Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making and Life Cycle Assessment Methods for Sustainable Evaluation of Concrete Mixtures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article compares and analyzes the multi criteria decision-making and life cycle assessment methods for sustainable evaluation of concrete mixtures, the main problems in this paper are as follows:
1. What are the innovative points of this paper, which should be clearly presented in the abstract and introduction.
2. The clarity of the pictures in this article needs to be improved.
3. The references cited in this paper are old, it is suggested to quote more references in the past five years.
4. The format of this article still has some problems and needs to be modified.
5. Overall, the author of this paper has done a good job and recommends that it is accepted after minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a recognized method of calculating the environmental impact of a product over its entire life cycle. LCA provides knowledge and information that can be used to prioritize and direct the development of products or processes, taking into account ecological aspects. In construction, the environmental impact is calculated at every stage of the product life cycle: from the extraction of raw materials, through the production stage, transport, on-site assembly, service life and maintenance, to dismantling and recycling. The potential for environmental impact can be reduced in the concrete production phase by selecting materials with better environmental characteristics. This is mainly due to the use of recycled materials. With this comes the problem of durability and reliability. The article presents various approaches based on LCA and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), as well as evaluation of them in the context of sustainability and durability of cementitious materials. Concrete mixtures are evaluated based on their strength, durability parameters, production costs and environmental impact. The article is interesting due to the importance of the research issues and the methodology.
Detailed comments:
1. There are unnecessary repetitions of sentences (pages 2 and 3 "For instance, adding fly ash can effectively reduce the environmental impact when the replacement percentage is below 40% [20, 22]"
2. Lack of explanations of some abbreviations, e.g. OPC on page 3. Used abbreviations should be explained the first time they appear in the text.
3. The references should be completed, recommended publications:
“A Proposal of a Method for Ready-Mixed Concrete Quality Assessment Based on Statistical-Fuzzy Approach”. Materials 2020, 13, 5674. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245674
"Impact of Water Quality on Concrete Mix and Hardened Concrete Parameters" Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports 2019, vol.29, no.3, https://doi.org/10.2478/ceer-2019-0033
English is clear and correct
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) Before Line 163 "In terms of mechanical properties, the compressive strength at two specific ages, 7 and 28 days, is considered." you should add at least a paragraph explaining the reasonable of the chosen periods.
2) In Line 662 to line 666, the number of points to be experssed as %.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is interesting due to the author's intention to make a comparative analysis for two methods used in engineering practice for the purpose of evaluating technical solutions: g life cycle assessment (LCA) methods with durability parameters integrated and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods.
Also, the theme is interesting due to the fact that it addresses the problem of alternative solutions to the manufacture of cement concrete. This practice contributes to reducing the impact of the manufacture and use of cement concrete on the environment.
Some remarks and revision suggestions should be made:
- I recommend the author to present, in the first part of the article, a flow diagram that clarifies how the study is carried out;
- I think the introduction is too extensive. The author must clearly present the studied problem and the way in which it will be approached;
- The author repeats, identically paragraphs 57-76 in the area 117-137. It needs to eliminate repetition;
- 142 - there are no specifications with reference to OPC;
- 140-154 and Table 1 - the marking of the samples is difficult to follow. If possible, I think the symbols should be simplified;
- Table 3, Table 5 - the sources of recorded data are not specified;
- I believe that, for an easier passage of the paper, the author must present additional elements regarding the application of the algorithms from subchapter 2.5 to support the results from chapter 3;
- The conclusions must clearly refer to the two components of the research stated at the beginning of the article: the comparison between the results of the application of the two methods of analysis (LCA and MCDM); the effect of using complementary materials in the composition of cement concrete.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
I think that the research part is a bit limited. The scientific research component must be highlighted more strongly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
