BIM Model of District Heating Networks in Design and Investment Management Processes: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper deals with integrating urban networks in BIM by studying an area in Warsaw.
The topic is very interesting as it is another example of the importance of infrastructure unification, such as the heating network in the urban environment.
It indicates the steps that must be taken to obtain the BIM model and the importance of having everything unified.
Several questions arise from the text:
Why does it indicate that the procedure is unique for modelling?
What is the significant innovation and research, and is it applicable to heating network modelling?
As the author points out, other authors, such as references 8 and 9, use GIS for these studies and their combination with BIM.
As for the methodology, summarised in Figure 1, it would be interesting to comment more on each step.
Concerning Table 1, in which you indicate the research software, they are commercial and not exclusive to research. Figure 2 is not necessary, as it does not provide significant information. In Figure 3, it would be required to explain what the red and yellow lines, the dots, etc., mean.
Figure 4 does not provide any information, and it should also include the contour lines to make its representation more straightforward. Figure 5 is a section that does not show all the elements indicated in the text, so it is recommended that this section be enlarged.
Figure 6 is not a comparison; at no time is one or the other being analysed; it is, therefore, a visualisation of the two models for obtaining point clouds. A statistical analysis of the differences between the two and a discussion of which would be more appropriate to use would be recommended.
In the collision section, the analysis is based on the results of the program, but it does not carry out a more in-depth analysis; it is simply a graphical one, which should be presented in more detail.
In general, the study is interesting, although it should go deeper and perform not only a graphical analysis but also a statistical analysis of what happens.
If you want to verify that the proposed software can be used, it would also be helpful to indicate, for example, its advantages and disadvantages when integrating other networks and the volume of information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title and the aim (not specified) as well as the paper contents have little relevance to sustainability related issues. The paper is interesting to read even though the logical flow is not quite there yet with long paragraphs and sudden sentences indicating something else, like smart city and digital twin. Industry 4.0 technology might be useful to support BIM but this has not been made clear at all in the paper - this might not be the focus of the paper - not sure.
This is a more technical oriented paper to design district heading network by applying new technology, rather than how this modelling approach by applying to this type of project can help improve sustainability overall in the built environment, demonstrated by designing a new district heading network or improving an existing one.
(I will also attach a file which I generated by reading the paper for improvement purpose. I have only commented on up to 'materials and methods' as I realised that the paper is not for the journal regardless.)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is a presentation of an interesting case-study. It would be beneficial to expand with some further details and clarifications, and tie them in the overall requirements for BIM modelling, as indicated in the following specific comments. Also, discuss and highlight problems encountered in the study.
- Towards the end of the Introduction section there is a statement on the “lack of research to date on the modeling of transmission infrastructure, especially district heating networks, and the subsequent management of information about these facilities.” The introduction should be expanded to include appropriate evidence for this conclusion, as there are some articles published dealing with the similar topic.
- Comment on the selection of the software and whether it should be OpenBIM, as well as whether appropriate standardization is necessary or already in place, and the status with IFC capabilities
- Figure captions should be below the figure
- Fig. 3 add explanations for the red/yellow linear infrastructure
- Since information included in the BIM model was used from different sources (documentation, databases) and includes many different objects, comment on the requirements on level of development (LoD100-500) of the different entities of the entire model (heating network model vs. other objects) in terms reliability and completeness of information included (level of detail LoD1 is mentioned later for buildings). Similarly, it is stated that buildings are created using local model tool – is this component model in place tool in Revit? What about all the other objects excluding the heating network, which is well described later, for instance curbs, pavement etc. – please explain their model categories used in Revit. This issue might be linked to the referenced statement of the requirement for semantically correct models just before the conclusions.
- Figs. 5&9 – it would be beneficial to identify different BIM elements (their categories/types) used in the model on such visualizations
- Several options to develop point-cloud are mentioned, but it is not clear how the point-cloud to be used for this model was developed in the end
- Could you expand explanation so it is clear what exactly is meant by “analyzing the point cloud for accuracy“ (bottom of page 6)
- On the page 9 it is stated “In the case of objects not available as public models, it was necessary to create them in the Revit graphic component editor.” – please explain which are these objects, and what BIM elements were used to create them
- The collision with the sewer is analysed, but there is no mention of adding the sewer in the model of the district, so please clarify
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript proposes a novel methodology for the replacement design of smart urban district heating network. The reviews as inserted as comments in the attached pdf document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on specific areas are in the reviewed document.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe figure heading is repeated on lines 128, 224, 235, 250, 250, 270, 301, 349 and 367.
In my humble opinion, figure 4 is not correct because it does not indicate the altimetric coordinates within the figure.
Figure 12 should change the title, since it is not an analysis but a graphic representation of what is happening.
The analysis should be indicated in the text, making also a statistical study of what happens. The same happens with figure 13, the analysis should be done in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did take into account most of the earlier comments, mostly by adding just a few lines to the earlier manuscript. It would have been beneficial if they could have expanded a little bit more with your own experience of different aspects, for instance LoD and IFC requirements for this specific application. Those important aspects (and others, e.g. digital twins) receive only a passing mention as something that should be considered in the future.
Please revise the statement added in the conclusions in the revised manuscript of the model being a maturity level 3 - as the maturity level relates to the entire process and not the model itself, and the descriptions provided in the paper do not confirm this maturity level.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made appropriate corrections and amendments.
Author Response
Thank you for accepting our manuscript and for your comments so far. Thanks to the changes, the article has become more mature.
