Advanced Intervention Protocol in the Energy Rehabilitation of Heritage Buildings: A Miñones Barracks Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper Advanced intervention protocol in the energy rehabilitation of heritage buildings: Miñones Barracks case study by Lauren Etxepare , Iñigo Leon, Maialen Sagarna, Iñigo Lizundia, Eneko-Jokin Uranga is well suited for journal Sustainability. The authors of this article analyzed the results of the studies on intervention protocol in the energy rehabilitation of heritage buildings. The objective of this energy rehabilitation is to obtain consumption levels that are close to the European recommendations for nearly-Zero Energy Buildings or nZEB.
The paper is interesting and scientifically valuable. However, the reviewer has comments. The article should be corrected.
Main comments:
- Abstract looks like part of introduction. The abstract should contain information about what the reader will find in the article, should interest the reader to read the whole article. It should be written again.
- line 437 – whole chapter 2.3.4 is a general description of BIM and LOD. Is it really needed?
- The algorithm of intervention protocol was not formulated point by point or graphically, the reader must independently extract it from the article.
- It is not described what is new, proposed by the authors.
- What are the scientific achievements in this article?
- There is no Conclusions chapter. There are conclusions in the Discussion chapter, they should be separated. A properly constructed scientific article contains separate chapters Discussion and Conclusions.
- The article is long, it results from lengthy descriptions. Can be shortened.
- The article must be read carefully and the typos must be removed. Some of them are given later in the review.
- References contain references to current articles. They give the right background for the subject.
- The article was written enough well in English, is understandable for a reviewer, a person who does not speak English as a mother tongue. However, in the reviewer's opinion, words with identical meanings but commonly used can be used in many places in the article. This will simplify reading the article to readers who do not speak English on a daily basis.
Minor shortcomings:
- line 107, 108 – instead of “concrete case” better “specific case”
- line 141 – instead of “arhictecture” should be “architecture”
- line 166, and all next – instead of “Kwh/m2” should be “kWh/m2”
- line 283 – fig. 2 – instead of descriptions on the drawing there should be markings a-d, which should be described in the signature
- line 288 – invalid reference to „Figure A1”
- line 368, 582 – address sites.blaulabs.com incorrect
- line 591 – instead of “recommendatons” should be “recommendations”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Question addressed by the research.
The objective of this work is to establish a protocol for the energy rehabilitation of historic buildings with ornate façades.
Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
Yes, it is. The second stage of the proposed methodology includes the creation of a BIM model. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is expected to promote more efficient buildings through evaluation of different design options. In this paper, BIM is used as a platform from which to gather information that is conveyed to an energy efficiency simulation tool.
The work also includes monitoring of energy variables and economic analysis. However, some comments are included below in case they can be helpful to the author.
Are the methods used appropriate?
Introduction should contain statements of purpose at the end. The authors should state as concisely as possible the specific objectives of the work. And why these objectives help to find the missing information detected in the review of literature about rehabilitation of historic buildings.
Figure 1 is especially disturbing. Who does decide what conservation level deserve an historic building? And how? We are talking about art, history, not about the diameter of a pipe.
And what is the weight of historic buildings in the total of dwellings of the Basque Country? Should they be affected at all by building energy efficiency regulations?
Line 152: “In this case study, we would also be between Degree II and Degree III of the aforementioned stages. It is not a Degree I intervention as it is not a building, which, despite being protected, has great monumental value.”
“The building has not a great monumental value…” Who says that? How do you measure that?
Line 262: “The second option consists in enveloping the ornamental elements, such as mouldings, cornices, shields and ornaments of any type, with an insulating material. Given the conception of exterior thermal insulation systems, their application to ornamental elements and points, requires an adaptation process, which could be an almost artisanal one (Figure 9a), or by advanced manufacturing, starting with a precision 3D scan (Figures 9b, 9c). This second option is the one that is pursued, as it is the most favourable, because the thermal bridges would be eliminated.”
With this option original elements are either hidden or replaced by fake ones. Is it worth losing these elements?
Line 291: “W/m2ºC” to “W/m2°C”
Line 352: The characteristics of the sensors should be supplied in a Table (type, range, accuracy, etc.)
Line 524: How is thermal inertia calculated on site?
Line 535: The parameters defining the baseline case should be specified.
Line 547: If the façade has to be preserved intact, the only possible intervention is from the inside of the building, which would generate, in addition to inconvenience for the tenants, thermal bridges and heat losses at critical points.”
Again, it must be clear to whom corresponds this decision.
Line 588: Figures 11 (a) and (b) are not clear.
Line 679: “This optimal solution includes two active measures, which we understand must be applied to this reference solution: heat recovery and the replacement of light fixtures with LED technology, as both sustantially modify the demand considered.”
This should be explained, and the effect of the active measures clearly stated. The dwellings have heating but not cooling, therefore the climate is expected to be cold and heat recovery should have a significant effect. However, a climate analysis in this work is missed.
Line 845: “that ranges between 109.50 and 178.54 kWh/m2 per year”
Please, use only three significant figures (110 and 179 kWh/m2).
Line 844: “The results of this study reveal, in the current state, an estimated consumption of primary energy that ranges between 109.50 and 178.54 kWh/m2 per year. The lower value only considers consumption for heating, cooling and Domestic Hot Water, whereas the higher value also considers consumption associated with lighting and electrical equipment, as established in the criteria indicated by the Basque Government. In relation to non-renewable primary energy consumption under these different criteria, this would range between 108.79 and 165.77 kWh / m2 849 per year.”
It is concluded from this figures that no renewable energies are used for heating, cooling and DHW. Am I missing something?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The authors have made corrections to my suggestions to a sufficient extent. I thank the authors for their extensive explanations of my comments. I find the addition of a Diagram in the form of Figure 1 beneficial.
Additional remarks:
line 135 – I hope that the diagram has been trimmed on the right side by the PDF writer, it will be complete in the final version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
