Sustainability Impacts of Wood- and Concrete-Based Frame Buildings
Adam Taylor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article first introduces five commonly used force recognition methods. By analyzing them, a suitable one for the experiment was determined. Two methods are frequency response function (FRF) matrix inversion and modal filtering (MF). Secondly, the force spectra measured by traditional sensor measurements and 3D-DIC technology on the frame structure are compared. Finally, the conclusion is reached:
(1) 3D-DIC technology can effectively identify the load, and the use of this technology can reduce the cost of the identification process.
(2) The identification method of MF obtains higher precision force spectrum recognition, and the relative error of it is 3.7%, while that of FRF is 29.6%.
The experiments and conclusions drawn in this article have a positive effect on load monitoring, as well as provide other researchers a certain reference. However, there are still a few points worth revising:
(1) In the process of experimental description in Part 4, the text of large paragraphs is somewhat cumbersome, if it is organized with a certain logic table (e.g., structure, cross-sectional size, connection method, and other equipment parameters and works used in the experiment use, etc.), it will allow readers to obtain information more intuitively.
(2) In the process of describing the experiment in Part 4, the components, instruments, etc. used in the experiment are simply listed, and the complete experimental process was not shown. It would be better to have a whole logical thread connecting the steps of each part.
(3) In 5.1, "Based on the first series of data, it is estimated that ...” How is the response function estimated? Are there any references or guidelines? "Using the above data, the modal model of the object is then identified." How to use data to recognize models?
(4) In Part 6, "Based on the study, it can be seen that it is now possible to ... structure", it is hard to say that the future will be bright with an experimental study. It is better to be more convincing after multiple corroborations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We beliewe that your comments are not related to our paper since you ask to improve the methods that we did not used.
Please note the details of our paper and check if it is the right one
Title
Sustainability impacts of wood- and concrete-based frame buildings
Edgaras Linkevičius1, Povilas Žemaitisb2, Marius Aleinikovas2
Reviewer 2 Report
The work presented here is good enough to publish in this journal and will provide a worthwhile contribution to the literature and future research. Specific comments are:
· Authors need to improve introduction section while adding previous research findings related to this topic and then can emphasis the new knowledge/research gap addressing by this paper. Proper comparison of literature data to date is more useful in order to highlight the gap in knowledge.
· The calculation method for carbon emission is not clear. It requires add section showing example calculations or else detailed explanation in procedure.
· Authors mentioned that analysis of environmental and social indicators showing a replacement of PRC frames with GLT frames in the construction of low-rise public buildings would lead to a reduced environmental footprint alongside a range of positive social impacts. However, this is not clearly represented in results of this paper. Better clarify it.
· Suggest to add future recommendation section by highlighting the research gaps need to be addressed in further.
· Conclusion section seems summary of whole manuscript while mixing with methodology, results and key findings of this study. Simply this is week and not upto the standard level. Important key findings were also missed in reporting so suggest re-focusing this section to improve while mentioning key scientific ideas briefly and concisely in point form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the comments in the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The scientific paper presented is adequately prepared and its topic fulfils the requirements for peer-reviewed scientific publications.
I request the authors to consider:
1. describe in a global international context Why is the research issue you are undertaking is important? In the introduction of the work.
2. In the literature review - present an overview based on texts published in top journals.
3. describe more the differences between the projects in the materials and methods. So that it is possible to replicate the research by another research team.
4. In the discussion, refer to the differences between the projects and what results from this.
5. Please correct the conclusion. The conclusion is an important part of a scientific publication, in volume it should be similar to the introduction to the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find our answers in the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Sustainability impacts of wood- and concrete-based frame buildings
L18 What is ‘GLT’? Glulam timbers? Needs to be defined
L23 was selected
L55 reference?
L62 “together with…liftimes.
L71 cement is just one ingredient in concrete – the material in general should, in my opinion, be referred to as ‘concrete’
L86-L89 strike paragraph – not needed.
L107 what is “ST”? And “SCC”?
L130 I don’t know what these concrete types are or why they are relevant. Some background would be helpful.
L166 There are more recent reports on displacement values; you may wish to acknowledge that the factors in the Sathre and O’Connor review are higher than those reported more recently.
L189 ‘commonly’ not ‘universally’
I like that you chose to evaluate ‘standard’ buildings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find our answers in the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
I thing, that this is very interesting study of simplistic low-rise public building designs whose results can be easy to apply in many countries. The assessment done by the authors on the sustainability of steps should be the production phase a prelude to further research on full life cycle impacts [49]. The use of wood-based buildings and cross laminated timber constructions have a big future. The main results of this study showed the advantages of constructed GLT frame buildings over PRC frame buildings in terms of various sustainability measures. It is very important to consider environmental indicators such as: GHG emissions, Generation of waste, Water consumption, Energy consumption, Volume of non-renewable materials, Carbon inflow into the pool, WDF (GLT and ST). In particular, the results show that use of GLT frame buildings can reduce embodied carbon emissions and transportation emissions during the transportation to the construction site.
The article is written in a rather general way. Graphs, functions and dependencies clearly illustrating the results obtained for wood and concrete seem to be needed. In addition, there are questions about the following topics:
1. In what area and how much time will it take to restore wood materials depending on the amount of size of the structures made?
2. It is a pity that the authors could not provide the construction costs of the reconstruction time. Is there any relationship between the difference in the values of the parameters describing the construction of buildings made of wood and reinforced concrete, depending on the number of storeys, size, cubic capacity, weight and construction area of the buildings?
3. There is no block diagram of the process that allows to obtain optimal structures made of wood and concrete, the more so that the authors discuss a number of parameters, but they are described in words and separately - independently of each other.
4. It is also important to consider various optimized variants of both wood and concrete structures.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find our answers in the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors responded convincingly, developed my doubts and satisfactorily edited the article. The article should be published.
