Simulation-Based Study on the Effect of Green Roofs on Summer Energy Performance in Melbourne

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submission is interesting but since there are too many studies on the GR effect of the building energy performance, authors should place particular attention in improving the novelty of their submission and move beyond the application of E+ for a case at Melbourne. Varying the LAI parameter and proposing a particular design are important but poor if considered for only one hot day. For example, the effects of LAI could be analyzed by physical principles of green-solar interaction, or a life cycle cost analysis and payback period could be interesting for such an interesting architectural consideration.

Since the submission emphasizes the energy saving benefits of the building GR in terms of HVAC needs, LCC should be also determined by reducing the roof thermal transmittance for this particular refurbishment. Moreover, E+ building parameters should be also included and differences in Figure7 seem to be less than 1%, the simulation errors or/and uncertainties should be also discussed.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and for their positive and helpful suggestions.  The authors feel that these revisions made in response to the feedback have contributed significantly to improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Addressing the reviewers’ comments and the resulting discussion by the authors, major sections of text have been modified, and areas amended are highlighted in the revised manuscript resubmitted.  The response to reviewers is provided below addressing each comment in detail. We hope that this revised version of the manuscript meets the satisfaction of the reviewers, thereby allowing our paper to be published in your highly regarded journal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

A/Prof Elmira Jamei on behalf of all authors

Deputy Director ISILC (Institute for Sustainable Industries & Liveable Cities)

Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Email: elmira.jamei@vu.edu.au

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents the influence of green roofs on energy consumption, focusing on the Treasury Place building in Melbourne, Australia. The current manuscript is generally complete and reasonable, but there are still some comments to improve the quality of this paper :

1、It would be better to add a overall gap at the end of the Literature Review section about the current state of the field.

2、The literature review section could be more streamlined.

3、Whether there are valid reasons for the choice of parameter values and parameter ranges.

4、The study's analysis for different parameters seems to need to be more saturated, e.g., with the addition of multi-objective parameter optimization.

5、The amount of work done in this study may not meet the requirements of the journal.

6、The fact that cooling load is used as a measure of energy savings is reasonable, but does not seem to be adequate, e.g. it could be coupled with an economic analysis.

7、What is the new contribution of current research? The innovations of the study also need to be emphasized

8、The developed model lacks validation to ensure the accuracy of the simulation results.

9、The limitations and outlook of this study should be mentioned in the conclusion.

10、The conclusion section would have been better if it had included more expressions of personal opinion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and for their positive and helpful suggestions.  The authors feel that these revisions made in response to the feedback have contributed significantly to improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Addressing the reviewers’ comments and the resulting discussion by the authors, major sections of text have been modified, and areas amended are highlighted in the revised manuscript resubmitted.  The response to reviewers is provided below addressing each comment in detail. We hope that this revised version of the manuscript meets the satisfaction of the reviewers, thereby allowing our paper to be published in your highly regarded journal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

A/Prof Elmira Jamei on behalf of all authors

Deputy Director ISILC (Institute for Sustainable Industries & Liveable Cities)

Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Email: elmira.jamei@vu.edu.au

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The authors developed a study in a very current area of research, which needs to be further studied so that its implementation has better results. In a climate change context, improving those results is very important. The structure of the paper could be revised, as some sections could be included in a broader “Materials and Methods” section (sections 3 and 4). The article is very well written. Still, this reviewer found some gaps in the analysed topics and considers that the article can be further improved.

Specific comments:

Line 67: please define the acronym LAI upon first use (it needs to be defined in the main text, not only in the abstract).

Lines 91-92: although the authors refer only to intensive and extensive green roofs, Figure 1 also refers to semi-intensive green roofs. Choose another figure or include the third category in the classification mentioned in the text.

Line 98: the source from which this figure was adapted is incorrect.

Section 2.2: strangely, the authors do not once mention issues related to possible water scarcity in the current context of climate change.

Lines 217-218: the text in Figure 3 is not readable. The Figure should be improved, mainly the caption referring to the meaning of each colour.

Lines 220-221: the text in Figure 4 on the left is not readable. With that in mind, the figure should be improved.

Line 235: the authors refer to showcasing the benefits of green roofs. In scientific writing, they refrain from making such biased statements. This reviewer is sure that green roofs have many advantages, but some limitations also come to mind.

Section 4: once again, the authors completely neglect data about rainwater.

Lines 291 and 305: the software/software plugin should be included in the list of references and properly cited, including the software version used.

Line 303: define the acronym DOE-2.

Lines 309 and 311: Follow the journal’s citation rules (exclude the year if you are using numbered references).

Lines 318-319: this categorisation (intensive, semi-intensive and extensive) does not match the one made in the literature review, except for Figure 1.

Lines 330-331: the composition of the base case should be fully described.

Lines 331-335: the composition of the Proposed Green Roof should be fully described.

Section 5.2: it should be clarified how many scenarios were tested with the optimisation of values. And was it an iterative process, changing one parameter at a time, or a different procedure was followed?

