Next Article in Journal
High School Adolescents’ Physical Activity and Physical Fitness: A 3 × 2 Achievement Goal Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Temporary Design on Public Open Space for Improving the Pedestrian’s Perception Using Social Media Images in Winter Cities
Previous Article in Journal
Life Cycle Assessment of Thai Hom Mali Rice to Support the Policy Decision on Organic Farming Area Expansion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ecological Prototypes: Initiating Design Innovation in Green Construction
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Urban Microclimate Canopy: Design, Manufacture, Installation, and Growth Simulation of a Living Architecture Prototype

Sustainability 2020, 12(15), 6004; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156004
by Qiguan Shu 1,*, Wilfrid Middleton 1, Moritz Dörstelmann 2, Daniele Santucci 1,3 and Ferdinand Ludwig 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(15), 6004; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156004
Submission received: 27 June 2020 / Revised: 14 July 2020 / Accepted: 14 July 2020 / Published: 26 July 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I read yours paper very cearfully and I think that its very interesting.
In my opinion you should add in the introduction more information where the FE method was used for example:

  • Nonlinear analysis of braking delay dynamics for the progressive gears in variable operating conditions or
  • THE IMPACT OF PROGRESSIVE GEAR GEOMETRY ON THE BRAKING DISTANCE LENGTH UNDER CHANGEABLE OPERATING CONDITIONS.

The drawings shoud be better quality.

The drawings didn't have any citations form the litarature.

The drawinga 15 and 25 shoud be on the middle.

Description under drawing 15 isn't write italic.

Why the drawings 11, 12, 13 were written italic?

The desription under drawing 20 shoud be corrected.

Some drawings on the end have dot and some not, why?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your accurate reviewing of our work.

In our highly interdisciplinary paper, we try find the right balance between different disciplines. After discussion with all authors, we suggest not to add the finite element analysis to the introduction, since it was a minor and not deeply developed part of the project. Otherwise by putting more emphasis on this part of the project we might steer up further questions about the specific FEA methods being used, which is not the core aspect of this paper.

 

Content revision:

Line 144: FE simulations → Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

Line 159: FE-Model → FEA-Model

The descriptions under drawing 20a and 21a are changed to: “Photo of Akebia growing on a support system built by a German facade greening company” and “Runner bean growing on a support system built by a German facade greening company” separately;

 

Typographical revision:

word setting is changed not to compress images, the original images to the journal editorial team are of high resolutions;

The figure 19a, 20a and 21a now use citation instead of direct website links to indicate the source;

The figure 12, 15 and 25 is aligned to the middle;

Description under Figure 12, 13 and 14 now use non-italic font;

Dots are added on the end of figure 22 and 23;

 

We hope we could address your points with these corrections and answers.

 

Kind regards,

Qiguan Shu representing all co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The present paper reports the design realization of the UMCC prototype as well as on theinsights and the lessons learned within this process. In general lines, the paper is well written and well structured and includes the needed references. However, this reviewer suggests the authors that check the text and avoid the first person,ex line 62. A scientific text is written in third person. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your accurate reviewing of our work.

 

At line 22, 62, 74, 319, 344, 387, 427, 453, 467 and 524, the sentences are changed into passive voice to avoid using the first person.

 

We hope we could address your points with these corrections and answers.

 

Kind regards,

Qiguan Shu representing all co-authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and remarks:

  1. line 10: add (M.D.)
  2. line 12: add (D.S.)
  3. line 133: three replace with Three
  4. line 144: explain FE
  5. line 163: fiber replace with Fiber
  6. line 192, in Figure 6: Disk O replace with Disk D
  7. line 206: winding replace with Winding
  8. line 223: explain EPDM
  9. line 241: (a): planting replace with (a) Planting
  10. line 241: (b): integration replace with (b) Integration
  11. line 259: (a): replace with (a)
  12. line 260: (b): visitors replace with (b) Visitors
  13. line 290: 3.1. Subsection?
  14. line 405: cone replace with Cone
  15. line 434: maximum replace with Maximum
  16. line 469: photo replace with Photo
  17. line 551: time replace with Time

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your accurate reviewing of our work.

 

Content revision:

line 144: FE simulations → Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

line 159: FE-Model → FEA-Model

line 223: EPDM plastic sheet → EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) plastic sheet as a waterproofing layer

 

Typographical revision:

line 10: adding (M.D.)

line 12: adding (D.S.)

line 133: three → Three

line 163: fiber → Fiber

line 192, in Figure 6: Disk O → Disk D, fonts of section marks are changed larger

line 206: winding → Winding

line 241: (a): planting → (a) Planting

line 241: (b): integration → (b) Integration

line 259: (a): → (a)

line 260: (b): visitors → (b) Visitors

line 290: error content “3.1. Subsection” is deleted

line 405: cone → Cone

line 434: maximum → Maximum

line 469: photo → Photo

line 551: time → Time

 

We hope we could address your points with these corrections and answers.

 

Kind regards,

Qiguan Shu representing all co-authors

Back to TopTop