An Anti-Condensation Radiant Heating Floor System in Buildings under Moistening Weather
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- In the manuscript, before figure 1, it is necessary to place a figure or a sketch in which the characteristic energy balances and energy flows that determine the research polygon can be clearly seen.
- It is necessary to clearly indicate the novelty of the implemented methodology. It is also necessary to emphasize the shortcomings and limitations of the established methodology.
- It is insufficiently clear how the authors verified the obtained results.
- The discussion of the obtained results needs to be expanded. In the discussion of the results, the authors describe what is clearly visible on the diagrams, but do not comment on why it is so. Therefore, the discussion of the results should be expanded in that direction.
- Emphasize the generality of the established methodology. Figure 7 needs to be improved.
Author Response
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
Comment 1: Place a figure of in which the characteristic energy balances and energy flows.
Response 1: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that place a figure to comparing the advantages and disadvantages of different methods. Added figure can be found at p.4 Figure 1. (b).
Comment 2: Indicate the novelty of the implemented methodology, emphasize the shortcomings and limitations of the established methodology.
Response 2: Thank you to the Reviewer for providing valuable suggestions. Added content can be found in discussion at p.17, line 483 to line 516.
Comment 3: How the authors verified the obtained results.
Response 3: We apologize for not expressing ourselves clearly in the article. This study is based on comparative simulation by DEST and TRNSYS. Both of the tools utilized in this work have completed the ASHARE 140 certification and have qualified the official US Energy Department. All of the employed meteorological data files come from Chinese Standard Weather Data and meteorological station data. The system's device data is derived from the enterprise's publicly available performance characteristics. This means that performing simulation studies on various systems and obtaining simulation results have specific reference values for the same building in the same climate.
Comment 4: The discussion of the obtained results needs to be expanded.
Response 4: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that we did not comment in depth on the conclusion. Added content can be found at p.12, line 310 to line 317. p.13, line 337 to line 342. p.13, line 361 to line 370. p.14, line 388 to line 395.
Comment 5: Emphasize the generality of the established methodology.
Response 5: We are very sorry for our negligence of describing the application of heat pump curve clearly. Due to the fact that TRNSYS's heat pump (type 206) requires the performance curve of the host to operate, it is necessary to convert the original correction curve provided by the manufacturer to the curve required for type 206. Added content can be found at p.8, line 247 to p.9, line 255.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is a simulation study to prevent condensation in a building by linking radiant heating and cooling dehumidifier. Since the proposed idea is novel and realistic, experimental research is also expected in the future. I hope to be supplemented with the content below.
[Major]
1) In a comparative study of the performance of systems, usually one criterion is well matched and the other is compared. (For example, the energy required to set the room temperature to 20℃ well) However, in this study, there are differences in all criteria. I expected condensation to be resolved in all systems, and then the required energy or comfort to be compared. However, condensation may occur due to limitations of the systems. Then there is a need to specify what all systems can achieve.
[Minor]
1) There must be a full-name for IAFS in Abstract.
2) It is necessary to explain d in the x-axis of Figure 1.
3) p.8 : will star -> will start
4) p.11 Figure (a) : Times hrs -> Condensation time hrs
Author Response
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
Comment 1: Differences in system comparison criteria.
Response 1: Thank you to the Reviewer for providing valuable suggestions. We use the same equipment to prevent condensation indoors. Compare the power consumption of equipment and indoor PMV while ensuring no condensation indoors. The purpose of IFC Vs. OFC is to demonstrate the benefits of capillary layers on the original floor. The purpose of CDS-IFC Vs. IFC is to understand the operation of traditional dehumidifiers on capillary floors. The purpose of IAFS Vs. CDS-OFC is to compare the new method with the old method and demonstrate the advantages of the new method. Added content can be found at p.11, line 283 to line 289.
Comment 2: There must be a full-name for IAFS in Abstract.
Response 2: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. Revised content can be found at p.1, line 15 and line 16.
Comment 3: It is necessary to explain d in the x-axis of Figure 1.
Response 3: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have added content at p.4, line 148 and line 149.
Comment 4: p.8: will star -> will start.
Response 4: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. Revised content can be found at p.8, line 232.
Comment 5: p.11 Figure 8. (a): Times hrs -> Condensation time hrs.
Response 5: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing in figure. And we found another image with the same error. Revised content can be found at p.11 Figure 8. (a) and p.16 Figure 13. (a).
Reviewer 3 Report
An interesting topic is selected by the authors. As authors stated condensation frequently occurs on the building surfaces during which can affect people's safety and structural properties of cities.
The proposed work by the authors presents a novel solution for anti-condensation floor system based on the reverse Carnot cycle. The proposed approach aims to use evaporation side treats the air and reduces the moisture content, and the heat extracted from condensation side is recovered by a heat exchanger and transferred to the floor through capillary mats. All simulation studies of the dynamic operation performance are done through the software of TRNSYS. Although the study is consist of detailed simulations and the overall presentation of the work is seems good the work require a major revision.
The novelty and contribution of the work are not presented in a clear way. The main lack of clarity of novelty is due to the literature overview. The literature overview of the work is not sufficient. The most recently published cited work is from 2022 which is around 10% of the references. Authors must add cited work from 2022 and 2023 and increase the ratio to 25%.
A table of comparison with counterpart works in literature is a must, what is the performance of the obtained design compared to the other designs in literature (the date of publication for table of comparison can be in a wide range such as 2013-2023). The table must present advantages and disadvantages of proposed method and counterpart techniques in means of cost, efficiency, durability etc.
The conclusion section can be extended with a brief part about possible future works or other applications that can be achieved with proposed methodology.
Quality of figures can be improved, some of the figures are kind of blurry that would be a problem for printed papers.
Author Response
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
Comment 1: Authors must add cited work from 2022 and 2023 and increase the ratio to 25%.
Response 1: We have made correction according to the Reviewer's comments. The current number of references is 50, and the proportion from 22 to 23 years is 30%.
Comment 2: A table of comparison with counterpart works in literature.
Response 2: We are very sorry for our negligence of methods comparison table addition. Added table can be found at p.3, Table 1.
Comment 3: The conclusion section can be extended with a brief part about possible future works or other applications that can be achieved with proposed methodology.
Response 3: As Reviewer suggested that a brief explanation of future work needs to be provided in the conclusion section. Added content can be found at p.18, line 536 to line 539.
Comment 4: Quality of figures can be improved.
Response 4: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that some images are blurry. The image quality has been optimized. We have redrawn all the images to ensure their clarity. Please allow us to adjust the original position of the images for the layout of the article.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors mostly corrected the manuscript according to my comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
All my questions have been answered, and I accept this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors had made an effort to improve the quality of their work with respect to reviewers comment and prepared a detailed report on their revision. The work can be accepted as it is.
