Optimization of Urban Block Form by Adding New Volumes for Capacity Improvement and Solar Performance Using A Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm: A Case Study of Nanjing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The methodology applied in this study is reasonable. I only have three questions:
1. For vertical mode and mixed mode, how to ensure that the original main structure can bear the extra-load from the new attached parts?
2. How to decide the shapes of the extra attached structures? Are these shapes reasonable?
3. Which multi-objective optimization method was used in this study? And can you provide the raw parameter values of this optimization method?
Author Response
First of all, all authors would like to appreciate the reviewer’s valuable works and also the recognition of our work. We went through all the comments carefully and answered the concerns accordingly. We believe the paper has been improved a lot according to the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript provided an evaluation study by adding new volumes to existing buildings and conducted a multi-objective-optimization study to finally optimize the solar radiation, solar hours and block capacity. This is an interesting study, a well-written literature review was provided. A substantial results were analyzed. The study limitation was also demonstrated. Overall, this study did present some nice knowledge and good results. The reviewer’s only minor comments were meant to help the authors to publish a better article.
(1) From the current format, the reviewer thinks this study can be a case study of the “Optimization of urban block form by adding new volumes for capacity improvement and solar performance using a multi-objective genetic algorithm”, therefore, a description of “case study” for the title may be better to cover the authors’ purpose.
(2) This study used a set of abbreviations, to better present a good contribution, a nomenclature is preferred.
(3) For the pictures, in the current version, some of them were not clear. Please consider someway to better show the performance.
(4) Some writing is not good enough, the reviewer suggest to polish the content by asking a native English editor.
(5) Last but not the least, the reference format was not better, e.g., [6][7].
Author Response
First of all, all authors would like to appreciate the reviewer’s valuable works and also the recognition of our work. We went through all the comments carefully and answered the concerns accordingly. We believe the paper has been improved a lot according to the reviewers’ comments.
- From the current format, the reviewer thinks this study can be a case study of the “Optimization of urban block form by adding new volumes for capacity improvement and solar performance using a multi-objective genetic algorithm”, therefore, a description of “case study” for the title may be better to cover the authors’ purpose.
|
Response: The revised title is as follow, “Optimization of urban block form by adding new volumes for capacity improvement and solar performance using a multi-objective genetic algorithm：A case study of Nanjing”
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction section has unnecessary references for the objective and limitations of the study, such as [4] and [5]. These references are not used after for comparison. Edit with the strictly needed references for the work.
References 6 to 8 must be edited for readers may access them.
Section 1.2 must be edited. Now they look like the Thesis section instead research manuscript. The objectives must be include the world wide applications instead Nanjing zone.
Methodology section must be include a block diagram for computational algorithm independent of the computer language.
Section 2.2 must be supported by mathematical expression beyond the Figure 3 to explain the constraints.
Section 2.3 must be show the criteria for selection of the fitness objectives results and criteria for go from first module to second module.
Results section is good.
Section 4.3 (Discussion section) must be edited. It is not possible in Figure 13 (a) let the values with ASR increment as function with FAR increment , this is not consistent with reality. Verify the data and found the dispersion of that result.
Conclusions must include for different orientations the thermal effect as percentage.
Author Response
First of all, all authors would like to appreciate the reviewer’s valuable works and also the recognition of our work. We went through all the comments carefully and answered the concerns accordingly. We believe the paper has been improved a lot according to the reviewers’ comments.
- The introduction section has unnecessary references for the objective and limitations of the study, such as [4] and [5]. These references are not used after for comparison. Edit with the strictly needed references for the work.
- References 6 to 8 must be edited for readers may access them.
|
Response: Thank you for the comment. We went through all the references to make sure all the references have been edited for reads to access. “ Residential building code, 2005. GB 50368-2005. China. Design code for residential buildings, 2011. GB 50096-2011. China. R. L. Knowles, “The solar envelope: its meaning for energy and buildings.” Energy and buildings, vol.35, pp.15-25, 2003.” |
- Section 1.2 must be edited. Now they look like the Thesis section instead research manuscript. The objectives must be include the world wide applications instead Nanjing zone.
|
Response: We revised the Section 1.2 to make it more available for world wide application. The revisions are as follows “ This paper mainly focuses on three objectives: 1. To establish a framework based on a multi-objective optimization algorithm to evaluate the interactive relationship between building capacity improvement and the impact of solar gains in the existing residential plots. 2. To verify the feasibility of the above framework by applying the three additional modes (horizontal, vertical, and composite) to a specific residential block in Nanjing. This study could provide insights on the regeneration of existing residential areas in other cities around the world with similar solar conditions. 3. To compare the advantages and disadvantages of the three additional modes under the multi-objective requirements and explore the possibility of applying the modes in different orientation scenarios. ” |
- Methodology section must be include a block diagram for computational algorithm independent of the computer language.
- Section 2.2 must be supported by mathematical expression beyond the Figure 3 to explain the constraints.
- Section 2.3 must be show the criteria for selection of the fitness objectives results and criteria for go from first module to second module.
|
Response: Thank you for the critical comment. In this study, the multi-objective optimization algorithm, named Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms II (NSGA-II), embodied in Wallacei X plug-in in the Rhino Grasshopper, has been applied in optimization process. This study revised the corresponding section to make it clearer. The revisions can be found, From Line 284 to Line 305, “The fourth module is multi-objective optimization process, which uses the Wallacei plug-in to set multiple search targets according to research needs and then determines the algebra and scale of each generation. Wallacei X is the key built-in and integrated NSGA-II, one multi-objective optimization algorithm, which has been widely applied in optimization studies. The fifth module is the result output and data analysis, which involves conducting an overall analysis of the relevant parameter distribution of the screened scheme set (Figure 4(a)). Figure 5. Optimization process of the design under three objectives. In this research, the main objectives can be described in Equations (4)-(6) and Equation (7) concludes the multi-objective functions.
Where ,, are three objectives, maximizing net floor area ratio, average solar radiation and ratio of qualified building façade area. The constant, 9 is the number of the existing buildings, referred to Figure 3(a). are building height, building length and building height of the additional buildings. Figure 6. workflow of the multi-objective optimization (b) block diagram for NSGA-II algorithm ” |
- Results section is good.
|
Response: Thank you for the recognition of our work and we believe the quality of manuscript has been improved a lot according to the reviewers’ critical comments. |
- Section 4.3 (Discussion section) must be edited. It is not possible in Figure 13 (a) let the values with ASR increment as function with FAR increment, this is not consistent with reality. Verify the data and found the dispersion of that result.
|
Response: Thank you for the comment. We checked the original data and found that there was no highly positive linear relationship between the increment of FAR and ASR in the vertical addition mode. The value of R2 (0.11) in the fitted curve indicated that there was no obvious correlation between these two groups of data. When the vertical addition mode is north to south, the solar can access the rear buildings from the horizontal direction. Therefore, the random distribution of the height of the added buildings leads to no obvious correlation between the increase of FAR and the change of ASR. |
- Conclusions must include for different orientations the thermal effect as percentage.
|
Response: Thank you for the comment. The conclusions have been revised according to the comments. When the orientation changes from south to east, ASR decreases differently with the increase of floor area ratio in the three addition modes. The decrease of ASR in the horizontal addition mode is less affected by the change of orientation, and the decrease is between 8-9%. The decrease amplitude of ASR of vertical and comprehensive augmentation model is similar, but it is about 4% higher than that of south-east 30° and south-east 60°, about 20kwh/m2, in south-west and east-west directions. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I am glad about the improved version, but Figure 15 (a) Authors would not plot the blue line for R2= 0.114. This is obviously not correlated data, please just delete the blue dotted line in the right upper figure, the other blue lines in the entire Figure 15 are good. The text "The value of R2 (0.11) in the fitted curve indicated that there was no obvious correlation between these two groups of data" are very good enough if some reader asks about these values.
Author Response
- I am glad about the improved version, but Figure 15 (a) Authors would not plot the blue line for R2= 0.114. This is obviously not correlated data, please just delete the blue dotted line in the right upper figure, the other blue lines in the entire Figure 15 are good. The text "The value of R2 (0.11) in the fitted curve indicated that there was no obvious correlation between these two groups of data" are very good enough if some reader asks about these values.
|
Response: Thank you for the comment. We modified Figure 15(a) according to the comment. The blue dotted line in the right upper figure has been deleted. Figure 15. Correlation between increment of FAR and solar performance. (a) orientation south (b) orientation 30° south to east (c) orientation 60° south to east (d) orientation east.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
