Systematization of the Manual Construction Process for a Screwed and Strapped Laminated Curved Bamboo Beam in Jericoacoara, Brazil: A Sustainable Low-Tech Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report:

The manuscript presents a detailed account of the manual construction process of a laminated curved bamboo beam within a sustainable architectural framework. While the study offers valuable insights into low-tech construction practices, several important aspects should be addressed to improve its technical depth and clarity.

Although the construction stages are thoroughly described, the manuscript does not provide any mechanical test results related to the structural performance of the beam. The authors are expected to include experimental or numerical analysis data such as bending, shear, or buckling capacity.

While the overall project involves a roof system with three spatial volumes, the study focuses solely on one beam (Vig.CLIV-1), which limits the generalizability of the findings. The authors should either provide a methodological justification for this selection or offer a comparative evaluation with the other beams.

Despite the detailed textual descriptions of the beam’s design and construction, no technical drawings, process photographs, or schematic diagrams are included. To support reader understanding and ensure replicability, visual materials showing the geometry, construction process, and completed beam should be added.

The carbon storage value is based on a coefficient from the literature; however, the calculation method and conversion factor are not explained. The authors should clearly state how this value was calculated and, if possible, provide a comparison with conventional materials to better demonstrate the environmental benefits of the proposed system.

Author Response

Answer in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have attempted to describe a process of using Bamboo as an alternative in roof construction. By this, they have proposed a process of achieving this through a standardised process. This effort is commendable.

Below are suggestions for improvement:

1) The authors referred to several figures in the manuscript, but none were seen.

2) Lines 214 - 217: The Table should stand alone and not be merged with Table 2

3) Lines 226/227: This should go into the Discussion section. Results are supposed to be presented without any citations under this section. Discussions are where the authors need to refer to other people's work.

4) Lines 447-451: All future research ideas should be aggregated in one section and not scattered between the discussion and the conclusion, preferably under the discussion section.

5) The major area that needs improvement in this manuscript is the discussion section. Except for section 4.2, the authors have not rigorously discussed their findings in the light of existing studies, showing how their study and findings compare or contrast with them and what new insights and implications these portend for the larger society. 

Author Response

Answer in the attach file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article. Below are my observations.

• The article is of interest and topicality, although it requires an important revision.
• First of all, all figures are missing. There is reference to them, but they are not there. It is difficult to understand the article without them.
• The overview and references that support the proposals need to be completed. I recommend consulting the following reference: https://repositorio.artesaniasdecolombia.com.co/handle/001/11154, referring to guadua, as well as the Colombian seismic standard (NSR-10) and the guadua architecture of the architect Simón Vélez. None of them appear as references and I believe that they are necessary in this research work.
• The objectives and methodology need to be revised. The article states that it aims to “systematizing the construction process, the aim is to evaluate its contributions to environmental sustainability and its viability as a replicable solution in ecologically sensitive areas”
• However, I do not believe that the methodology provided can systematize such a complex process. In the same way, sustainability, today, is measured by environmental impacts, consumption of resources, energy and materials, waste and recycling, in what is called a life cycle analysis.
• In the article, the valuation is given in terms of work performance, hours, days, which has nothing to do with sustainability.
• I do not agree with the statements given in the section 4.5 Contribution to Sustainable Construction in Sensitive Environments.
• The conclusions are not endorsed as a result of the investigation.

In summary, the figures must be provided, and the objectives and methodology must be reviewed. Rewrite the article.

Thank you

Author Response

Answer in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report:

The revised manuscript submitted by the authors has been carefully reviewed. It is observed that the authors have diligently addressed the comments and suggestions provided during the previous review process and have made the necessary revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for the responses given to my comments, as well as for addressing these considerations in the article. I consider that this version of the article is much clearer and better structured in terms of objectives, methodology and results and provides a very important starting point in terms of inventory of materials and processes for a future life cycle analysis assessment (LCA).

The figures provide a lot of clarification to the article and demonstrate the existence of important work. Perhaps I would review the number of figures by choosing the most significant ones.

Congratulations to the authors.

Thank you