Exploring the Impact of Span Length on Environmental Performance: A Comparative Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- This article only analyzes two types of span structures (8 × 15m and 15 × 25m) and single story buildings. Future work should include multi-layer structures, intermediate spans, and composite materials (such as steel wood hybrid materials) to enhance versatility. Can we increase the evaluation of intermediate spans (e.g. 10 x 20 meters) and multi story configurations to better represent building diversity.
- There is an issue with Figure 5, as the text is not fully displayed.
- There is an issue with the display of the content in lines 317-322 and 341-344. Please check the entire text.
- Fire resistance analysis shows that simplifying the mixing system through individual evaluation of materials is too simplistic. It is crucial to comprehensively discuss fire prevention challenges (such as connections, coatings) and comply with building codes for practical applicability.
- Figures 8 and 9 are not clear and not fully displayed, resembling screenshots. It is recommended to upload the original images and check the entire text.
- Lack of key details description. For example, software settings (such as Revit parameters), transportation/distance assumptions, and EPD sources. Sharing datasets or supplementary materials will improve reproducibility.
- The table boxes in Table 5 are not fully displayed. Please check the entire text.
- Although Section 4.3 acknowledges limitations, further reflection is needed. For example, excluding the basic and operational stages may underestimate the overall environmental impact.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We appreciated them, and our replies are included in the attached PDF.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We appreciated them, and our replies are included in the attached PDF.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments, and the manuscript now meets the journal’s standards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept
