Special-Length-Priority Algorithm to Minimize Reinforcing Bar-Cutting Waste for Sustainable Construction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comment
The paper is very interested and in general the different sections are well structured. The paper’s goal is to propose algorithms, the minimization
method by special and stock lengths was applied.
Specific comments for sections
- In section 1., the authors introduce the question they will address in the paper. They propose a short review on the issue addressed and identify the elements of novelty that this study in relation to the approaches proposed in the literature and set the objective in identifying an algorithm for cutting waste minimization (CWM) aimed at optimising the technologies used in construction sites. In addition, the authors improve their understanding of the flow chart paper in Figure 1.
- In section 2. the authors propose a literature review on the solution of the CSP which is a crucial node for of CWM problems. In it, they recall the main approaches present in the literature.
- In Section 3 the authors introduce, in line with the flow chart previously presented in Figure 1, the Cutting Waste Minimization Algorithms recalling the basic notions of Minimization by stock length (Mstl) and Mspl.
In sub section "3.2." the authors describe the structured process for Cutting Waste Minimization, summarized in the figure 3.
In sub section "3.3" the authors describe the Cutting Waste Minimization Algorithm.
In sub section "3.4" they describe Minimization process by Special Length , summarized in the figure 4.
- In section 4 the authors introduce the case study, implement and verify the effectiveness of CWM algorithms by stock and special lengths also with regard to its contribution in terms of sustainability. The results of this analysis are clearly expressed in this section.
- In section 5, the authors highlight, in line with the objectives set, a synthesis of the results obtained and the main developments in this research.
Please check if it has been reported the meaning of all the acronyms present in the paper text
Author Response
The authors would like to sincerely appreciate the anonymous reviewer who provided thorough reviews and valuable comments to help us improve the manuscript. We strongly believe that in the revision we have fully addressed the reviewer’s comments and concerns and carefully revised the manuscript based on the feedback we have received. Please see the followings below responding to the reviewer’s comments.
We carefully checked that the full name of all the acronyms presented in the paper was described.
And, as shown in the revised manuscript, we reinforced the paper as a whole.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
even though the topic of your paper is interesting, it is not clear what are you presenting in your paper. Are you aiming to present a state of the art review of applied optimization algorithms for solving cutting rebar problems upon theoretical cutting stock algorithms, or you are providing a new approach? Either way, this has to be clear in the structure of the paper as well as in its context. Furthermore, you failed to state what is the novelty of your work? Besides, the aforementioned questions, before I can go further in reviewing your work in the second round, please go through the following points:
1) the title is too general and does not correspond to the paper.
2) references are outdated (e.g. you have 3 out of 43 references from the last 5 years), as well there are too many references from scientifically lower-ranked journals. For this kind of paper, presenting the algorithms for solving a relevant optimization problem, this is not acceptable.
3) the literature review is shallow and lacks a clearly stated literature gap as a motivation for this research.
4) figures are blurry.
5) descriptions of the mathematical models are not clear nor complete.
6) description of the case study requires more info about the rebar process flow (a.e. on-site vs off-site operations in rebar production and placing).
7) I'm not familiar with the notation of the rebar, so please add the dimension of the bars' cross-sections.
Please, do not be discouraged by this step in the review process. My impression is that your paper has the potential but severely needs a better structuring and clearer message to readers. I'm looking forward to the second round of the review.
Kind regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents an intresting research about increase of sustainability in RC structures. The research design and methods are appropriate and the manuscript is well organized and written. However some slight improvement in the presentation of the results could be done. In particular the reduction of ECO2 and costs could be presented as percentage of ECO2 and costs of the RC structure and of the whole building.
More detailed notes can be found in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors provided a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments in the attached file.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for acknowledging my suggestions. There are some minor editing adjustments that you will have to do before your paper goes further in the publishing process, but they are as said minor and editing and as such I'm sure the Editors will guide you further.
Kind regards
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
