An Inspection of IFC Models from Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents the quality evaluation of industry foundation class model for perusing good practices of BIM modeling.  In fact, I am not the expert in this field, but I would like to give my comments on the manuscript based on my current research background:

 

The description in the introduction section seems detached.  A few paragraphs lack linking between them, for example, the first and second paragraphs.  Many short paragraphs with only two lines are found in other sections.

 

On page 2, for “However, some issues can still be encountered when producing and exchanging standardized data among software and people”, please clearly give more details of the issues in the introduction section.

 

On page 3, for “However, the implementation and use of such theoretically precise model is difficult and can result in inaccuracies or under-use of it, besides hindering interoperability for leaving a very high freedom in filling the information in and in choosing the kind of representation to be used.”, any reference supporting it?

 

On page 4, for “Some even more specific information can be represented through the domain specific part of the schema, which can specify either classes represented in the interoperability layer or in the product extension directly...”, is this domain specific part taking the aging assessment of building structure into account?  Long term or durability performance of civil engineering structure is also an important issue to be considered in the building information models.  Please refer to the following publications for more insightful thoughts:

1. Wu, J., & Lepech, M. D. (2020). Incorporating multi-physics deterioration analysis in building information modeling for life-cycle management of durability performance. Automation in Construction, 110, 103004.
2. Lau, D., Qiu, Q., Zhou, A., & Chow, C. L. (2016). Long term performance and fire safety aspect of FRP composites used in building structures. Construction and building materials, 126, 573-585.
3. Yu, H., Da, B., Ma, H., Zhu, H., Yu, Q., Ye, H., & Jing, X. (2017). Durability of concrete structures in tropical atoll environment. Ocean Engineering,135, 1-10.

 

On page 20, for “For example only the general name of the material is present (e.g. “concrete”) instead of the code of the material or a more extended description”, this is critical since concrete material contains multiple phases with designed mix proration.  In modelling the building information in terms of physical properties, the definition and interoperability of concrete information could be enhanced.

Author Response

Thank you for your review, we improved the text according to the provided comments.

Please, see the point-by-point response in the following text. (in blue):

• The description in the introduction section seems detached.  A few paragraphs lack linking between them, for example, the first and second paragraphs.  Many short paragraphs with only two lines are found in other sections.

This aspect was checked and improved throughout the text.

• On page 2, for “However, some issues can still be encountered when producing and exchanging standardized data among software and people”, please clearly give more details of the issues in the introduction section.

Some examples were added.

• On page 3, for “However, the implementation and use of such theoretically precise model is difficult and can result in inaccuracies or under-use of it, besides hindering interoperability for leaving a very high freedom in filling the information in and in choosing the kind of representation to be used.”, any reference supporting it?

References were added.

• On page 4, for “Some even more specific information can be represented through the domain specific part of the schema, which can specify either classes represented in the interoperability layer or in the product extension directly...”, is this domain specific part taking the aging assessment of building structure into account?  Long term or durability performance of civil engineering structure is also an important issue to be considered in the building information models.  Please refer to the following publications for more insightful thoughts:

Wu, J., & Lepech, M. D. (2020). Incorporating multi-physics deterioration analysis in building information modeling for life-cycle management of durability performance. Automation in Construction, 110, 103004.

Lau, D., Qiu, Q., Zhou, A., & Chow, C. L. (2016). Long term performance and fire safety aspect of FRP composites used in building structures. Construction and building materials, 126, 573-585.

Yu, H., Da, B., Ma, H., Zhu, H., Yu, Q., Ye, H., & Jing, X. (2017). Durability of concrete structures in tropical atoll environment. Ocean Engineering,135, 1-10.

These observations are very specific, with respect to the scope of this paper, considering the general use of building information models for automatic processing of geometry and semantics for them to be used by different tools. Entities supporting asset and facility management are included in the model, and the investigation you propose is very interesting, but would deserve a specific analysis within a different paper.

• On page 20, for “For example only the general name of the material is present (e.g. “concrete”) instead of the code of the material or a more extended description”, this is critical since concrete material contains multiple phases with designed mix proration.  In modelling the building information in terms of physical properties, the definition and interoperability of concrete information could be enhanced.

We agree and added this.

Thank you,

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The selected topic is actual especially from the industry professionals, software developers’ point of view. However, the title of the study doesn't sound very much scientific.

The first part of the article is interesting to read. It sets quite based logic for BIM models interoperability evaluation based on use cases.

However, this logic was changed for the BIM models’ analysis. The second part presents the results - identified problems as a status quo for the selected set of projects BIM models without a clear evaluation system. The overall interoperability quality of BIM models might be considered from different perspectives: for example, for use cases which are recommended to be as obligatory for all and optional, min-max requirements for different quality levels, etc.

The authors are recommended to evaluate and present the results by following the selected systemic approach/framework as well as establishing clear criteria and guidelines for the overall BIM model's interoperability assessment. The scientific soundness would be proved by providing clear recommendations on how the specific interoperability quality of BIM models for specific use cases could be achieved.

.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, the text was improved following your suggestions. Please find the point-by-point response in the text below (in blue):

• The selected topic is actual especially from the industry professionals, software developers’ point of view. However, the title of the study doesn't sound very much scientific.

Changed to “An inspection of IFC models from practice."

• The first part of the article is interesting to read. It sets quite based logic for BIM models interoperability evaluation based on use cases.

Thank you for your comment

• However, this logic was changed for the BIM models’ analysis. The second part presents the results - identified problems as a status quo for the selected set of projects BIM models without a clear evaluation system. The overall interoperability quality of BIM models might be considered from different perspectives: for example, for use cases which are recommended to be as obligatory for all and optional, min-max requirements for different quality levels, etc.

The authors are recommended to evaluate and present the results by following the selected systemic approach/framework as well as establishing clear criteria and guidelines for the overall BIM model's interoperability assessment. The scientific soundness would be proved by providing clear recommendations on how the specific interoperability quality of BIM models for specific use cases could be achieved.

The study described in the paper is the initial investigation aiming at understanding the general data readyness of IFC models from practice to be used within automatic process by different tools. Therefore some main relevant features are checked and assessed in order to point out the main issues and enlight directions for improvement of models. The criteria and systems followed for such evaluation are described in the methodology.

Further work within the specific use cases could start from what is here outlined and specify clear and stricter guidelines about mandatory elements, min-max requirements, quality criteria and scales and so on. This last part, as the reviewer suggests, will be of great relevance, but needs wider collaborations with experts and stakeholders for each of the use cases, and cannot move forward without considering the current state of play, outlined in this paper.

A part discussing the result of modelling buildings according to specific aims and use cases, as well as the use of MVDs to explicitly specify the complied information requirements is added in the discussion section. Future work could also consider the use of such tools (MVDs and information delivery specifications) to have a better assessment of specific interoperability quality.

 

Thank you,

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

The subject presented by the authors looking at Industry foundation classes was of great interest as standards of industrial practices are of importance to ensure efficient industrial processes. The authors followed scientific approach in conducting their research by first identifying the problem, and providing solutions in the standardization of industry practices. There was no plagiarism or any copied work from other researchers. The paper was 26-page long, which is good for such a kind of content.

 

Specific Comments:

1. The abstract gave a sound overview of the work. The introduction expanded on what was presented in the abstract by providing formidable reasoning for the research. The question of why the need for standardization of industry practices was clearly explained in the introduction. Though there were technical details that were difficult to understand, the conclusion threw more light and clarify those in a summary. However, the paper does not seem to provide interesting new findings.
2. I believe the length of the paper is too long. It is a 26-paged write-up which looks lengthy. Some tables could be moved to an appendix.
3. The methods were a bit difficult to understand as the authors used quite technical terms. That did undermine the results presented since the fundamentals i.e. introduction and literature review clearly spelled out the rationale and direction of the paper.
4. The authors should present the data in concise and appropriate data tables and charts. However, for example, Table 2 is confusing and unnecessarily long. The analysis on the tables is confusing.
5. 5. The authors used well-labeled and clarified approaches in explaining the results of the paper, though statistical data were not present. Much of the data were graphically and theoretical.
6. No technical, factual nor interpretation error was found
7. This seems to be a review paper.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, the text was improved accordingly.

Please find the point-by-point response in the text below (blue):

General comments

• The subject presented by the authors looking at Industry foundation classes was of great interest as standards of industrial practices are of importance to ensure efficient industrial processes. The authors followed scientific approach in conducting their research by first identifying the problem, and providing solutions in the standardization of industry practices. There was no plagiarism or any copied work from other researchers. The paper was 26-page long, which is good for such a kind of content.

Thank you for your comment

Specific Comments:

• The abstract gave a sound overview of the work. The introduction expanded on what was presented in the abstract by providing formidable reasoning for the research. The question of why the need for standardization of industry practices was clearly explained in the introduction. Though there were technical details that were difficult to understand, the conclusion threw more light and clarify those in a summary. However, the paper does not seem to provide interesting new findings.

The new findings are on the readiness of IFC models to be used in innovative applications as studied in many researches. Many of these methods and tools foreseeing the IFC format as input are often tested using sample models produced within the same academic environment or as a demonstration of how the IFC model should be used. Therefore, they are usually clean and accurate and their use can be smooth.  However, when working within projects aiming at the direct re-use of the models produced from practice, by architects, engineers and other professionals contributing to the design of the buildings, it becomes clear that the models are not exactly as expected when looking at the IFC specifications alone. Many inaccuracies, errors, differences in semantic or modelling choices can prevent the processing to be successful.

The explanation of the main features which could be found in models produced in the real-world practice is therefore not straightforward and was not described beforehand. Though, such a topic deserves to be pointed out, as a base for improvement of the models, warning with respect to the choices necessary when implementing new tools and common base for the definition of more specific guidelines according to specific use cases.

• I believe the length of the paper is too long. It is a 26-paged write-up which looks lengthy. Some tables could be moved to an appendix.

We followed your suggestion, thank you.

• The methods were a bit difficult to understand as the authors used quite technical terms. That did undermine the results presented since the fundamentals i.e. introduction and literature review clearly spelled out the rationale and direction of the paper.

This was checked throughout the text, thank you.

• The authors should present the data in concise and appropriate data tables and charts. However, for example, Table 2 is confusing and unnecessarily long. The analysis on the tables is confusing.

Table 2 was synthesized and the complete one moved to the appendix. Thank you for your comment.

• 5. The authors used well-labeled and clarified approaches in explaining the results of the paper, though statistical data were not present. Much of the data were graphically and theoretical.

When deciding how to represent the results, we had considered calculating statistics and indexes on the obtained results. However, due to the size of the sample, influenced by some specific characteristic, as explained in the dedicated section (4.1), a statistical parameter as a result would have been misleading and not completely fair. Therefore we chose to represent the results in a graphical way, from which statistics can be perceived as well, but without an inaccurate sharpness.

• No technical, factual nor interpretation error was found

Thank you

• This seems to be a review paper.

It is indeed a data review, but since an inspection of a sample of data is performed and not an extensive analysis of the available literature, we think that the type “article” should be more appropriate.

Thank you,

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The presentation of the current version of manuscript is clearly improved, which justifies the acceptance for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

Best regards,

Francesca

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provided the answers to the comments, however, did not make any significant changes to the manuscript.

At least the logic between the research methodology and obtained results needs to be explained, demonstrating the interrelations between the analyzed IFC models' quality aspects and requirements for the automation of different use cases. 

According to the presented inspection, how many of the analyzed IFC models from the selected set were revealed to be ready/partially ready /not ready for automatic processing of specific use cases?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We have now improved the paper according to your comment, by adding the section 5.6 in order to explicitly address the flaw you are pointing out.

Thank you for your review,

Best regards,

Francesca

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript and looking forward to the continuation of the research.

The only one consideration: maybe sub-chapter 5.6 would better fit as a part of the Discussion chapter?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. I considered moving chapter 5.6 under the discussion section, but the discussion itself treats more general topics and I can see it better as a sort of transition between the specific results from the use cases point of view and more general thoughts.

Best regards,

Francesca