Line 347: this Figure is not numbered and does not seem to be a part of Table 1. Additionally, its text is not readable.

Line 379: While mentioning the soil moisture threshold of 50%, it would be better to explicitly mention that the proposed roof design refers to soil moisture 0.5 in Figure 7B.

Lines 422-426: the authors must relate this fact to rain intensity in the region and the sustainability of irrigation.

Lines 432-434: the authors should provide a better justification.

Lines 483-486: the authors may have had this goal, but this is not well detailed in the paper.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and for their positive and helpful suggestions.  The authors feel that these revisions made in response to the feedback have contributed significantly to improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Addressing the reviewers’ comments and the resulting discussion by the authors, major sections of text have been modified, and areas amended are highlighted in the revised manuscript resubmitted.  The response to reviewers is provided below addressing each comment in detail. We hope that this revised version of the manuscript meets the satisfaction of the reviewers, thereby allowing our paper to be published in your highly regarded journal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

A/Prof Elmira Jamei on behalf of all authors

Deputy Director ISILC (Institute for Sustainable Industries & Liveable Cities)

Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Email: elmira.jamei@vu.edu.au

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper "Simulation-Based Study on the Effect of Green Roofs on Summer Energy Performance in Melbourne" is a well-executed study that provides valuable insights into the role of green roofs in improving energy efficiency. Here are some important points that could further improve the quality and impact of the manuscript:

Introduction: The explanation of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect can be expanded further to provide readers with better understanding. The information regarding energy usage in buildings is well presented. It might be helpful to include comparisons with other sectors or regions to provide a broader context. The benefits of green roofs are listed but not explained in detail. Expanding on how they mitigate the UHI effect, reduce energy consumption, and improve indoor air quality would be beneficial.

Methodology: The use of DesignBuilder and EnergyPlus simulations is commendable. However, it would be beneficial if you could provide more detailed explanation of these software packages, including their specific use cases, strengths, and limitations. In addition, how you chose the parameters (LAI, plant height, soil moisture, tree coverage) for optimization needs to be clearly stated.

Discussion: The discussion section is thorough and effectively compares the results of this study with previous research. It also highlights key findings, providing a clear understanding of the implications for each parameter investigated. However, while you've compared your results with previous studies, consider providing more specific examples. For example, how do your findings build upon or differ from these studies? What new insights does your research offer? Additionally, the explanation of Leaf Area Index (LAI) can be developed further. Consider explaining in more detail why a higher LAI initially leads to increased energy savings but then plateaus.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the paper "Simulation-Based Study on the Effect of Green Roofs on Summer Energy Performance in Melbourne" is a well-executed study that provides valuable insights into the role of green roofs in improving energy efficiency. Here are some important points that could further improve the quality and impact of the manuscript:

Introduction: The explanation of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect can be expanded further to provide readers with better understanding. The information regarding energy usage in buildings is well presented. It might be helpful to include comparisons with other sectors or regions to provide a broader context. The benefits of green roofs are listed but not explained in detail. Expanding on how they mitigate the UHI effect, reduce energy consumption, and improve indoor air quality would be beneficial.

Methodology: The use of DesignBuilder and EnergyPlus simulations is commendable. However, it would be beneficial if you could provide more detailed explanation of these software packages, including their specific use cases, strengths, and limitations. In addition, how you chose the parameters (LAI, plant height, soil moisture, tree coverage) for optimization needs to be clearly stated.

Discussion: The discussion section is thorough and effectively compares the results of this study with previous research. It also highlights key findings, providing a clear understanding of the implications for each parameter investigated. However, while you've compared your results with previous studies, consider providing more specific examples. For example, how do your findings build upon or differ from these studies? What new insights does your research offer? Additionally, the explanation of Leaf Area Index (LAI) can be developed further. Consider explaining in more detail why a higher LAI initially leads to increased energy savings but then plateaus.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and for their positive and helpful suggestions.  The authors feel that these revisions made in response to the feedback have contributed significantly to improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Addressing the reviewers’ comments and the resulting discussion by the authors, major sections of text have been modified, and areas amended are highlighted in the revised manuscript resubmitted.  The response to reviewers is provided below addressing each comment in detail. We hope that this revised version of the manuscript meets the satisfaction of the reviewers, thereby allowing our paper to be published in your highly regarded journal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

A/Prof Elmira Jamei on behalf of all authors

Deputy Director ISILC (Institute for Sustainable Industries & Liveable Cities)

Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Email: elmira.jamei@vu.edu.au

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have improved the overall quality of their submission and is proposed to be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors positively replied to most concerns of this reviewer. Nevertheless, some options were deliberately made, namely concerning the scarce description of the base scenario and the disregard for possible irrigation issues in the future, although the background on this issue was added. These are the options of the authors, and the reviewer should not interfere further. So the article should be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper was well-revised. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language is fine.