Total Repair Cost Simulation Considering Multiple Probabilistic Measures and Service Life
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study validates the methodology presented by prior studies and presents the results of an effectiveness analysis with changes in COV. Various simulation results are presented to ensure the validity of the analysis results. However, it is necessary to clarify the contributions and contributions of this study. Especially "so what?" should be clarified.
Author Response
Q) This study validates the methodology presented by prior studies and presents the results of an effectiveness analysis with changes in COV. Various simulation results are presented to ensure the validity of the analysis results. However, it is necessary to clarify the contributions and contributions of this study. Especially "so what?" should be clarified.
A) The maintenance cost has been calculated simply through cost summation of each estimated service life, however the extended service life is dependent on the quality of repaired material and construction skill. This study was aimed for an evaluation of the total maintenance costs for public houses in South Korea through deterministic and probabilistic methods. This study was conducted in consideration of the effect of each repair process on the total maintenance cost, so it can be effectively used to calculate the overall maintenance cost for construction structure. Through application of probabilistic method is very effective since 1) the method can consider the variability of repair material and construction skill, 2) the repair cost (individual and total cost) is presented in continuous line so that optimum repair cost can be obtained for repairing strategy.
These authors believe that the results of this study are useful because existing studies have calculated the total maintenance cost by considering the repair cost of each member individually so far. Based on the respected review’s comment, authors revised abstract, section 2(methodology for this study), and conclusions in order to improve the contribution of this study. We marked revised contents in blue color.
All authors appreciate the thoughtful review and have reviewed and enhanced this paper several times.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study the authors have used a probabilistic and deterministic technique to measure the cost of repair and maintenance of public housing. This study was applied to public housing in South Korea. In effect, the paper complements the scarce existing literature considering the service life of each constructive activity. In the opinion of this Reviewer, this proposal is novel and relevant; however, the manuscript requires certain improvements for an adequate understanding and enhancement of the proposed research. Some suggestions for improving the manuscript are proposed in the following points:
|
Titles 2.1 and 2.2 |
It is recommended to avoid putting citations in the titles of the manuscript. Incorporate into the body of the document. |
|
|
It is recommended to describe the case study. It is announced that it was applied to public housing in South Korea, but what is its specific location? What is the main materiality? How many houses was analyzed? In what year were they built? Contextualize the climate and other relevant factors for the study. |
|
Figure 1 and Figure 2 |
In the manuscript, 5 figures and a table are presented, regrouped as Figure 1 and Figure 2. As these two figures are presented, it is unclear to understand the purpose of these two figures and their role in the procedure. Furthermore, unfortunately the description associated with Figures 1 and 2 (lines 86, 87 and 112) are not sufficiently clarifying. |
|
|
· The results are exposed and interpreted from section 4; however, there is no evidence of a discussion of the results that allows comparison with other similar studies. In section 4 only citations 19 and 20 are incorporated to support the results. The contribution of the results could be better refined, adding and comparing with other experiences. · Likewise, the limitations of the study, under which the results are valid, have not been exposed. |
|
Conclusions |
It is advisable to expose future lines of research. Also, make clear what is the practical contribution (or knowledge) of this study to the techniques / methods used by industry and public bodies. |
|
Conclusions |
For greater clarity, it is recommended to synthesize the contribution of the study regarding the objective. Go beyond a summary of the results, rather expressing directly the significant differences in each case and its reasoning. |
Author Response
In this study the authors have used a probabilistic and deterministic technique to measure the cost of repair and maintenance of public housing. This study was applied to public housing in South Korea. In effect, the paper complements the scarce existing literature considering the service life of each constructive activity. In the opinion of this Reviewer, this proposal is novel and relevant; however, the manuscript requires certain improvements for an adequate understanding and enhancement of the proposed research. Some suggestions for improving the manuscript are proposed in the following points:
|
Titles 2.1 and 2.2 |
Q1) It is recommended to avoid putting citations in the titles of the manuscript. Incorporate into the body of the document. A1) Based on the comment, we correct the section 2.1 and 2,2. |
|
|
Q2) It is recommended to describe the case study. It is announced that it was applied to public housing in South Korea, but what is its specific location? What is the main materiality? How many houses was analyzed? In what year were they built? Contextualize the climate and other relevant factors for the study. A2) According to the study cited in this paper, the factual survey for the service life of each member was conducted on repair processes for rental houses in Seoul, South Korea for 21 years from 1997 to 2017. The collected data were 46,201 maintenance cases for 41 building in six public housing complexes. The structures under investigation was aged 25 years or older. The detailed information on the comments was explained in 3.1 to include the above, and marked added contents in red color. |
|
Figure 1 and Figure 2 |
Q3) In the manuscript, 5 figures and a table are presented, regrouped as Figure 1 and Figure 2. As these two figures are presented, it is unclear to understand the purpose of these two figures and their role in the procedure. Furthermore, unfortunately the description associated with Figures 1 and 2 (lines 86, 87 and 112) are not sufficiently clarifying. A3) Based on the respected review’s comment, we improved Figure 1 and 2. Also, we revised corresponding description, and marked revised contents in blue and red color. (Fig.1 and Fig.2) |
|
|
Q4) The results are exposed and interpreted from section 4; however, there is no evidence of a discussion of the results that allows comparison with other similar studies. In section 4 only citations 19 and 20 are incorporated to support the results. The contribution of the results could be better refined, adding and comparing with other experiences. Likewise, the limitations of the study, under which the results are valid, have not been exposed. A4) Based on the comment, we added the reference shown below in section 4. 27. Yang, K.H.; Lim, H.S.; Kwon, S.J.; Kim, J.H. Repair cost estimation techniques for reinforced concrete structures located at the seashore: Considering various probabilistic service life functions and actual mix proportions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 256, 119469. We improved section 4.1 by adding comparative analysis with the reference and the limitations of this study. We marked added contents in red color. |
|
Conclusions |
Q5) It is advisable to expose future lines of research. Also, make clear what is the practical contribution (or knowledge) of this study to the techniques / methods used by industry and public bodies. A5) Based on the comment, we improved conclusion. We marked revised contents in blue color. |
|
Conclusions |
Q6) For greater clarity, it is recommended to synthesize the contribution of the study regarding the objective. Go beyond a summary of the results, rather expressing directly the significant differences in each case and its reasoning. A6) Based on the respected review’s comment, we improved conclusion 2). We marked added contents in red color. |
All authors appreciate the detailed review and have reviewed and improved this paper several times.
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract should clearly explain the research method and the research question, as well as the results of the research
Author Response
Q) The abstract should clearly explain the research method and the research question, as well as the results of the research
A) As you pointed out, the abstract has been revised to clarify the objective, method, and results of this paper.
All authors appreciate the meticulous review and have reviewed this paper several times.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It seems that the information was completed by considering the points pointed out in the first review round.
However, if the contribution points are emphasized in the introduction and conclusion, the systematicity of the research can be advanced one step further.
Reviewer 2 Report
According to the improvements observed, this Reviewer considers that this work is suitable for publication in Sustainability.Best regards
