Window Bevel Shape Optimization for Sustainable Daylighting and Thermal Performance in Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is interesting and presents novelty in "Window bevel shape optimization for sustainable daylighting 2 and thermal performance in buildings".  This paper is generally well written, so the following /improvements are suggested. 

- In the Abstract, please at first describe the problem and the used methods, and at the end describe the conclusions, so please correct the sequence of the used phrases. 

- In the introduction, please add some references to emphasize more on the novelty of this work. 

- Please, add references and a more comprehensive description for the models "COMSOL" and "Radiance" in section 2. 

- Please, give details (and references) for the used softwares. 

- Please describe more "CIE overcast sky" and give references (line 152).  Similarly, please add reference and short description for "radiance simulations" (line 183)

- Also, are equations 1, 2  based on a reference or conducted by the authors?

- Some details on the used methodology should be added, especially regarding the computational steps and softwares used. 

- Have the authors made a comparison to other shapes of cuts/sections close to windows? Please, add some relative discussion. 

- The supplementary file is interesting and contains interesting plots, so this file should better be added to the article, in the form of an appendix. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript studied the optimization of window bevel shapes to improve daylighting and thermal performance in buildings. The authors employed finite element modeling in COMSOL to analyze the effects of different bevel geometries on light penetration and thermal insulation. The structure and objects of this manuscript is clear. The methodology shows novelty, and the simulation results are reasonable. The findings about the bevels have promising applications in window design. The language is good to go. Therefore, minor revision is recommended with the following issues to be addressed.

1) While the authors validate the simulated daylighting results with radiance, the validation is limited to a single case which is overcast sky condition. It would be more beneficial to check other validation under different sky conditions, such as clear sky, partly cloudy, in order to ensure the robustness of the model across various environmental scenarios. Please add more validations under different environmental scenarios, or discuss reasonably about this question.

2) The authors pointed out the importance of thermal bridges but did not provided a detailed analysis of their impact in this manuscript. Please discuss how bevels affect thermal bridging and potential risks.

3) This study primarily relied on simulations. while the results are reasonable, could it be possible to include a case study or experimental results in a real building to demonstrate the reliability of simulation results and the practical applications of the findings? It would be valuable for this study.

4) The authors included many simulation figures in the supplement material. It is strongly suggested to place these figures into the main manuscript to help authors gain more information and compare the effects of bevel shapes on the daylighting performance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Window bevel shape optimization for sustainable daylighting and thermal performance in buildings is studied. The work analyses the effects of different incision depths and angles on daylighting and the envelope's thermal performance, and an optimal bevel geometry dependent on the insulation thickness is found at winch bevels with no negative impact on thermal properties. The work is interesting, but I think the following questions/problems should be considered before publishing.

1. The final part of the introduction is very confusing. The word "author" refers to several references, including the current work. Citing the authors' names of the reference works would help avoid this confusion.

2. In the introduction, the term "RC network model" appears for the first time. Clarify the extent by providing the references and significance of this term to help readers understand.

3. On line 65, correct "Two models of a window are presented in this public".

4. On line 82, it appears: "Different thicknesses are analyzed in the following chapter."

Wouldn't that be a section? Which section?

5. It is not standard for articles to put parts of the text in red. Please, correct Figure 8. Use italics in tables.

 

6. The tables 3 and 4 are not up to the journal standard. Please standardize them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended that the authors also revise the English language of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered the questions of the reviewer, so this article can be published.

Please add reference for mentioned softwares "Energy 67 Plus or WUFI" in lines 67-68.