## 4 Analysis of Results
### Selecting the Optimal Retrofit Alternative  
Table 4 presents the values of indicators representing the economic, environmental, social, and functional dimensions for the five retrofit alternatives considered. Costs are expressed in dollars, environmental indicators in points, social indicators in average mean risk per  
Figure 4: Environmental life cycle assessment. (**a**) ecosystems; (**b**) human health; (**c**) resources; (**d**) total impacts.  
Figure 5: Social life cycle assessment.  
hour, and functionality on a standardized scale. Based on these values, the eight criteria were determined for use in the decision-making process. Figure 6 illustrates the normalized values for each criterion across all alternatives. The CJ alternative shows the highest values for environmental, social, and functional criteria, while the CFRP alternative scores highest for criterion C1. STE and STA exhibit the highest values for criterion C2, corresponding to preventive maintenance costs and end-of-life impacts. SCJ has the lowest construction cost, STE achieves the lowest value for criteria C7, and STA for criteria C3, C5, and C6. Lastly, the CFRP alternative demonstrates the weakest values for criteria C2, C4, and C8.  
Table 5 presents the geometric mean values of the weights derived using the BWM method for both the criteria and dimensions analyzed. The criterion with the lowest weighting was the environmental impact of the maintenance and EoL phases, followed by the costs associated with maintenance and EoL and the social impacts on the local  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline
**Indicators** & **CJ** & **SCJ** & **STE** & **STA** & **CFRP** \\ \hline I1 & Construction cost USD & 439.80 & 215.35 & 274.96 & 334.46 & 445.16 \\ I2 & Preventive maintenance (USD) & 22.18 & 22.18 & 51.46 & 51.46 & 33.14 \\ I3 & Maintenance (USD first 10 years) & 14.06 & 14.06 & 31.64 & 31.64 & 28.49 \\ I4 & Demolition, classification, and & & & & \\  & transport waste (USD) & 28.15 & 28.15 & 1.26 & 1.26 & 0.37 \\ \hline I5 & Ecosystem (Points) & 1.03 & 0.89 & 0.26 & 0.15 & 0.33 \\ I6 & Human health (Points) & 9.04 & 7.89 & 2.46 & 1.44 & 2.42 \\ I7 & Resources (Points) & 26.23 & 20.08 & 9.85 & 4.89 & 11.95 \\ I8 & Ecosystem (Points) & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.19 \\ I9 & Human health (Points) & 0.73 & 0.73 & 0.61 & 0.61 & 0.53 \\ I10 & Resources (Points) & 3.12 & 3.12 & 2.01 & 2.02 & 1.09 \\ \hline I11 & Local Community (MRHx10E4) & 2.73 & 2.17 & 1.05 & 0.68 & 0.94 \\ I12 & Society (MRHx10E4) & 3.29 & 2.62 & 1.30 & 0.85 & 1.01 \\ I13 & Value Chain Actors (MRHx10E4) & 1.97 & 1.56 & 0.76 & 0.49 & 0.60 \\ I14 & Workers (MRHx10E4) & 3.38 & 2.67 & 1.31 & 0.83 & 1.09 \\ \hline I15 & Duration of works (scale) & 0.37 & 0.24 & 0.07 & 0.23 & 0.09 \\ I16 & Architectural impact (scale) & 0.35 & 0.35 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 0.06 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Values of the indicators for each alternative.  
Figure 6: Normalized values of the criteria.  
community and workers. In contrast, architectural impact and construction cost were identified as the most important criteria. Table 6 shows the results of the ranking methods applied in this study. The CJ alternative was the worst-rated in all cases, followed by the SCJ alternative. The STA alternative ranked third in all methods. The EDAS and MABAC methods identified the STE alternative as the best option for seismic retrofitting of shear-deficient beams, with CFRP ranking second. CODAS and MARCOS methods ranked CFRP as the best option, followed by the STA alternative.