors to create a glossary section at the end of the paper.

Response: These are the symbols that have used in the above equation.

1. I suggest the authors changing the first keyword because it is part of the paper title.

Response: Has been changed by “Malqaf”

1. Tables and Figures should be named along the text and not only as caption.

Response: the cross referencing of the figures and tables have been reviewed and completed. 

1. Line 386-387: please rewrite this sentence.

Response: The sentence is removed since it was written by mistake.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

-