Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study contains important information, especially for limiting the carbon footprint. But the referee is not sure on some points;

1) The title reads “Carbon Footprints….” It might be better.

2) As mentioned by the authors, taking a single building as an example makes widespread impact and scientific generalization difficult.

3) The fact that the details belong only to this building is another problem.

4) A calculation has been made according to the references given in Table 1-Table 6, but a mathematical modeling and general formulas for how these calculations are made should be given here.

5) “Water Damage” should be defined and examples of this damage should be given.

6) Real application visuals regarding “Water Damage” reinforcement should be added.

7) Since the type of repair may vary depending on the level of damage, the cost of reinforcement and the amount of carbon footprints may vary depending on the level of damage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Support the abstract with main results (by numbers)

2. Add a flowchart or block diagram summarizing the rehabilitation steps applied to the houses after the torrential rain or disaster flooding.

3. Change the “Kg” to “kg” on the whole manuscript.

4. Could you add a new section to explain the future work related to your recommendations for reducing CO2 emissions during the building rehabilitation process?

5. Could you create a mathematical model for the CO2 amount for the building rehabilitation process to make the CO2 calculations easy for future works? It may be useful to create it for general houses, not only in Norway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submission in MDPI. 

Title too generic and lengthy- Pls revisit

Single family residence ----- In title what so unusual? Do it have any link with construction methods or water damage the other keywords of title? Kindly revisit

Line 10 Rehabilitating water damage-----like ? ? ?  Pls expand

Line 12 carbon footprint???Is it relative or quantitative?? 

Line 10 Rehabilitating water damage & Line 13 repairing water damage---- what is the difference between these two damages---------Pls expand

Lines 13 and 14  torrential rain (Pls use heavy rain) using three different construction methods---- Which methods Pls write?

LCA which method?

With all other physical factual items why the water damage was taken imaginary-----Pls elaborate

EPS-----Pls use full name than abbreviation

LECA ----Pls use full name than abbreviation

Line 18 However, timber frame houses had the lowest total carbon footprint owing to their low 18 footprint-----This is already known and established Can you quantify it?

Line 19 This study found that water damage significantly contributed to the carbon footprint of buildings and, therefore, must be properly addressed.---Pls quantify this statement is weird 

Keyword: Building defect, Global warming potential, Norway-----Pls see the MDPI keywords format

Torrential rain, heavy rainfall same words---Pls delete repeating word

Line 25 1.1 Pls specify unit

Line 30 which buildings ---pls expand 

Line 33 what is relation between solid design , emissions and building defects?

 Building defects, construction industry and single family residential building how you can correlate?

 Line 46 what is building moisture 

Line 47 reported -----Where

Line 47 how intrusion was measured/quantified?

Line 49 883M EUR---Reference pls

Line 55 Hans--Reference pls

Line 56 - 62 Does it have any link with the current paper scope Pls revisit

Line 65 Pls remove unnecessary and 

The water damaged buildings --  the term is inappropriate 

A good constructed building can withstand the damage due to water during its life cycle

There are certain protections provided on wood and other materials to protect it from water damage. Raw wood is rare?

Line 82 With the significant increase in precipitation expected in the future, we anticipate an increase in water damage.-------Reference

Literature review is very ordinary Pls rewrite 

Research gap, motivation, novelty and objectives are missing ----Pls introduce

Figure 2 b Pls introduce first floor plan also

Line 114 Information -----Pls expand?

EPS?

EPD?

Why stage B was eliminated ----Pls expand

Transport distance -----what was rational Pls expand?

Figure 3 pls label dimensions why foundation only?

Insulated timber frame and wood ----Any difference?

Table 1 Caption-----Construction material ------Building element or product ? Pls rewrite

Figure 4 Pls label dimensions why foundation only?

Do the participants of expert workshop discuss about LCA or they do not have experience?

How CO2 value was determined not clear?

Figure 6 houses or construction methods?

GWP determination not clear?

Conclusions should be derived from objectives 

Pls use bullets in objectives for better explanation

Pls include more research references also. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Pls improve the tenses in paragraphs. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary edits. 

Author Response

Thank you again for reviewing our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that this manuscript be ACCEPTED for publication without further review.

Author Response

Thank you again for reviewing our article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submission of revised version. 

The Authors are requested to change the color of the text in revised version for better understanding of the reviewer about the specific changes made as described in cover letter. 

Title:

1. Carbon foot prints or Life Cycle analysis (LCA) ------ Pls revisit

2. Detached house ------ Conventional Norwegian Detached House ---  Pls revisit  

Water damage means accidental discharge or leakage of water or steam as the direct result of the breaking or cracking of any part of a system or appliance---- (Water damage Definition | Law Insider)

The word does not seems to be appropriate ----- Kindly revisit

Abstract 

Line 11  Construction industry ----- Seems quite large domain to address when we compare with detached home scale ----- Kindly revisit

Line 12 Pls revist there is lot of research inspite of key words carbon footprint / water damage  pls see LCA and moisture damage. Pls review your statement

Line 14 torrential rain------ Is it the only cause of water damage in your paper?   Kindly review

Line 14 Construction methods or three types of detached houses -- Pls review

Line 18 imaginary ----- What is its utility   Kindly expand?

NS 3720:2018. Method for greenhouse gas calculations for buildings-------- Apart from carbon which other green house gases were determined if so?

Line 18 single-family residential building ------- Pls delete and read carefully the revised version

Water damage range or intensity is missing? The environment including temperature, wind speed,  humidity, time for evaluation etc do also play role in determination of the gases quantity reported in abstract ----- Nothing was described about it. 

The Authors and I am not certain that the CARBON FOOT PRINT REPORTED WAS ONLY DUE TO MOISTURE AND WATER? This is one of the main flaw of this paper?

Line 24 Topic should be given attention   -------- Kinly read few abstracts from Building journal the last line can be about social impact / industrial applications of the research. 

Line 25 Most of the key words reported like Norway, building defect etc are irrelevant Pls revisit

Line 35 37% This statement need correction Pls refer CO₂ emissions by sector, World (ourworldindata.org) Pls remember to separate manufacturing of building materials and construction of buildings separately as described in the content of reference?

Lines 37-67 building defects? interior or exterior part of building? Authors made evaluation against rain? Very confusing? Authors are requested to clarify the rational?

Line 79 damaged building materials--------like ?

Line 84 stage of its life-------Can you pls show some typical graphical representation of some building materials ?

Line 86 A, C, and D were considered------- Pls clarify

Line 105 needs a model------ Kindly show similar models in a Figure used world wide

Objective 3 is not clear

Objective 1 new building carbon foot print? Not clear

Objective 2  rehabilitating water damage? Not clear

The objectives 1,2 and 3 need to be rewritten with necessary rational 

Line 103 only one house model------ with all construction types? why one? what was rational------only the data non availability----- Kindly review your logic

Figure 2b Pls provide sectional details of the plan for better understanding as marked AA in the Figure. 

Figure 2 pls label legends like V, BH, BD, etc. 

Figure 2 what was rational of showing bed, dining tables, kitchen utilities? Are you evaluating their contribution towards the LCA also? Kindly revist?

What was source of water in kitchen, bath room etc. Pls provide some plumbing details also?

Lines 124 and 125 A typical water damage was selected based on information from a specialist on water 124 damage from the leading property damage restoration firm in Norway, Polygon AS------- The reference is not satisfactory Pls revisit

Line 128 construction materials---- like ?

Line 128 environmental impact----- Its new term? you have not talked about it earlier

Line 121 was redesigned------- How?

Line 133 remaining products------like?

Line 137 were not relevant in this study------- why what was rational

Line 137 house model is a concept----- Pls declare Figures 1 and 2 as conceptual not physical 

Line 139 Technical installations---------------Like ?

Line 144 three houses had different wall constructions but had the same floor and roof construction====== from structure perspective the statement is not true

Figures 3, 4 and 5 pls provide dimensions The text style should be consistent otherwise seems copied from some source if so Pls provide reference

Tables 1 - 6 why interior? what was their contribution

Table 1 Foundation------------- Material?

Table 1-6 it's all data from outsources as referred

Line 189 50 mm water on the ground floor for seven days? Can you pls give some visualization through Figure How? Figure 1 shows the level of GF is already around 1 meter above the ground level. This imaginary seems (Figure 6) to have no logic

Further as per Figure 6 the water cannot sustain 50 mm for seven days in living environment? Pls revisit?

Line 203 reconstruction-----------If required after every rain? The expert opinion seems dubious. Kindly revisit?

Figure 7 Pls omit

Line 211 fittings======like

Tables 4 & 5 lists the construction materials for all three houses that must be replaced or renewed------------Why and After how much duration?

Line 243  6 months/======= Seems very abnormal 

Line 251 42 days-----------------Seems very abnormal

Section 2.4 I suggest to omit

Table 7 The GWP determination was not provided in the section

Figures 8 and 9 seems very non impressive can be presented in much better way like ls refer CO₂ emissions by sector, World (ourworldindata.org) 

Conclusions not derived from objectives. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is improvement in English language. Few minor tenses and vocabulary corrections are required as highlighted. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf