Influences and Optimizations of Vertical Facades on the Aerodynamic Loadings for High-Rise Buildings
, Guoqing Huang 2,*, Bowen Yan 2,*, Qingshan Yang 2, Chao Wang 1, Bo Li 3 and Shuguo Liang 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present work, by using ANSYS software, studied the aerodynamic effects of different vertical facade layouts on high-rise buildings through wind tunnel experiments. After the following revision, the paper suggests for publication.
- Add the number of the generated models in Abstract. Lines 12-19 are suggested to be summarized. Line 327, “using G1 and G2 respectively” should be “using G1 and G2, respectively”.
- In order to provide a more comprehensive literature review, the authors are recommended to cite and discuss the following relevant paper in their revised manuscript: Probabilistic analysis of strength in retrofitted X-Joints under tensile loading and fire conditions. Buildings. 2024 Jul 9;14(7):2105.
- According to Table 2, was just one specimen used for verification of the numerical model. How can the accuracy of the numerical model be approved in different conditions?
- Lines 319 and 320, the symmetry boundary condition should be more explained.
- Lines 386-389, “probability that the father is selected to inherit to the next generation is 0.9, and the cross- 386 over probability is set as 0.7, and the mutation probability is 0.001. Note that in order to 387 reduce the probability that the optimal solution falls into the local extremum, 5 genetic 388 optimization calculations are performed here to ensure that the calculation converges to 389 the same result.” Should be more detailly explained. Also, use reference for these values.
- Was which one of RNG or K-epsilon mode used in simulating of turbulence? Why?
- In Figure 23, Why are the negative pressure area and negative pressure value of model significantly larger than those of the other three models?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
We greatly appreciate the careful reading and constructive comments given by Reviewer 1. We have made changes in the manuscript by taking into account the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The attachment summarizes the detailed response to Reviewer 1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, a comprehensive investigation into the aerodynamic behavior of high-rise buildings with vertical facades has been conducted. The manuscript presents a well-structured analysis, combining wind tunnel experiments, CFD simulations, and LES modeling to optimize vertical facade arrangements. The integration of BP neural networks and genetic algorithms in aerodynamic optimization adds novelty to the study. Additionally, the work is supported by well-documented experimental and numerical results, making it a valuable contribution to aerodynamic studies of tall buildings. The paper aligns with the journal's scope and submission standards, and the findings are presented clearly with strong visual support through figures and tables.
A set of specific revision notes has been provided for the authors’ attention, focusing on clarity, consistency, and figure-based clarifications to further enhance the manuscript.
“Abstract”
1--Please briefly mention the methodology used for aerodynamic analysis for the abstract. Including whether the study is based on CFD simulations, experimental wind tunnel testing, or theoretical models would improve clarity.
“1. Introduction”
2--Please clarify the contribution of the study and the research gap more explicitly for the introduction. Providing a clearer framework on which aspects of previous studies are lacking and how this study introduces a novel approach will help highlight its scientific contribution.
“2. Aerodynamic force characteristics based on wind tunnel experiments”
3-- In Section 2.1, please ensure that the methodology of the wind tunnel experiments is clearly explained. While the key parameters are provided, a more structured presentation of the boundary conditions and scaling factors used in the simulations would improve the clarity of the study.
4--Please provide a more detailed interpretation of Figures 5-11 regarding the trends observed in aerodynamic force coefficients. Clarifying how the depth and spacing of vertical facades contribute to variations in aerodynamic forces under different wind directions would enhance readability.
5--Please ensure that the terminology and notation used in Figures and Tables are consistent throughout the manuscript. For instance, variations in notation such as “Cfx_rms” vs. “Crms_x” in Figures 9-11 and Table 1 may cause confusion. Standardizing the terminology across all visual elements will improve clarity and enhance the manuscript’s readability.
“3. Aerodynamic optimization based on numerical simulation”
6--In Section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, the setup details for both 2.5D and 3D LES simulations are well documented. However, it would be beneficial to include a brief discussion comparing their computational costs and accuracy. Highlighting the trade-offs between these two approaches could provide valuable insight for readers.
7--Please ensure consistency in figure referencing when discussing computational domain grids (Figures 12 and 15). Clarifying how Figures 12, 13, and 15 relate to the LES grid independence study (Figure 16) would improve readability.
8--The genetic algorithm (GA) optimization results in Figure 20 show convergence trends for aerodynamic coefficients. However, it would be helpful to briefly mention whether alternative optimization methods were considered or if any limitations exist regarding convergence reliability.
“4. Result interpretation by Flow field”
9--Please clarify the flow separation mechanism presented in Figures 23–25 in more detail. Adding further explanations on how the shape of vertical facades contributes to this separation would enhance the interpretation. Additionally, a brief comparison with similar phenomena in the literature would help establish a stronger foundation for the study.
10--Please consider adding quantitative comparisons of the negative pressure regions and aerodynamic forces shown in Figures 26–27. Highlighting the variations in pressure coefficients between different models in a tabular format would improve clarity and facilitate better interpretation.
11--In the final paragraph, it is mentioned that the aerodynamic force direction of vertical facades is “opposite to that of the incoming flow.” This statement could be refined to better align with standard terminology in fluid dynamics, as this might cause confusion for readers unfamiliar with the concept.
“5. Conclusions”
12--Please provide additional clarification on the RMS value reductions reported in Conclusion (1). Specifying whether the 25.2% reduction is compared to all other models or only model 1 at 90° wind direction would enhance clarity.
13--Please consider strengthening the justification for the use of 2.5D LES in aerodynamic force evaluation. While the results support its applicability, a brief discussion on its limitations compared to full 3D LES would provide a more balanced perspective.
14--Please further elaborate on the role of the “chamfer” shape in reducing aerodynamic forces. Specifically, reinforcing this conclusion with more detailed quantitative findings or additional references would strengthen the argument.
Similarity Index and Self-Citations
The similarity index appears to be relatively high, primarily due to self-citations in the methodology section. While it is understandable that prior work may be referenced, we kindly suggest ensuring that these citations are explicitly acknowledged and reformulated where possible. Additionally, revising certain sections in a more original phrasing can help improve the manuscript’s uniqueness while maintaining clarity. It is also recommended to confirm that all reused content effectively highlights the novel contributions of this study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
We greatly appreciate the careful reading and constructive comments given by Reviewer 2. We have made changes in the manuscript by taking into account the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The attachment summarizes the detailed response to Reviewer 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a comprehensive study of the influences of vertical facades on the aerodynamic loads of high-rise buildings, combining wind tunnel experiments, numerical simulations, and optimization techniques. The research is well structured, with clear objectives and methods. The authors provide valuable insights into the effects of vertical facades on wind loads and propose an optimization method for facade design. The strengths of the study are its multifaceted approach and practical implications for building design. However, there are areas where the paper could be improved, particularly in terms of clarity, consistency, and presentation of results.
Specific comments and suggestions:
1. Abstract (p.1): The abstract is too long and includes unnecessary details. Consider condensing it to focus on the main results and significance of the study.
2. Introduction (p.2, para. 2): The literature review could be more comprehensive, including more recent studies on the topic.
3. Section 2.1 (p.3): Provide more details on the wind tunnel setup, including Reynolds number and blockage ratio.
4. Figure 3 (p.4): The power spectrum graph (b) lacks proper labeling on the y-axis. Add units and improve the overall readability of the figure.
5. Section 2.2 (p. 5-6): Discussion of results could be more quantitative. Include specific percentage changes when comparing different models.
6. Equations 1-3 (p. 5): Ensure that equation numbering is consistent throughout the paper.
7. Section 3.1.1 (p. 9-10): The description of the LES governing equations is too detailed for this paper. Consider condensing this section or moving some details to an appendix.
8. Figure 12 (p.11): Improve the quality and resolution of the computational domain diagrams.
9. Section 3.2 (p.13-14): Clarify the rationale for the selection of specific optimization parameters and ranges.
10. Figure 19 (p.16): The graphs of the training results are difficult to read. Increase the font size and improve the overall clarity of the figure.
11. Section 4 (p.18-19): The flow field analysis could be more detailed. Consider adding more quantitative analysis to support the qualitative observations.
12. Conclusion (pp. 19-20): The conclusions could be more concise and focused on the key findings and their implications.
14. References (pp. 20-22): Ensure that all references are formatted consistently and include DOI numbers where available.
15. Throughout the paper: Some technical terms are not clearly defined or explained (e.g., "2.5D LES"). Consider adding brief explanations or a glossary for non-expert readers.
Throughout the paper: There are numerous grammatical and typographical errors. Thorough proofreading is needed to improve the overall quality of the writing.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
We greatly appreciate the careful reading and constructive comments given by Reviewer 3. We have made changes in the manuscript by taking into account the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The attachment summarizes the detailed response to Reviewer 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are minor grammatical mistakes and poor phrasing throughout the manuscript. A professional proofreading company or revision by a native English speaker would enhance readability.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4
We greatly appreciate the careful reading and constructive comments given by Reviewer 4. We have made changes in the manuscript by taking into account the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The attachment summarizes the detailed response to Reviewer 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReady to publish.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBased on the review, it appears that the authors have addressed in detail all the comments raised in the initial review. As a result, the revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements in clarity, methodological rigour and quality of presentation. All revisions were implemented satisfactorily and the authors' responses to previous concerns are comprehensive and convincing.
The work now presents an original and scientifically sound approach that advances current knowledge in the field of "Buildings". The manuscript is now clear, well organised and suitable for publication in its current form.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all the queries. The article may be accepted in its present form.
