Applicability Evaluation of Energy Slabs Installed in an Underground Parking Lot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear Authors,

1. The abstract should be modified slightly, please provide a "take-home" message and please keep the maximum 200 words.

2. Rearrange keywords alphabetically.

3. Please do not use abbreviations in keywords.

4. At the end of the  ”Structural stability of energy slab in underground parking lot”  part, the present study's limitations must be added.

5. Mention further research in the conclusion section.

6.  Conclusions would be good to be extended.

7. Perhaps the title should be reworded a bit.

As a conclusion to this review it can be concluded that the article is more of a technical report perhaps explaining in the conclusions part possible future research could be improved.

After some reworking of the paper it can be resubmitted.

 

Regards,

Author Response

Please refer to the attached response to the review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The content of the paper corresponds to the topic stated in the title.

The article has been divided into five chapters:

1. Introduction

2. Construction of energy slabs in underground parking lot

2.1. Overview of construction site

2.2. Design of energy slab in underground parking lot

2.3. Construction procedure of energy slabs

3. In-situ thermal performance test (TPTs) with constructed energy slabs

3.1. Experimental conditions for in-situ TPT

3.2. Result of TPTs

3.3. Investigation of surface condensation

4. Structural stability of energy slab in underground parking lot

5. Conclusion

The work contains 13 figures and 6 tables.

The aim of the study is to experimentally investigate the applicability of two types of the energy slabs (floor-type and wall-type) equipped with the aerogel-type thermal insulation layer, which were constructed on the basement floor in an underground parking lot.

The aim of this study has been achieved.

The sources contain 28 references. However, the bibliography covers the years 1993-2022, and only 2 items were cited after 2020.

 

I recommend the article for publishing after taking into account the following remarks:

1. Line 38-40 „Among the various types of renewable energy, the use of shallow geothermal energy is regarded as the most efficient way of heating and cooling buildings, which is known as a ground source heat pump (GSHP) system [2, 3].”.

[3] L’Ecuyer, M.; Zoi, C.; Hoffman, J.S. Space Conditioning: The next Frontier. Air and Radiation 1993

A reference was cited to a position in the bibliography from 1993. So can this statement still be considered valid?

 

2. Line 176 “The aerogel-type thermal insulation was selected for the constructed energy slabs, whose thermal conductivity (i.e., 0.02 W/(m·K)”.

The λ coefficient of the aerogel is approximately 0.015W/(m·K). Please respond to this aspect. Why was the coefficient used this high (0.02 [W/(m·K)])?

Is the 0.02 [W/(m·K)] value based on the manufacturer's product declaration or on your own research?

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached response to the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to the attached response to the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
The paper has been revised and reworked. I think it can be published after a minor revision if the other reviewers agree.
The authors did not take into account certain suggestions, namely "the present study's limitations must be added".

 

Regards,

Author Response

Please refer to the attached response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf