Design of Combined Rainwater-Harvesting and Stormwater-Detention System with Passive Release for New Buildings in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMany rainfall information on the amount, duration and type may differ from many other countries. Therefore, some explanations and research directions should be given in the discussion and conclusion sections to handle these cases.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in the attached file, and the corresponding revisions are included in the resubmitted document for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study investigates the performance of various designs and control strategies for stormwater management systems in buildings in Taiwan. While the introduction section covers numerous relevant elements, it lacks an overview of combined design guidelines for such systems, which is an important contextual component.
In the methodology section, although the use of a 15 mm discharge diameter is cited, further justification is necessary if this specification is not mandated by governmental or regulatory authorities. If it is an assumption, additional evidence or rationale should be provided to support this choice.
Regarding Figure 5, clarification is needed about whether the ER on the vertical axis represents calculations for each individual rain event or for the entire simulation period. This clarification is equally relevant for Figures 6 and 7. It would be helpful to address this in the methodology section when describing the calculation methods for these measures.
One key question about the research goal is identifying the primary problem the system aims to solve: is it designed to mitigate flooding during extreme rain events, or to enhance long-term stormwater retention? The conclusion suggests that both objectives are relevant. However, the discussion section should be structured to address this dual focus explicitly. For instance, it would be beneficial to highlight which design is more effective in reducing flooding risks and explain the reasons behind this performance.
Although Table 13 compares the performance of different designs, the discussion could delve deeper into the critical factors influencing these designs' performance and implementation. Such factors might include building characteristics (e.g., height, size), the ratio of catchment area to cistern volume, the balance between retention and detention volumes, and local precipitation patterns.
The authors have attempted to incorporate climate change considerations by using different return periods in the analysis. However, it remains unclear which challenge will become more pressing under climate change: managing flooding risks or ensuring long-term stormwater retention. The authors should discuss the associated impacts on system design and implementation and provide insights for government policies and planning.
The English writing in this manuscript is generally in a good quality.
Line 59: RWHS was not spelled out in the manuscript at the first time
Line 165: SWD was not spelled out in the manuscript at the first time.
Please provide a table to list all acronyms along with its explanations after conclusion section.
Line 422~423: The description should be reflected in the figure legend to make it self-explainable.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in the attached file, and the corresponding revisions are included in the resubmitted document for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well-written, it is interesting and deals with very practical solutions. I think it should be published with minor corrections. The topic, the idea of its solution and the analysis carried out can be directly applied in practice and can bring great economic and environmental benefits.
1/ It would be good to add in the first part of the article a diagram showing where the RWH + SWD tank is located in the building, and where the rooftop tank and where the water supply connection will be. This can be guessed, but illustrating at the beginning would make it easier to understand the essence of the article.
2/ Figure 2 is not quite correct.
a/ In figure 2a design volume of SWM should be above the blue dashed line (outflow hydrograph...). b/ What about the white space between the black line (inflow) and the blue dashed line? I understand that this is the volume that will flow away by overflow.
c/ It would be good to show on the drawing the moment when the water starts to overflow.
d/ Another thing is the shape of the blue dashed line. Outflow hydrograph is not a straight line. At the beginning the outflow is slower, because the level of the water table is small when the SWD is not yet filled, and then it increases, once the maximum level is reached, the overflow is turned on and it is already steady (especially since the rain is then over).
e/ In Figure 2b, the red line is quite correctly drawn, although I don't know why the outflow after the rain ends coincides exactly with the inflow.
f/ As for the orange line, the drain does not grow linearly from the beginning. In the beginning there is a small increase over time, and then it increases. Again, below the dashed orange line there should be no volume of RHS, nor volume of SWD. Once the RHS+SWD tanks are filled, the outflow will be fairly constant, depending on the overflow. There is no reason for it to increase because the rain is over and the inflow is decreasing.
3/ The conclusions are correct, but they are very general and contain little specific data obtained from the analyses. The values should appear in the conclusions. Information on parameters, risks mentioned in the article.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in the attached file, and the corresponding revisions are included in the resubmitted document for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) What is the impact of the extreme rainfall impact on the determinations of the stormwater detention tank size
2) In Figure 1, Page 6 and Table 2, What are the effective rainfall intensities
3) How and what formula is used to determine the effective rainfall
4) How the storage lag time is determined for stormwater storage tank
5) How the Table 5 parameters are determined. We need some worked examples at least in an appendix section. in current condition, it isn't easy to understand.
6) What is the impact of time-to-equilibrium conditions on the runoff generation in this system?
7) the picture quality needs to be improved. Also, the rainfall can be plotted in the minor axis for easy understanding and well representation
8) Figure 5,6,7, and 8 quality can be improved.
9) How the short-term and Long-term design rainfall is derived. More details/work examples are required.
10) There are no study area details, weather parameters, or network maps shown and discussed.
11) Clearcut methodology is not there, Literature review contains many sub-topics, this can be kept in the methodology.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in the attached file, and the corresponding revisions are included in the resubmitted document for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is an interesting work that compared the different design methods that realized integrated stormwater management for rainwater harvesting and flooding release. Some comments as following.
[1] The interception method of rainwater entering the storage tank through the drainage pipeline has a significant impact on the simulation effect. It is recommended to include a structural diagram of the interception facilities and provide its design parameters.
[2] The ways of rainwater reuse and water demand have a significant impact on the utilization efficiency of rainwater harvesting tank, including rainfall frequency. It is recommended to supplement relevant explanations in the manuscript, it look like the manuscript only focuses on rainfall depth.
[3] In Table 4, what time step of t was adopt in the SWMM, month?
[4] The quality of Figure 4 needs to be further improved, such as supplementary legend for bar chart, vertical axis.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in the attached file, and the corresponding revisions are included in the resubmitted document for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: water-3362493 - review
The review concerns the article entitled "Design of a Combined Rainwater Harvesting and Stormwater Detention System with Passive Release for New Buildings in Taiwan". The authors raised a very important issue of rainwater harvesting and retention in Taiwan, which is particularly important in the light of ongoing climate change. Apart from two editorial nuances (an unnecessary enter in the formula for orifice (Table 3); and a double dot (line 290)), I would only like to point out that the presentation of the adopted scenarios S1-S4 should be moved from chapter "3. Results and Discussions" to chapter "2. Materials and Methods". Despite these details, I rate the article very highly, it meets all the requirements of scientific work, and it was a pleasure to read it. I therefore congratulate the authors and recommend acceptance of the article in its current form.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in the attached file, and the corresponding revisions are included in the resubmitted document for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
