Regeneration of Panel Housing Estates from the Perspective of Thermal Technology, Sustainability and Environmental Context (Case Study of the City of Ostrava, Czech Republic)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper address a topic of interest related to degradation of ETICS systems applied to panel housing estate.  

While introduction and proposed method of research (figure 1) promise interesting results and a large literature review is presented, the data monitored are lower and results are mainly addressed to general consideration. While the problem of ETICS degradation is well described, effects of different factors on biodegradation is only qualitatively explained. Then paper must be revised adding more technical analysis, trying to give a more quantitative analysis for the final assessment risk od degradation

In particular following notes/remarks are highlighted

Pag. 7. add a note that humidity content contribute to the reduction of thermal properties of ETICS systems (increase of thermal conductivity)

Pag.10: In Figure 3, the text of location and case studies inside the picture are not evident (change color)

Pag 11: table 3 and related text:

It’s better to modify “Heat transfer coefficient” in “Thermal Transmittance” according to actual standards. It’s not clear what the range of conductivity reported in last column refers to. If it refers to EPS conductivity, does it refer to the range of general declared data of manufactures, to any database, or range of values depending on in situ different conditions ?

Which value of conductivity of EPS and thickness do you consider in calculation of U values?

In case CS5, with BBT with conductivity 0.8 W/mK, how is possible to reach U value of 0.47 W/m2K without thermal insulation layer?

In the note specify the meaning of BBT (also in Tab 6)

Pag 12 paragraph. 2.5: the whole text is not always clear (improve English) and not well structured

Pag 12 row 450: Not clear why temperatures profiles inside the wall lead to water vapour partial pressure . Temperatures define only saturation pressure values.

Figure 10: add caption with the meaning of red and pink lines. What is the “1 zona” ? if lines represents partial and saturation vapour pressure, why there is a condensation zone without ETICS? Which tools software do you use for calculation of condensation? Specify internal and external conditions for calculation                                                     

Pag. 13: Figure 4: in caption the cited colours are different from colours of graph

Pag. 13, row 484: thermographic data and surface temperature values are not well commented: does these values corresponds to an increase of conductivity of materials due to the humidity ? It’s possible to quantify this phenomenon?  

Pag 14: what does the symbol F  means, as reported in many part of the text?  508-520: English must be improved: well known consideration

Pag 15: row 522-528: did You have any PH measurements or data in your case studies to support your consideration?

Pag 16: better specify what is the range of PM considered as “High values “ , which action high PM values makes on physical phenomenon and/or in which way they affects the biodegradation

Pag 16 row 605: wrong reference: Table 7 and not 6

Pag 16-17:  the proposed assessment of risk of deterioration according to different factors is interesting, but not well improved.  why do You consider a range of assessment 1 to 5? What are differences between 1-3 or 4-5 (qualitatively and quantitatively)? , Why In your assessment presented in table 7 you consider only 2 different values : <1-3> and <4-5> ?

There is not any evaluation of possible weight factors for different characters

Figure 8 gives only information on the presence of differetn characters (building and environment factors) but doesn't give information on "prediction of biodeterization" and is not correlated to effective condition of case studies

Figure 8

Author Response

R1

• 7. add a note that humidity content contribute to the reduction of thermal properties of ETICS systems (increase of thermal conductivity)

Completed, see manuscript (red color).

• 10:In Figure 3, the text of location and case studies inside the picture are not evident (change color)

Image and text edited.

• It’s better to modify “Heat transfer coefficient” in “Thermal Transmittance” according to actual standards. It’s not clear what the range of conductivity reported in last column refers to. If it refers to EPS conductivity, does it refer to the range of general declared data of manufactures, to any database, or range of values depending on in situ different conditions ?

Corrected in the text, and explained with a note under the table, and for review R1.

• Which value of conductivity of EPS and thickness do you consider in calculation of U values?

It is a value of 0.034 - 0.033, according to the year of production of the EPS material, values according to Teplo software support, database.

• In case CS5, with BBT with conductivity 0.8 W/mK, how is possible to reach U value of 0.47 W/m2K without thermal insulation layer?

Thermal conductivity, value according to the characteristics of the materials (0.8-0.9), whether it is clinker or silicate. The value in the table has been corrected, it was entered incorrectly.

• In the note specify the meaning of BBT (also in Tab 6).

Explained.

• Pag 12 2.5: the whole text is not always clear (improve English) and not well structured.

The structure of the entire text is in the form of bullet points, it is a summary.

English language - proofread by a native speaker. The entire text (manuscript) including proofreading was sent to MDPI publishing house.

