Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the paper is acceptable in its present form, the possible uses of the results in the regulatory, production and educational fields could implement the conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor-in-Chief   Journal of Buildings (ISSN 2075-5309) Manuscript ID buildings-1919231

The paper deals with Rain Intrusion Through Horizontal Joints in Façade Panel Systems - Experimental Investigation. The paper is worth publishing however, the following concerns should be addressed in revising the manuscript:

 

·      Abstract-

a-      It is preferable to explain more about the purpose of the study.

b-      It is preferable to add the most important results that support this search.

·      Introduction –

a-      It is not preferable to write references in this way [23,25–27]. It is preferable to add the achievement of each author separately.

b-      Adding a section on the scientific background of the research.

·      Laboratory Measurements-

a-      Attach references and standard specifications for all tests

·      Results

A- This part is very long, preferably shorter for ease of reading

Discussion

A- Display the most important results to achieve the goal of the research

Thank you

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Clear and well-written paper. Clear focus, good graphics to show the test configurations. Job well done. 

 

Some remarks:

Given that the paper aims to be complete in the literature review, perhaps following paper can also be considered:

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109213

In section 3.2.2 Panel surfaces, the difference in infiltration rate between the different types of panels is not discussed in detail. In figure 8 it does become clear that there are very significant differences between the different types of panels. Moreover, the panel type seems to be the dominant parameter...

 

For figure 12, the beveled joint designs seem to increase the infiltration rate for HPL5. Also the glass fiber smooth panel shows an increase from 15° top to 15° both, which counterintuitive.

Figure 13: it is stated that the water intrusion increased with 1% from a 15° to 30° bevelment, but based on the figure there seams to be a decrease. Also the 19% decrease for 45° is not clear. Also the 96% is unclear: where does the 96% come from? If it is reduced to 0%, isn’t the reduction 100%?

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf