两篇进行了讨论，对Kristo Mela和Markku Heinisuo的目的是比较研究的质量和强度的不同阶层之间的钢在路灯使用。在给定的文章中，研究人员对S500和S700的强度与S355相比，这证明了更好的性能然后前两（Mela & heinisuo，2014）。Ambrose Doddo的研究，Leif Gustavsson与Roger Sathre相比，三种不同的木材建筑系统。研究相比，正在使用的不同的土木工程的建设和研究的效率和影响的材料（多杜，et al.，2014）。
这些研究总是带有一定的力量和弱点。在第一项研究中的成本和效益分析进行了三个不同类别的钢。第一篇文章集中在钢的成本分析，这将有助于未来的土木工程项目使用的材料，这是便宜，可以更好地执行。这种结构可以帮助土木工程承包商的公司，但也有在研究论文的一些弱点以及（Mela & heinisuo，2014）。主要缺陷或循环孔的研究文件将是比较只有三类钢。其他几个类的钢没有讨论，而只关心焊接梁的结果。研究论文是很难理解的管理团队，因为有几个条款中使用的文件，这是很难理解的管理和财务相关的团队。管理的一部分没有得到很好的讨论和管理团队将面临困难的理解。
Two papers which are discussed in the paper, the purpose of the Kristo Mela and Markku Heinisuo is comparing between the quality and study the strength between different classes of steel using in the street lights. In the given article, researchers have compared the strength of S500 and S700 with the S355, which proved better in performance then the former two(Mela & Heinisuo, 2014).The research of Ambrose Doddo, Leif Gustavsson with Roger Sathre compared the three different timber building systems. Both of researches are compared to the material which is being used in construction of different civil engineering projects and the efficiencies and implications of those researches (Dodoo, et al., 2014).
These researches always contain some strength and weakness. In the first research the cost and benefits analysis was done between three different classes of steel. First article has focused on the cost analysis of the steel which will help the future civil engineering project to use material which is less expensive and can perform better. This structure could help the civil engineering contractors companies, but there are some weakness in the research paper as well (Mela & Heinisuo, 2014). The main flaw or loop hole in the research paper will be that it compare on three classes of steels only. Several other classes of steels are not being discussed while the results only concerned with the welded beam. The research paper is difficult to understand for the teams of management because there are several terms used in the paper which are difficult to understand for team related to management and finance. The portion of management is not well discussed and team of management would face difficulty in understanding。
Summing up all, the research paper is well established. The hypothesis in both the researches was carefully developed and method was appropriate according to the results which were needed to study and assumed. There was several strength as well as weakness in the articles. Strengths were analysis for cost benefits and energy conservation as well as uses of energy conservations in first and second article respectively while research weakness was research was specified for study and consequence of three classes as well as financial was not discussed respectively in first and second article.