Exploring Analytical Hierarchy Process for Multicriteria Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Slabs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer’s Comment
General Comments
Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-structured manuscript. The authors have done impressive work on their study of “A Hybrid Model in the Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Slabs”. It is interesting to know that there are some other valuable things to consider before building or constructing a durable structure in recent times. In my opinion, this is an interesting study and the manuscript contains a comprehensive literature review with relevant information. The flow and readability are excellent and I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript.
Specific comments
Abstract: The abstract is quite precise, thorough, and informative.
Introduction and Other Sections: The introduction, and other sections and subsections of the manuscript are well detailed. The explanations were all to the point without any ambiguity. The data presented are clear and contain relevant and updated information. Also, in the concluding section, it was good that you summarized how your study could be applied, the limitations, and specific recommendations for further studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
With this letter of reply, we would like to thank you for the comments on the revision of the work and which certainly qualify and improve our text.
Sincerely,
The authors
Brazil
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ID - applsci-2561608
Title “A Hybrid Model in the Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Slabs”
Comment 1: Organize the keywords in alphabetical order.
Comment 2: - Authors are recommended to include a workflow diagram and the research significance that outlines the main objective of current study at the end of the introduction section.
Comment 3:- Figure 1 quality should be improvised with higher resolution for better readability.
Comment 4 : - Line 102 to 104 – Justify with the literature support.
Comment 5:- Author is requested to explain about the aesthetic suitability.
Comment 6:- Author are requested to justify why Analytic Hierarchy Process is chosen for this study.
Comment 7:- Line 186 “ith” to be changed to ith
Comment 8:-The images presented in the manuscript are of low quality and the itsquality should be improved with high resolution images.
Comment 9:- The author has to provide the reason why the “type of structural system” for the slab is not considered in the criteria head. As structural system plays the major role in selecting the slab.
Comment 10:- reference has to checked with the journal standards.
grammatical mistakes and typos.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
With this letter of reply, we would like to thank you for the comments and suggestions that help in the revision of the work and that certainly qualify and improve our text. We inform you that the changes suggested by the reviewer were fulfilled, answered, and changed in the article. Also, the changes in the text of the article are in the font in blue so that it is better to visualize. The following are the responses to the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
The authors
Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents an interesting study on the model for selecting the RC slabs for structural design. The topic is meaningful as the selection of structures at the design stage can have a significant impact on the life-cycle environmental and economic performance of the buildings or infrastructures. Some specific comments are:
1. In the Introduction, from line 50-66, the authors introduced the applications of AHP method to evaluate structural systems for decision making. It shows that the method has been applied to RC slabs in the previous study. There is no critical discussion on the limitations of those existing studies. So the need for the current study is unclear.
2. In Section 2.1, different floor slab systems are introduced. But there are two typical types of slabs that are not considered, which as flat slabs with drop panels and bend beams. These slabs are also widely used and should be considered.
3. The part from line 159-173 is not relevant to the study and should be deleted.
4. In Section 2.4, line 235-236, the authors introduced the ‘structural performance’ criteria. The span in each direction for a specific type of slab was not considered. But the span is an important parameter for selecting the most suitable type of slabs.
5. In line 286-294, the data set was introduced. But the details for the dataset such as the number for each type of slab, the source of data, the material properties range and structural dimension range should be presented. Otherwise, the suitability of the dataset for the research is not justified.
6. The cost criteria of the structures was not explained. The data and results related to the influence of the cost criteria were not presented.
Overall, the quality is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
With this letter of reply, we would like to thank you for the comments and suggestions that help in the revision of the work and that certainly qualify and improve our text. We inform you that the changes suggested by the reviewer were fulfilled, answered, and changed in the article. Also, the changes in the text of the article are in the font in blue so that it is better to visualize. The following are the responses to the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
The authors
Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments are addressed
Comment 1: Grammer Check - Line 84 - Typo error - "Stud" - Study.
Typo and grammar check needed.
