## 5 Discussion
Steel jacketing alternatives significantly reduce environmental and social impacts and lower construction costs; this is attributed to the efficient use of materials by placing continuous steel plates on both sides of the beam web. This retrofitting technique effectively enhances shear strength and ductility, achieving higher shear capacity by increasing the height of the plates rather than their thickness [12]. However, the highest preventive maintenance costs for steel jacketing alternatives are due to the need for anti-corrosion paint and fireproof mortar. The STA alternative shows reduced environmental and social impacts compared to STE, primarily because it eliminates using epoxy resin-based thixotropic adhesives. Nevertheless, STA involves higher construction costs, longer execution times, and more significant architectural impacts due to the anchor bolts required, ranking it third among the alternatives. The incorporation of carbon fibers presents reductions in environmental and social impacts, shorter execution times, and minimal architectural impacts, although its construction costs are high. The STE and CFRP retrofit alternatives lead the alternatives in the ranking. In construction engineering, decision-making often involves conflicting criteria. In the search for optimal seismic retrofit solutions, economic, environmental, and social impacts, lead times, and architectural considerations can result in conflicting criteria for different retrofit alternatives. Various MCDM methods are available in the literature to address such complexities. Among them, the widely used AHP and TOPSIS combine antiquity and ease of application. However, little attention has been given to exploring newer, more advanced decision-making methods. AHP remains the most commonly applied method for criteria weighting. However, the BWM has emerged as a robust alternative in the MCDM field, offering reliable and relevant results. Unlike the arbitrary pairwise comparisons in AHP, BWM employs a systematic approach [53]. It requires fewer pairwise comparisons, reducing inconsistencies and producing more reliable outcomes than AHP [54]. One of the concerns in applying different MCDM methods is the rank reversal problem. This issue occurs when the ranking of alternatives changes depending on the method used, leading to inconsistencies in decision-making [27]. The STE alternative ranks first in the EDAS and MABAC methods, followed closely by CFRP. In the MARCOS method, CFRP ranks first, narrowly edging out STE. In contrast, the CODAS method places CFRP in first place, with a significant advantage over STE in second place. This study has considered input from diverse experts to capture different professional, academic, and research perspectives. However, the weighting of criteria often introduces uncertainty in the application of MCDM methods, which can significantly influence decision-making results. The results indicate that STE is the highest-ranked alternative in the two methods, while CFRP leads in the remaining two. An important step in the application of MCDM is the sensitivity analysis of aspects that can significantly alter the results, thus ensuring consistency in the final decision [55]. In order to support the robustness of these results, a sensitivity analysis was performed to examine how variationsin the weighting of the criteria might affect the rankings. The analysis included positive and negative weighting variations of 10% and 15%, resulting in 16 scenarios. An additional scenario was considered in which all criteria had the exact weighting. Rankings were then generated for each scenario across all MCDM methods, providing valuable information on the consistency and reliability of the decision-making process. Figure 7 presents the results for a \(\pm\)15% variation in the criteria weights, as no significant changes were observed with a 10% variation. Across the 68 scenarios analyzed, CJ consistently ranks last, while SCJ occupies fourth place in all MCDM rankings. In the EDAS method, STE ranks first in 14 scenarios.