Next Article in Journal
Improving the Performance of EDM through Relief-Angled Tool Designs
Previous Article in Journal
A Phase Fluctuation Based Practical Quantum Random Number Generator Scheme with Delay-Free Structure
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Ontology-Based Representation of Vaulted System for HBIM
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

HBIM as Support of Preventive Conservation Actions in Heritage Architecture. Experience of the Renaissance Quadrant Façade of the Cathedral of Seville

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(7), 2428; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072428
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(7), 2428; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072428
Received: 21 January 2020 / Revised: 20 March 2020 / Accepted: 30 March 2020 / Published: 2 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue BIM and HBIM: Standardisation and interoperability)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very interesting and well written. I believe it can be of interest to practitioners in the building computations domain. However, I think that the paper lacks a sound justification/exposition of scientific research. While the authors have done a great job in using different methods to create the BIM model for a heritage site I would like to see more on the research elements.

Particularly I have following questions:

1. What is the original contribution of the paper? lots of information is scattered throughout the paper but a brief paragraph in the introduction would be of great help.

2. How is the approach transferable?  Maybe you could propose a methodology or tool that can be used by others?

3. How does it relate to other similar cases? many buildings are currently being renovated in many countries? What differs you approach from other ones?

 

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank your comments. We have been very useful, and we will take them into account in the revision of the manuscript.

We then proceed to answer your questions:

  1. Certainly, in the introduction there is no clear explanation about the original contributions that our work brings. They are explained throughout the chapters on methods and results, but we will proceed to include them in a summary way in the introduction section.
  2. Our main objective is precisely the presentation of a transferable methodology. Materials and Methods chapter explains in detail the stages of a method that, as demonstrated in Results chapter, is perfectly valid in achieving the initially proposed objectives. These are summarized in the possibility of managing the preventive conservation of a historic building using BIM technology, from its digital capture to the management of the parameters contained in the HBIM. On the other hand, as we explained in the introduction, this experience is aimed at facilitating preventive conservation work by the company dedicated to these tasks in the Cathedral of Seville. At the end of the Results chapter, we propose a workflow based on applications that can be used by agents unfamiliar with the BIM environment. This flow allows the edition and dump of the information contained in the HBIM model.
  3. Our methodological proposal develops two fundamental aspects that make it different from other similar experiences. These aspects increase the operability of the HBIM methodology in actions linked to the conservation of the built heritage. On the one hand, the modelling process based on the generation (by reverse engineering and other tools) of a shell or mould precisely adapted to the real surface of the object. This method allows the transfer to massive entities of greater or lesser detail, but always of high precision. This guarantees an adequate decision making in intervention and conservation actions (the planimetry obtained from HBIM is of the utmost rigor). On the other hand, an effective method for the introduction of surface information is exposed. Until now, HBIM models were only conceived from the possibility of hosting information in the primary entities in which the model was divided. The exposed method allows to introduce information related to pathologies, treatments or certain physical states of the material, and linked to surface regions, very useful in preventive conservation actions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article shows the results of a work developed on a portion of the cathedral of Seville. The subject matter is not extremely innovative in its application and practical implications. The methodological aspect is instead dealt with effectively and interestingly, with many supporting images and good representative effectiveness. The theme of applying BIM analysis to historical architecture is well developed and its application to the case study, extremely detailed, also appears well-argued.
I suggest that the authors analyze some international publications on the topic, to find more comparisons with the methodology used. Currently the BIM and H-BIM sector is in great development at a European level and many are developing innovative software capable of overcoming the rigidity imposed by software such as Revit, useful for design but difficult to use for the built cultural heritage.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank your comments. We have been very useful, and we will take them into account in the revision of the manuscript.

We then proceed to answer your suggestion.

One of the main contributions of this work is the ideation of a method that allows the transformation of the information captured from the real object into a high-precision HBIM information model. This method, described in Materials and Methods chapter, is novel in certain aspects with respect to other international works analysed and classified in section 2.1. This section refers to a selection of national and international publications consulted and analysed in support of our methodological proposal (the ones we have considered of greatest interest). In addition to referring them, they are classified according to the modelling method used for the generation of the HBIM model. On the other hand, it is true that software such as Revit can become very rigid when implementing information models related to historical architectures. This rigidity lies mainly in the process of modelling entities that adapt to the complex geometries that characterize this type of buildings. However, our work proposes modelling outside the BIM platform (using those software and techniques that best suit). So, we do not use BIM software as a modelling tool, but as a tool dedicated to the management, visualization and dump of all the information contained in the model, tasks for which Revit provides great flexibility.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes the use of HBIM as a tool for support in preventive conservation of architectural heritage. The Renaissance quadrant façade of the Cathedral of Seville is a valid case study for the proposed topic. 

