Embodied CO₂ Reduction Effects of Composite Precast Concrete Frame for Heavily Loaded Long-Span Logistics Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for Authors

Manuscript Number: sustainability-1070573

Embodied CO2 Reduction Effects of Composite Precast Concrete Frame for Heavily Loaded Long-Span Logistics Buildings

The article makes a valuable contribution to the state-of-the-art knowledge on reducing embodied CO₂ in the built environment through the application of a new structural composite hybrid frame. The methodology and results are well described; however, there are certain points of concern that need to be addressed before this paper is ready for publication.

1. There are a number of definitions of embodied energy. Please provide a definition specific to the context of this paper.
2. Some exclamatory terms such as “ground-breaking construction method” or “unprecedented level” should be avoided.
3. Why ground-breaking? It seems that you are basically improving the design of the existing frame. What benefits are possible from reducing the quantity and/or size of structural elements?
4. Why is it called the SMART frame? Is this acronym for something?
5. How is your proposed design better than replacing case study building conventional concrete with a more sustainable concrete?
6. Page 4, the description of the logistic building should be before the description of the case study building.
7. Can you provide a brief description of different materials used in PC and CPC i.e. their purpose in addition to their quantity?
8. In Table 9 for steel, you provided only one emission factor. Shouldn’t this factor be different for HSA800? If it is assumed the two types of steels have the same emission factor it should be clearly stated.
9. In Table 11 how was the term “ECO2 per unit area” calculated?
10. Cost reduction for only a single girder was provided while ECO2 was provided for all girders of the case study building. Will costs savings increase or decrease when the whole building cost is estimated?
11. How are emission factors for Korea different from factors in other countries?
12. How were material quantities calculated? Did you use structural drawings?
13. The discussion section is too short. You can compare the findings of your work with other studies on innovative structural systems. What are the implications of your work?
14. Follow the proper citation style of the Sustainability journal.
15. Use more up to date references on the topic such as work by
    • Pomponi, Francesco, and Alice Moncaster. "Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment–what does the evidence say?" Journal of environmental management181 (2016): 687-700.
16. Some minor comments are
    • Page 2, line 48 what does RC stands for? Similarly, provide a full description of POSCO and RIST
    • Page 2, line 70 specify the exact number of girders tested (i.e. three) instead of “various types”.
    • Remove typo errors such as Page 3, line 94 “crosssection” are two words
    • Table 3 should come before Figure 4 and 5 as it's mentioned earlier
    • Figure 4 and 5 can be combined so a comparison between a PC structure elements and CPC is visible
    • Either use Figure 6 or Table 5 to present material quantities as providing both is redundant.
    • In Table 6, remove the information provided in Table 5. Just provide differences in materials for each material of the girder. You can also provide a percentage difference in brackets with the values.
    • Correct table numbers on Page 8 and Page 9.
    • Avoid repetition of information. For example, in Table 8 remove material quantifies.
    • For Figure 7 and Figure 8 just keep one graph set (a) and (b) are showing the same information.  The details can be provided in text.
    • Page 10, line 325, instead of “tremendous reduction” write the exact amount of cost reduction achieved

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors!

Title: Embodied CO2 Reduction Effects of Composite Precast Concrete Frame for Heavily Loaded Long-Span Logistics Buildings  is sure to fit into the 21st century! It is very catchy and will interest many environments not only the city center to read the manuscript.

Layout of a download abstract with the key words.

The current literature and DOI links as well as a rich visual background deserve attention

in terms of quantity (tables and figures).

The value of the work is increased by the information entitled: The study was financed by the grant 436 of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) financed by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2018M2B2B1065635) and by the grant National Research 437 Foundation of Korea (NRF) financed by the government of Korea (MOE) (No. 4382017R1D1A1B04033761). - what strays that the research is reliable. The authors probably had to account for themselves - it is a very important place in the interest of the substantive price. It is also important that the founders / donors did not play a role - they did not influence the research.

The article has a great potential for both cognitive and educational purposes.

Well to develop an indication in the conclusion of the sentences in developing it how to improve it on our world / society. My guess is that for the Authors it is obvious, but what I want is to introduce the reader.

The discussion should have even more obvious statements for the Authors. ! 5 pages of the script, it's not that much easy, you can organize the discussion even on two pages. The authors have a very insightful background - this article can have a very global background in quoting the results of the analysis.

The last paragraph in the loan: What for? For what? And why?

A very factual and substantive conclusion.

I recommend publishing an article with a request to consider the suggestions and a list of indicated minor flaws, which will not significantly reduce the value of the work, but only reflect the perceptiveness of the reviewer.

Suggestions:

Chapter two: (Methodology). It is too early should be later, there is no description under figure 1, it would be good to make some transition to the next point.

Starting the methidotic separation from Figure 1 .... doesn't look very good.

Figure 2. - the font is too small (blurred) - illegible, I suggest coloring the drawing.

Left align table 1 will be more professional and clear.

Figure 3. Drawing too wide, gray - I suggest increasing the attractiveness in terms of color - online is a lot of interest.

Figure 4. I Figure 5. Drawings as if behind the fog. Legible but not clear.

Table 4. Too extended - does not look professional

Figure 6. Behind the fog, no axis, illegible (you have to guess)

Table 6. I suggest to align the floor to the left

Incorrect table numbering. The former Table 6 is now Table 3 - row 296.

Figure 7. and Figure 8. - Illegible drawings / charts a) and b) as if behind the fog

Lots of health!

Greetings!

Reviewer

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments have been addressed properly. From my side, the paper is now ready for publication.

Thankyou for appreciating our input!