Ecological and Economic Assessment of the Reuse of Steel Halls in Terms of LCA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a very interesting paper presenting one of the very few studies of LCA of the reuse of steel, targeted to a particular application. The work is well presented however the reviewer suggest the following key changes:
1) Add a schematic representation of the framework of the study conducted to assist readers to follow the step-by-step process conducted. Please add this in Section 2.
2) All graphs should be improved and look better.
3) In the conclusions you should highlight the potential implications using this method to other structural systems as well as other deficiencies of the method.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
It is a very interesting paper presenting one of the very few studies of LCA of the reuse of steel, targeted to a particular application. The work is well presented however the reviewer suggest the following key changes:
Review comment
1) Add a schematic representation of the framework of the study conducted to assist readers to follow the step-by-step process conducted. Please add this in Section 2.
Response
The article was supplemented with a diagram presenting the framework of the scientific approach
Review comment
2) All graphs should be improved and look better.
Response
The charts have been corrected.
Review comment
3) In the conclusions you should highlight the potential implications using this method to other structural systems as well as other deficiencies of the method.
Response
The conclusions were supplemented with the proposed aspects.
Reviewer 2 Report
The work focuses on the quantitative minimization of the waste stream in the design of the production processes of a type of buildings. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the ecological effects in economic and technical terms appearance of steel halls in the process of their reuse.
The authors use abbreviations for the defined concepts, but the fragment Abbreviations used in the study becomes useless because these abbreviations are explained throughout the work.
Some corrections are needed to avoid underlining (section 2.2 and more) or font size (bibliography).
Section numbers must be checked (pay attention to 3.3 and next)
3.1. Stage I .... must be developed even if it refers to the previous sections 2.1/2.2.
Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available
The paper has a good structure, and the authors go through all the stages of a scientific approach.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The work focuses on the quantitative minimization of the waste stream in the design of the production processes of a type of buildings. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the ecological effects in economic and technical terms appearance of steel halls in the process of their reuse.
Review comment
The authors use abbreviations for the defined concepts, but the fragment Abbreviations used in the study becomes useless because these abbreviations are explained throughout the work.
Response
Due to the comments of Reviewer 3, we propose to leave "Abbreviations used in the study". For each abbreviation, it is easier to find its expansion.
Review comment
Some corrections are needed to avoid underlining (section 2.2 and more) or font size (bibliography).
Response
Unnecessary underlines have been removed. The formatting of References has been corrected according to the guidelines.
Review comment
Section numbers must be checked (pay attention to 3.3 and next)
Response
The numbering of sections and subsections throughout the article has been corrected.
Review comment
3.1. Stage I .... must be developed even if it refers to the previous sections 2.1/2.2.
Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available
Response
Section 3.1. has been revised as per the reviewer's comment.
Review comment
The paper has a good structure, and the authors go through all the stages of a scientific approach.
Response
Thank you for your positive feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors tried to study the ecological and economic(efficiency) benefits through reuse of building structural elements (steels) through a Cradle to Cradle (C2C) looped circular economy and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) under certain assumptions. The authors also proposed a methodology for calculating the ecological amortization of buildings (EAB).
Please give the full form of the abbreviations at their first appearance, (In the abstract the full forms for LCA, EET, EC is missing)
Appropriately format the abbreviations., this subsection missing some abbreviations like (DFE, ETE)
Some reference for consideration about decision making through LCA for reusability
Srinivasan, Ravi S., et al. "Comparison of energy-based indicators used in life cycle assessment tools for buildings." Building and environment 79 (2014): 138-151.
Anil Kumar, Gulivindala, et al. "A multi-layered disassembly sequence planning method to support decision making in de-manufacturing." Sādhanā 46.2 (2021): 1-16.
Reisinger, Julia, et al. "Parametric Optimization and Decision Support Model Framework for Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Flexible Industrial Building Structures Integrating Production Planning." Buildings 12.2 (2022): 162.
I think the parameters in fig 3 should be described
The results are well discussed with sufficient justification.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
In this manuscript, the authors tried to study the ecological and economic(efficiency) benefits through reuse of building structural elements (steels) through a Cradle to Cradle (C2C) looped circular economy and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) under certain assumptions. The authors also proposed a methodology for calculating the ecological amortization of buildings (EAB).
Review comment
Please give the full form of the abbreviations at their first appearance, (In the abstract the full forms for LCA, EET, EC is missing)
Response
The abstract has been corrected and supplemented with abbreviations.
Review comment
Appropriately format the abbreviations., this subsection missing some abbreviations like (DFE, ETE)
Response
All abbreviations have been corrected and supplemented.
Review comment
Some reference for consideration about decision making through LCA for reusability
Srinivasan, Ravi S., et al. "Comparison of energy-based indicators used in life cycle assessment tools for buildings." Building and environment 79 (2014): 138-151.
Anil Kumar, Gulivindala, et al. "A multi-layered disassembly sequence planning method to support decision making in de-manufacturing." Sādhanā 46.2 (2021): 1-16.
Reisinger, Julia, et al. "Parametric Optimization and Decision Support Model Framework for Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Flexible Industrial Building Structures Integrating Production Planning." Buildings 12.2 (2022): 162.
Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Due to the lack of online availability of the second literature item, the article was supplemented with two items.
Review comment
I think the parameters in fig. 3 should be described
Response
According to the literature item [66], the nomenclature is not assigned to linear and angle deformations. Sentence changed to improve understanding of this note.
Review comment
The results are well discussed with sufficient justification.
Response
Thank you for your positive feedback.