Paper for major review, focusing on the following points:

 

In general, I suggest a more concise style of writing. Currently, the sentences are very long and contain repetitions and overlapping of information.

 

Introduction

The introduction has to be completely re-written. It must contain three important points which are missing in the paper: 1) The problem statement, 2) Brief state of the art on the application of HBIM for preventive conservation, and 3) Present of how your work is contributing in the gaps that you could find in the state of the art in point 2.  Remove completely any funding or project name from the introduction.

You must mention funding, project names or similar information in a separate section at the end of the paper.

 

The methodological approach:

The methodological approach describes in detail the procedure followed by the authors. In the present is merely a software manual rather than a scientific description. I suggest writing in a consistent way and not focusing on describing several options of commercial software. Instead authors should describe technical details which remain similar as concept in different software and in time: eg. the resolution of the point cloud, the number of points, the characteristics of the mesh, the geometric deviations from scanning, the number of parts, etc.

 

The approach is currently applied only for one façade of the building. However, the authors consider a 3D model of a part of the building. Wouldn’t a surface model be just enough? Also how do you comment the complete different level of detail between the exterior and the interior?  I think that the preventive conservation must include all the buildings and not only a part. Please elaborate on this aspect (see also my comments in the discussion).

 

Discussion

The discussing is rather poor, and very generic. This is a key section of the paper. The authors should address here questions that come out from their study. 

In the survey phase what is the role of photogrammetry and laser scanning?

Would the proposed approach be applicable to a different commercial BIM software with minor changes?

What are the possibilities to automate the process? Here, I assure that your application it is very time consuming. Is it feasible?  Elaborate on automation procedures and point cloud segmentation (see suggested publications) .

Elaborate here and argue on the fact that you consider your approach only for a face of the building. Then why is the 3D model necessary? A possible approach could be the fact of modeling the building for the sake of completeness. Discus the application of your model for other scopes e.g structural analysis etc. (see suggested publications but do not limit to those)

 

Conclusions

Summarize conclusions within ¾ of a page, and try to be specific of conclusions related exactly to your work.

 

Some details (not all):

Who is the author of the citation among the rows 126-135?

In row 142 “…coffered by cruise ship”. What does it mean?

In row 233 “degrees of generation (GOG)” is it DOG?

In row 265 what are MDC? “usually dense point clouds or MDC” Multiple-description codes? Every short name should be explained for not expert..

In row 312 “in the field of the AEC industry”. What is AEC?

In row 367 remove capital letter in “It” at the end of the sentence.

From row 380 to 384  remove the sentence “In this case, for the work carried out in this area, the Autodesk® Revit® application has been chosen due to educational license accessibility, graphic versatility and general use in our geographical area. As mentioned above, we understand that, in general, any other BIM application would have successfully supported this methodological process, although, due to time constraints and operability, only the process has been tested in Revit®. Advertising is not allowed unless necessary. In this case, as you mention, “any BIM application would successfully support this methodological process”.

In row 444 “In the case of experience with the facade of the Renaissance quadrant, the structure of the information associated with the model has been oriented towards its main purpose: a tool to be used by Artyco, a company in charge of the preventive conservation of the element.” You cannot write a sentence like this but just “the structure of the information associated with the model has been oriented towards its preventive conservation”.

Graphic

Consider removing figures 5, 8, 9, 10.

Consider removing figure 17 since the view is the same with many other figures (20, 21, 22, 23)

Figure 6 describing geometric deviations is not commented at all, besides being unreadable. Please solve.

The various images of the Dynamo workflow are difficult or almost impossible to be read.

Figure 19 it is not appreciable the mentioned deformation. Add a different reference line.

Figure 27 is not clear since it is unreadable.

 

Papers to be considered:

For parametric modelling:

Angjeliu, G. Cardani, D. Coronelli, A parametric model for ribbed masonry vaults, Automation in Construction 105 (2019) 102785, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.006. Barazzetti, Parametric as-built model generation of complex shapes from point clouds, Advanced Engineering Informatics 30 (3) (2016) 298-311, 10.1016/j.aei.2016.03.005.

 

For point cloud segmentation:

Riveiro, M.J. DeJong, B. Conde, Automated processing of large point clouds for structural health monitoring of masonry arch bridges, Automation in Construction 72 (2016) 258-268, 10.1016/j.autcon.2016.02.009. Bassier, M., Klein, R., Van Genechten, B., and Vergauwen, M.: IFC wall reconstruction from unstructured point clouds, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., IV-2, 33-39, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-33-2018, 2018.

 

Perspective on BIM and structural analysis:

Bassier, G. Hadjidemetriou, M. Vergauwen, N. Van Roy, E. Verstrynge, Implementation of Scan-to-BIM and FEM for the Documentation and Analysis of Heritage Timber Roof Structures, in: Proc. Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 79-90, Angjeliu, G. Cardani, D. Coronelli, Digital Modelling and Analysis of Masonry Vaults, ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLII-2/W11 (2019) 83-89, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W11-83-2019.

 

Author Response

The paper proposes the use of HBIM as a tool for support in preventive conservation of architectural heritage. The Renaissance quadrant façade of the Cathedral of Seville is a valid case study for the proposed topic. 

Paper for major review, focusing on the following points:

(RESPONSES IN GREEN COLOR) 

In general, I suggest a more concise style of writing. Currently, the sentences are very long and contain repetitions and overlapping of information.

The style of writing has been reviewed.

 

Introduction

The introduction has to be completely re-written. It must contain three important points which are missing in the paper: 1) The problem statement, 2) Brief state of the art on the application of HBIM for preventive conservation, and 3) Present of how your work is contributing in the gaps that you could find in the state of the art in point 2.  Remove completely any funding or project name from the introduction.

You must mention funding, project names or similar information in a separate section at the end of the paper.

Introduction has been structured following the recommendations.

 

The methodological approach:

The methodological approach describes in detail the procedure followed by the authors. In the present is merely a software manual rather than a scientific description. I suggest writing in a consistent way and not focusing on describing several options of commercial software. Instead authors should describe technical details which remain similar as concept in different software and in time: eg. the resolution of the point cloud, the number of points, the characteristics of the mesh, the geometric deviations from scanning, the number of parts, etc.

Technical details have been included.

The approach is currently applied only for one façade of the building. However, the authors consider a 3D model of a part of the building. Wouldn’t a surface model be just enough? Also how do you comment the complete different level of detail between the exterior and the interior?  I think that the preventive conservation must include all the buildings and not only a part. Please elaborate on this aspect (see also my comments in the discussion).

We agree with your statement that preventive conservation should include complete buildings and not just a part. Moreover, our methodological proposal on the application of BIM in heritage architecture includes not only preventive conservation but also the set of actions that encompasses the concept of guardianship, referring, in general, to knowledge, management and conservation / intervention in these buildings (this statement can be corroborated in any of our previous publications), including, of course, scopes like structural analysis.

This work refers to a concrete experience of applying new methodological aspects in the modelling process and information management in an HBIM model, focused on the action of preventive conservation. This experience arises from a collaboration commitment between our research group and the company dedicated to the preventive conservation of the facades of the Cathedral of Seville. The company provided us with information on the current state of the building and on the treatments applied, and we provided a method for the documentation and management of that information. Additionally, we introduce the simplified modelling of the interior spaces and the material elements that surround them with the objective of establishing metric and trace relations with the facade elements, thus supporting new analyses on the historical evolution of this part of the temple.

We are able to affirm that we have sufficiently developed the methodology to deal with HBIM models of buildings of the size of this temple, but we still do not have the funding that allows us to carry it out.

In any case, we will include these comments in the Discussion section.

 

Discussion

The discussing is rather poor, and very generic. This is a key section of the paper. The authors should address here questions that come out from their study. 

In the survey phase what is the role of photogrammetry and laser scanning?

Would the proposed approach be applicable to a different commercial BIM software with minor changes?

What are the possibilities to automate the process? Here, I assure that your application it is very time consuming. Is it feasible?  Elaborate on automation procedures and point cloud segmentation (see suggested publications).

Elaborate here and argue on the fact that you consider your approach only for a face of the building. Then why is the 3D model necessary? A possible approach could be the fact of modeling the building for the sake of completeness. Discus the application of your model for other scopes e.g structural analysis etc. (see suggested publications but do not limit to those)

In reference to the survey phase (called digital capture following the nomenclature adopted in our field of work), the role of photogrammetry is widely described at the beginning of section 2.1, between lines 187 and 225. In any case some aspects will be addressed on the subject in the Discussion chapter.

The rest of proposed issues have been adequately addressed in the Discussion chapter.

 

Conclusions

Summarize conclusions within ¾ of a page and try to be specific of conclusions related exactly to your work.

This section has been summarized.  

 

Some details (not all):

Who is the author of the citation among the rows 126-135?

The reference to the author and publication is made just before the citation: [18] (p. 166).

In row 142 “…coffered by cruise ship”. What does it mean?

It is a mistake that has been corrected. It is about the description of the gallery in lower level: “with a coffered ceiling”

In row 233 “degrees of generation (GOG)” is it DOG?

Spelling has been checked and this mistake has been corrected.

In row 265 what are MDC? “usually dense point clouds or MDC” Multiple-description codes? Every short name should be explained for not expert.

That short name is explained in row 251. It means “massive data collection”.

In row 312 “in the field of the AEC industry”. What is AEC?

Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industry

In row 367 remove capital letter in “It” at the end of the sentence.

Spelling has been checked and this mistake has been corrected.

From row 380 to 384 remove the sentence “In this case, for the work carried out in this area, the Autodesk® Revit® application has been chosen due to educational license accessibility, graphic versatility and general use in our geographical area. As mentioned above, we understand that, in general, any other BIM application would have successfully supported this methodological process, although, due to time constraints and operability, only the process has been tested in Revit®. Advertising is not allowed unless necessary. In this case, as you mention, “any BIM application would successfully support this methodological process”.

The explicit reference to the software is necessary in order to offer precise and reproducible results.  The scope of this study case is limited to the software described, although this methodology can be adapted to other BIM applications by means of its own tools.

In row 444 “In the case of experience with the facade of the Renaissance quadrant, the structure of the information associated with the model has been oriented towards its main purpose: a tool to be used by Artyco, a company in charge of the preventive conservation of the element.” You cannot write a sentence like this but just “the structure of the information associated with the model has been oriented towards its preventive conservation”.

The sentence has been corrected following the proposal.

 

Graphic

Consider removing figures 5, 8, 9, 10.

These figures have not been eliminated since we consider them to be an essential illustration of the modelling process and the nature of the entities that are part of it.

Consider removing figure 17 since the view is the same with many other figures (20, 21, 22, 23)

Figure 17 has been removed.

Figure 6 describing geometric deviations is not commented at all, besides being unreadable. Please solve.

This figure has been commented and its readability has been improved.

The various images of the Dynamo workflow are difficult or almost impossible to be read.

The readability of these figures has been improved.

Figure 19 it is not appreciable the mentioned deformation. Add a different reference line.

An auxiliary line has been added to better appreciate the deformation.

Figure 27 is not clear since it is unreadable.

The readability of the figure has been improved.

 

Papers to be considered:

For parametric modelling:

Angjeliu, G. Cardani, D. Coronelli, A parametric model for ribbed masonry vaults, Automation in Construction 105 (2019) 102785, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.006.

This reference is included in section 2.1, within the paragraph corresponding to semi-automatic parametric modelling using NURBs, along with other similar works.

Barazzetti, Parametric as-built model generation of complex shapes from point clouds, Advanced Engineering Informatics 30 (3) (2016) 298-311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2016.03.005.

Barazzetti's work on this matter has already been referred to in the manuscript (see [43]), in section 2.1, within the paragraph corresponding to semi-automatic parametric modelling using NURBs.

For point cloud segmentation:

Riveiro, M.J. DeJong, B. Conde, Automated processing of large point clouds for structural health monitoring of masonry arch bridges, Automation in Construction 72 (2016) 258-268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.02.009.

This reference is included in section 2.1, within the paragraph corresponding to automatic parametric modelling, along with other similar works already included in the previous version of the manuscript.

Bassier, M., Klein, R., Van Genechten, B., and Vergauwen, M.: IFC wall reconstruction from unstructured point clouds, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., IV-2, 33-39, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-33-2018, 2018.

This reference is included in section 2.1, within the paragraph corresponding to automatic parametric modelling, along with other similar works already included in the previous version of the manuscript.

Perspective on BIM and structural analysis:

Bassier, G. Hadjidemetriou, M. Vergauwen, N. Van Roy, E. Verstrynge, Implementation of Scan-to-BIM and FEM for the Documentation and Analysis of Heritage Timber Roof Structures, in: Proc. Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 79-90,

Angjeliu, G. Cardani, D. Coronelli, Digital Modelling and Analysis of Masonry Vaults, ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLII-2/W11 (2019) 83-89, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W11-83-2019.

A reference to these two publications has been included in Discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The review of this paper is okay now.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Just thank you for your time and invaluable comments.

Sincerely,
The authors

Back to TopTop