Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Cylindrical Masonry Shell in St. Jacob`s Church in Dolenja Trebuša, Slovenia—Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
A Cross-Domain Decision Support System to Optimize Building Maintenance
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Manufacturing Processes for Automated Timber-Based Panelised Prefabrication
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pathology and Rehabilitation of Vinyl and Linoleum Floorings in Health Infrastructures: Statistical Survey
Article
Peer-Review Record

Diagnoses in the Aging Process of Residential Buildings Constructed Using Traditional Technology

Buildings 2019, 9(5), 126; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9050126
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Buildings 2019, 9(5), 126; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9050126
Received: 18 April 2019 / Revised: 14 May 2019 / Accepted: 14 May 2019 / Published: 20 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Life Cycle Prediction and Maintenance of Buildings)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research aimed at presenting a method of diagnosing the ageing process of a building and its components.

Grammatical errors exist throughout the document, which impinges readability. The check of some editing misspellings or clumsy grammar constructions is necessary. 

The same paragraph is in pages 11 (end) and 12 (beginning).

In page 2, line 68, the standard should be fully referred.

In Table 1 the units are not indicated.

The information related to the building studied should be more detailed, to contextualise the monitoring data results, for example, the 592 buildings were built in the same period or the analysis was performed grouping the buildings by the decade/year of construction (as the materials might be the same, but de way they were produced is different). The indication if the buildings were subjected, or not, to renovation works and of what kind will be pertinent in section 4.

Additionally, an analysis of the occupation should also be presented as it is relevant, as the wear and tear will be different, especially over time.

In the document, “refurbishment works” and "renovation" are used indicating that a building component was subjected to construction works, at the end or near the end of their life cycle, to keep their characteristics. In general, in this case, the use of "maintenance works" might be more appropriate.

Considering a life span of more than 100 years is necessary to address the need to consider, besides wear and failure, the retrofitting works that a building will need, as a way to keep the indoor environmental quality, that are not remodelling costs, and are also related to the technical state of the building. If the indoor environmental quality of a residential building is not in accordance with the occupants’ needs, its market value will be reduced and will be vacant. The life cycle of insulation materials that must nowadays be used is also shorter than the one of masonry brick walls, changing the analysis and the planning of the maintenance, and refurbishment of buildings.

The method is relevant for the preservation of the building stock, but only considers the failure and wear and “traditional” materials (for example masonry brick walls, wooden beam ceilings), not considering materials/construction solutions that are commonly used for several years (decades), that are essential for the adequate performance of the building. This will narrow the applicability of the results. It is necessary to consider these situations in the study.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

I would like to express my gratitude for the in-depth revision and assessment of my work and most helpful advice. I hope that the amendments I introduced have improved the quality of the paper, and that the paper, in its present form, satisfies the requirements of the Editorial Board of “Buildings”.

Yours faithfully

Beata Nowogońska


Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction, a literature review, should be conducted for concepts to which connect studies and papers, not to present a summary of publications without a clear logical thread

The method must be revised, explaining why, despite the obvious differences between a building and a device, they use that mathematical relationship

Assumption should better clarify the source of the data in Table 1, the range is too wide. It must be explained before that what is a traditional construction...It is not clear what the relationship 5 weight refers to: importance or physical weight?

Verification is the most unclear part of the text. It is necessary to revise it from line 253 to 261, partly in contrast to lines 281-284; to indicate the type of inspections, how they are carried out and -in particular- how the levels of wear are assessed. Table 2 is to be revised by inserting a number of times of use classes in order to understand reliability.

"Applying PRRD" it can be improved by clarifying why the author introduces effects of maintenance intervention (fig 3) if all calculations are made assuming no intervention. And, again, to how much this assumption corresponds to the examined sample

Interesting discussion; conclusions must be improved


Author Response

Dear Professor,

I would like to express my gratitude for the in-depth revision and assessment of my work and most helpful advice. I hope that the amendments I introduced have improved the quality of the paper, and that the paper, in its present form, satisfies the requirements of the Editorial Board of “Buildings”.

Yours faithfully

Beata Nowogońska


Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting and under the scope of the journal.  The discussion of results is sound and well described. Minor addition could improve the conclusions (listing the next steps of the research, alternatives, further expected results, etc.)


Author Response

Dear Professor,

I would like to express my gratitude for the in-depth revision and assessment of my work and most helpful advice. I hope that the amendments I introduced have improved the quality of the paper, and that the paper, in its present form, satisfies the requirements of the Editorial Board of “Buildings”.

Yours faithfully

Beata Nowogońska


Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

(raw  272) "periodically inspected by experts": annually? monthly?

"Degree of walls wear", in table #2: the taxt must indicate how the value in the table has been defined

verify 181 line statement



Author Response

Dear Professor,

I thank to the reviewer for their valuable remarks made to the manuscript. I have thoroughly taken into account all comments and did their best for their proper incorporation into the text. In order to facilitate the second review round, I comment how reviewer remarks have been addressed and the revised text in the manuscript is in blue color.

 

(raw  272) "periodically inspected by experts": annually? monthly?

"Degree of walls wear", in table 2: the taxt must indicate how the value in the table has been defined.

 

The examined material comprises 592 residential buildings performed in the traditional technology, situated within the area of the town of Zielona Gora. The buildings were built between 1915 - 2015. The buildings were divided into subgroups research buildings 5, 10, 15 ... 100 years.

The technical states of all the buildings were periodically (every 5 years) inspected by experts. The periodic monitoring, consisting in the examination of technical wear, resulted in the reports containing the information on the percentage wear of 25 components of the 592 buildings.

Out of the results of periodic inspections (every 5 years) of building elements, the results for walls were selected. For each subgroup of buildings (5, 10, 15, ... 100 years old), average values of wall wear were calculated. The results are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2.

 

verify 181 line statement

The remark has been taken into account.


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop