Use of Flat Interwoven Wooden Strips in Architecture and Construction. Simulation and Optimization Using 3D Digital Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting paper and I congratulate the authors on their approach, especially the DSR philosophy.

The main issues I have are with Section 5.1. I believe the authors need to be more precise in their presentation and discussion of these results in order that the maximum value can be achieved.

My suggestions:

• Your presentation of the tensile test data is scattered and lacks precision. You need to clearly define how many samples were tested for each condition. I strongly suggest that standard deviations be included in Table 1 to provide some context for the scatter of the data. You have mentioned that the data in Table 1 is “clearly” divided into two groups, but provided no basis for this division! Part of the problem is that you have not provided a more detailed description for the source of your material.
• I also suggest Figures 11, 13, 14 be presented as stress-strain diagrams, so that it is easier to check the numbers in Table 1.
• The discussion in Section 5.1 needs a more logical flow. Maybe: present the stress-strain curves, then Table 1 with the summary of key data, then Figure 12 and the discussion of failure modes.
• Figures 11, 13, 14 have triangles that are not discussed. What do they represent?
• Your results on the rolling of the strips onto cylinders is interesting, but lacking in description of the procedure. Please see my marked-up PDF for more details and questions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An investigation has been carried out that aims to promote the use of materials for constructions. It has focused on constructions made by interlacing flat strips of wood. Influencing aspects of sustainability and environmental improvement, it has been specified for the study of locally produced chestnut tree in the Basque Country, north of Spain. With the methodology proposed in this research, it has been possible to create new
artifacts with new geometries using new interweaving patterns, based on scientific analyzes to obtain the mechanical properties of the material. Digital software  have been used, which have made it possible to design, implement and previously evaluate the results so that the material is capable of curving at all points within its calculated elastic limit. These 3D models serve to maintain a record of the constructed artifact and allow them to be replicated without having to observe the artisian constructing that model. All existing models can be registered digitally in the local museum's documentary bases, and new models can be created with new wefts.

The paper is well done. but I have some remarks:

1) The authors should improve the figure 7, it  is not very clear

2) The authors should rewrite the unit measure in correct manner (e.g. from row 438 to row 437)

3) The authors should explain better the section 5.1.2. of flexibility and curvature tests and report more data about the  winding of strip 

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is focused on the exploitation of interwaved wood strips for structural applications. The authors performed an analysis of the needs and performed the required analysis to confirm the feasibility of the proposed structures.

I think that the paper is interesting, but I would suggest some modifications/integrations.

First of all, the authors refer to "Design Science" to describe their analysis approach. The considered term is not convincing in terms of what actually is Design Science. Design Science is a branch that encompasses both engineering and industrial design, comprising creativity, sustainability, from the extraction of customer needs to design of the product. Accordingly, I think that it is not correct to call a specfic investigation approach as a "Design Science Research". The latter, expresses a very wide concept .

For example, you can call your  approach as "structured investigation approach", specifically taylored for this work.

Another doubt is about the considered background. Nowadays, and as mentioned by the authors, plastic is often used in place of biological materials. However, since the plastic is actually an environmental problem, organic fibers are currently encountering high interests from scholars. In particular, fibers can be used to obtain disposable composite materials for both packaging and buildings (e.g. 10.4081/jae.2020.1088 ;  10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111919 ; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2543-7044 )

It is important to consider the actual state of the art, and would be interesting to introduce potential pros and cons of the proposed material in relation to these alternative solutions. Maybe in Discussions.

Another question is about the production process of the strips and the related wood waste. Any idea about how to manage it? (e.g. for wood mulch production [e.g. 10.4081/jae.2021.1111],  or energy production [e.g https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19893022]

some minor issues:

Row 10: please reformulate "The research that aims..."?
Rows 10-22: The abstract must be reformulateed in a clearer way.
Row 26: "The construction sector is one that most resources consume", maybe authors intended "The construction sector is among the most resource-consuming"?

I suggest to perform a comprehensive proof reading throughout the whole paper.

 

 

 

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors answered to my comments, but the answer are not convincing.

About the DSR concept:
It is necessary to introduce DSR with a comprehensive background, allowing the reader to clearly contextualize the DSR concept considered by the authors. The few words introduced by the authors are somewhat confusing, and surely not sufficient. Independently on the number of works and doctoral thesis made by the authors (which a reviewer cannot evaluate), it is necessary to provide a clear description for a wider readership, especially for this journal, where readers are from many different disciplines.

About Point 3:
I understand that the study is focused on artisanal manufacture with wooden strips, but I do not understand why it is not possible to reason about the potential use of wooden baskets to replace plastic packaging. Also because plastic is mentioned by the same authors. What is the impact of this study in terms of sustainability? My suggestion aimed at pushing the authors to think about possible "future" impacts from this work. 
without such a kind of reflection I'm not sure that the paper is actually suitable for this journal.

About Point 4:
Please add the contents of your answer in the paper. That would be fine to better understand the context and to avoid possible doubts from the readers.

However, at this point a crucial question arises: "how such a kind of manufacturers can beneficiate from a study like this?". That should be carefully explained.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been improved according to the reviewer requests