Comments:
-	Figure 1 is not completed, needs an addition to be understood.
-	There is some redundancy in figures. Few figures are duplicate and others need separate comments. Comments have to clearly illustrate each part of the figure. Comments should be written on each figure or small groups (one figure may include 2-3 drawings). For example, what is the difference between 19 and 20, or what do the lines and colors of these figures indicate? Please apply this to all figures.
-	Changing the form according to the potentials, as what displays in figure 21, needs more analysis to strengthen the theory part. How many design alternatives did they have? What are the differences between these design alternatives, regarding: code, cost, concepts, etc.?
-	Figures of physical programs do not specify whether these figures are for one building or a group of buildings? Much illustration is needed regarding this.
-	The results and conclusion are broad. Some analysis, as mentioned before, is needed to establish a basis for these results and conclusion.
-	The writing style is not according to the conference writing style.