• Pag 12 row 450: Not clear why temperatures profiles inside the wall lead to water vapour partial pressure . Temperatures define only saturation pressure values.
• Figure 10: add caption with the meaning of red and pink lines. What is the “1 zona” ? if lines represents partial and saturation vapour pressure, why there is a condensation zone without ETICS? Which tools software do you use for calculation of condensation? Specify internal and external conditions for calculation

Considering development of parameters relating to thermal performance, moisture or energy, it is clear now that the external cladding of prefabricated panel buildings is not sufficient any more. Figure prove that the external cladding of the residential houses made from panel blocks in the Case study (based on slag pum-ice-concrete and gas silicate) are not compliant with such requirements anymore; and show development of water vapour pressure with a condensing zone on the curtain wall.

Development of the water vapour pressure was checked in accordance with requirements set forth in CSN 73 0540  Software–Heat. The horizontal axis shows the equivalent diffusion thickness, sd [m], while the vertical axis shows distribution of water vapour steam in the external cladding P [Pa].

• 13: Figure 4: in caption the cited colours are different from colours of graph.

The picture will be removed, another opponent's request (because he copied the table).

• 13, row 484: thermographic data and surface temperature values are not well commented: does these values corresponds to an increase of conductivity of materials due to the humidity ? It’s possible to quantify this phenomenon? 

The values support the condition of the materials due to increased humidity (risk locations in the perimeter casing, predicting the occurrence of biodeterization). Quantification was not done and it was not the purpose of the work and observation.

• Pag 14: what does the symbolF  means, as reported in many part of the text?  508-520: English must be improved: well known consideration

Not obvious F, the text probably changed some symbols, nothing is visible at the moment.

• Pag 15: row 522-528: did You have any PH measurements or data in your case studies to support your consideration?

We were based on theoretical values and knowledge.

• Pag 16: better specify what is the range of PM considered as “High values “ , which action high PM values makes on physical phenomenon and/or in which way they affects the biodegradation

Text added.

• Pag 16 row 605: wrong reference: Table 7 and not 6.

Corrected.

• Pag 16-17: the proposed assessment of risk of deterioration according to different factors is interesting, but not well improved.  why do You consider a range of assessment 1 to 5? What are differences between 1-3 or 4-5 (qualitatively and quantitatively)? , Why In your assessment presented in table 7 you consider only 2 different values : <1-3> and <4-5> ?

In the articles that have already been published, the author used probabilistic analysis for the assessment of defects and malfunctions in panel housing construction, or multi-criteria analysis.

A classification scale of 1-5 was used for some phenomena (to evaluate the influence or connection of the color of the external plaster - the area is not part of this thesis, it was not published).

The purpose of the mentioned evaluation in the text, with regard to the complexity of the environmental evaluation, was to qualitatively evaluate the issue: favorable and acceptable, and less favorable.

• Here is not any evaluation of possible weight factors for different characters.

Weighting was not set because a multi-criteria method would have to be used.

E.g. Quantification of biodegradation manifestations, e.g. expressed by area, is very difficult and I believe that it would not lead to correct conclusions.

• Figure 8 gives only information on the presence of differetn characters (building and environment factors) but doesn't give information on "prediction of biodeterization" and is not correlated to effective condition of case studies.

The aim of the image was to promote the fact that environmental assessment is part of the ETICS design. It can be understood as the intersection of sets.

--------------------------------------------

The translation is provided by a certified translation company with native speakers. The university works very well with this company and we have no reason to question its erudition and professionalism. However, a correction has been made and is given in the text (revision in the text).

The final pictures were evaluated positively by other opponents.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presented has a relevant contribution to science. The paper is well-organized and easy to follow. The abstract is clear, and the methodology is adequate. Some notes are highlighted:

·         - Abstract - It is important to complete the abstract with some conclusions about the work (concerning biological degradation, for example).

·        -  State of art - Despite being extensive, the historical context is well applied.

·        -  It is necessary to clarify the acronyms in the text, for example, AVCP (line 70) or EIC (table 3).

·        -  Highlight lines and names in Figure 3. It is not easy to read.

·        -  Table 3 - Yes or no is an “incomplete” answer in this context because we have no idea about the extension of degradation. Why did you not use a reference (qualitative) scale?

·         - Table 3 - It is very important to explain how µ and λ were obtained. Which method and standards were used?

·        -  Table 3 - It is important to explain how satisfactory (or not) are the values shown in this table.

·        -  Figure 4 repeats the information contained in Table 6. Please remove it.

·       -  Figure 6 - Indicate in the photo on the left the area to which the photo on the right refers.

·       -  There are no microorganisms in CS5, despite being the oldest case study. Extend the discussion.

·        -  Table 7 is an important and well-shown result.

Author Response

R2

• Abstract - It is important to complete the abstract with some conclusions about the work (concerning biological degradation, for example).

Added, text.

• State of art - Despite being extensive, the historical context is well applied.
• It is necessary to clarify the acronyms in the text, for example, AVCP (line 70) or EIC (table 3).

Completed.

• Highlight lines and names in Figure 3. It is not easy to read.

Completed, corrected.

• Table 3 - Yes or no is an “incomplete” answer in this context because we have no idea about the extension of degradation. Why did you not use a reference (qualitative) scale?

Yes – removed.

Use the "greater than" symbol.

A descriptive evaluation was used for this purpose.

• Table 3 - It is very important to explain howµ and λ were obtained. Which method and standards were used?

Added - see text.

• Table 3 - It is important to explain how satisfactory (or not) are the values shown in this table.

Added - see text.

• Figure 4 repeats the information contained in Table 6. Please remove it.

Removed.

• Figure 6 - Indicate in the photo on the left the area to which the photo on the right refers.

Marked.

• There are no microorganisms in CS5, despite being the oldest case study. Extend the discussion.

Text added.

• Table 7 is an important and well-shown result.

The translation is provided by a certified translation company with native speakers. The university works very well with this company and we have no reason to question its erudition and professionalism. However, a correction has been made and is given in the text (revision in the text).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I find the article nice and necessary. Just a few comments:

1. The article has only one author, but right in the introduction the author uses the plural (line 15) and also the article builds extensively on five case studies, three of which were co-authored (references 18 to 20). Of course, this is up to the author, but somehow she should also acknowledge her colleagues. After all, it is not just a matter of simple citations, but of presenting the outputs.

2. The caption to Figure 4 talks about yellow and orange, but in the graph itself there are blue and orange columns.

3. In Tables 3 and 5, individual case studies could be separated by lines for clarity.

4. I am not even quite sure of the correctness of the theory that the formation of microorganisms on facades is the result of diffusion of water vapour from the interior to the exterior (lines 313-316), which the author tries to support with the graphs in Figure 10 (which are not even the result of measurements, but of computer simulations). Although she is only talking about the northern façades, she is also talking about the winter months, during which, according to her, water vapour condenses in the structure and this causes the formation of micro-organisms on the façade. I assume that the south, west and east facades have the same composition. At the same time, there is relatively little sunshine during the winter and during the winter nights the conditions are the same for all facades. The author also claims that the outer layers (EPS, plaster) have a higher diffusion resistance than the panels. They therefore let out less water vapour. Thus, is water vapour diffusion really the cause? In my opinion, but also according to several other sources, the cause is condensation of outer air moisture on the cool (shaded) surfaces of the facades during the transition periods (spring, autumn).

5. But otherwise I consider the overall conclusions to be correct.

Author Response

R3

1. The article has only one author, but right in the introduction the author uses the plural (line 15) and also the article builds extensively on five case studies, three of which were co-authored (references 18 to 20). Of course, this is up to the author, but somehow she should also acknowledge her colleagues. After all, it is not just a matter of simple citations, but of presenting the outputs. 

Added at the end, clarified thanks.

2. The caption to Figure 4 talks about yellow and orange, but in the graph itself there are blue and orange columns. 

The image was removed from the text (opponent's recommendation 2).

3. In Tables 3 and 5, individual case studies could be separated by lines for clarity. 

Added to tables, rows were separated.

4. I am not even quite sure of the correctness of the theory that the formation of microorganisms on facades is the result of diffusion of water vapour from the interior to the exterior (lines 313-316), which the author tries to support with the graphs in Figure 10 (which are not even the result of measurements, but of computer simulations). Although she is only talking about the northern façades, she is also talking about the winter months, during which, according to her, water vapour condenses in the structure and this causes the formation of micro-organisms on the façade. I assume that the south, west and east facades have the same composition. At the same time, there is relatively little sunshine during the winter and during the winter nights the conditions are the same for all facades. The author also claims that the outer layers (EPS, plaster) have a higher diffusion resistance than the panels. They therefore let out less water vapour. Thus, is water vapour diffusion really the cause? In my opinion, but also according to several other sources, the cause is condensation of outer air moisture on the cool (shaded) surfaces of the facades during the transition periods (spring, autumn). 
5. But otherwise I consider the overall conclusions to be correct.

The issue of facade moisture was published and modeled with the co-author (Vrbová, M.). It is one of the pointers, text updated.

The translation is provided by a certified translation company with native speakers. The university works very well with this company and we have no reason to question its erudition and professionalism. However, a correction has been made and is given in the text (revision in the text).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx