Next Article in Journal
Lifetime Benefit Analysis of Intelligent Maintenance: Simulation Modeling Approach and Industrial Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Automatic Scaffolding Workface Assessment for Activity Analysis through Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
4-Hexylresorcinol Inhibits Class I Histone Deacetylases in Human Umbilical Cord Endothelial Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vision-Based Pavement Marking Detection and Condition Assessment—A Case Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Digital Modelling of Underground Volumes, Including the Visualization of Confidence Levels for the Positioning of Subsurface Objects

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(8), 3483; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083483
by Kamel Adouane *, Fabian Boujon and Bernd Domer
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4:
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(8), 3483; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083483
Submission received: 5 February 2021 / Revised: 1 April 2021 / Accepted: 5 April 2021 / Published: 13 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue BIM and Its Integration with Emerging Technologies)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is fine, but it could discuss issues of underground space use (state-of-the-art and challenges) to a greater extent.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for all the comments, kindly find attached the authors answers.

Kind Regards,

Kamel

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the present manuscript contains many formal and substantive errors and shortcomings.
The abstract of the article is very general, without any specific procedures that were applied in the research and also the results that the authors achieved through the research. Also, a conclusion, which is only a general theoretical statement of the basic facts, but without the results achieved.
I would also draw attention to the fact that up to 20 images are displayed on 15 pages of the article (without attachments)! I recommend considering the importance of such a number of pictures and their informative value, which could have been rather on a theoretical level. Such a large number of images and a brief and short description of them reduce the level and informative value of the submitted scientific article. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for all the comments, kindly find attached the authors answers.

Kind Regards,

Kamel

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an excellent paper, one of the best I have reviewed in a while.  The thought process is very clear and logical, the level of detail is appropriate, and the language is quite good.  Only some very minor wording issues.  Great job!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for all the comments, kindly find attached the authors answers.

Kind Regards,

Kamel

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper proposes a method to obtain missing geometrical data for subsurface objects and assigns confidence levels to the existing or derived geometrical attributes, then visualize both the objects model and confidence levels. In this paper, objects are primary objects: using simplified geometries for representation, and the visual representations of confidence levels are secondary objects: virtual bounding box. A four-stage-method is introduced with illustrated examples of tree root, piezometers and gas pipelines. The result is clear and intuitive. Possible application and value of this research is discussed as well.

This topic is appealing. How to acquire the missing spatial data of underground objects is truly important and it determines how much people can make application with it. This paper provides a possible solution. In general, this paper is well written and technically sound. The abstract correctly explains the expected content. The introduction clearly explains the background and motivation. Sufficient related researches are well provided. For the next revised version, here are some parts to be further explained:

There is a number of place (mainly in the introduction section), where the authors state important material, but those statements are not supported by references or clear examples (ex. lines 26-27-28-29-30), ex. did you do literature review, so indicate the references, or did you work yourself with such datasets so say it in a way that we will understand this, did you get it from discussion with experts, so again say it in a way that we will understand where the information is coming from.

Line 34, why GIS/BIM integration is a key challenge? It has to be explain since this look like a basic hypothesis of your work.

The way of presenting the methodology should be revised. The general overview should be provided with the framework or the overall workflow of this method design (we need to know where we start, and where we arrive). Furthermore, the solution (i.e. the completion strategies) should be a separate section since it is important, and it shows how the missing information is provided or inferred.

Lines 99-104, how did you arrive at those classifications and hierarchy? When writing, do not only explain the what (the outcomes), but the why, or how. Need much improvements.

Lines 108-110, having more information in a database is always interesting but at what price and is it really required? Those aspects will need to be discussed by the authors.

Lines 117-118, the authors talk about ontology but we are not correctly inform what it is. Knowing that the ontology is built by Protege is secondary, we need to understand the content, why and how. And is it an original contribution of this paper? Not clear.

In the part of “detailed methodology and illustrative examples”, some explanation are missing: why the uncertainty factor is set to 90% while the gas and the piezometer are 95% and 92%? How and why these uncertainty models and density functions are selected? Need much improvements. For instance, many knowledge are required to set those parameters, where does it come from? Did you interview experts? This has to be explained, discussed and demonstrated.

In the result section, it would be better to add legend or explanations about which geometry or color represents which object class, and to give secondary model examples with different confidence levels. We also need to get more details as what does it means “large subsurface volumes” ? give quantity in order for the reader to clearly understand.

In discussion, you cannot only state “we are convinced that the solution is useful”. Did you discuss with experts? Did you perform any test to asses the value of it?

Conclusion needs to remind the contributions of the work, to be revised.

In overall, it is not clear what are exactly the contributions of this paper, the authors should highlight it at the beginning of the paper, in the paper and at the end too.

I could have accepted this paper with minor revision since the content of the paper is interesting but the presentation and the organization of the idea are useless, so much that we cannot publish the paper in the current form. Furthermore, there is two important aspects not address (or discuss) by the paper:

  • A large number of decision made in the paper are not explained
  • There is no step to validate the work proposed

 

Comments are about formatting, typos and figures (the aspect of presentation and organizing ideas in the paper are useless and could easily be improved):

  • In the title, “sub surface” should be written as “subsurface.”
  • The quality of the figures needs to be improved. E.g., In figure 1, the dotted line does not clearly show the relationship with “rules for completion”, and some figures seem too large.
  • Names of figure 1 and figure 2 should be revised.
  • Figure 3 need to be introduced in the text before we arrive on it.
  • In line 248, 252, and 253, the quotation marks are not in correct order.
  • If figure 5 the format of the table should to be adjusted.
  • Line 143, the last sentence refer to figure 5, and it is not indicated (or remove the paragraph return since it is the same idea)
  • For many figures, why not using formal formatting ex. UML activities diagram or class diagram?
  • Line 167, you cannot start a section with a stage like this, it is not a good way for formatting and presenting.
  • Do not add figure in a list of items, like the 4 stages, keep them together
  • Figure 19 looks for me not at the right place but being present when the authors explain this aspect of the work.
  • Appendix B and C are not introduced in the text.
  • I am wondering if the numbering of figure in appendix, should have another formatting, ex. A-1, I did not check what the journal recommend.

 

The first time an acronym is presented, it has to be written in long (ex. BIM/GIS/OWL)

Avoid, having 1 sentence = 1 paragraph (ex. lines 34-35), it should be 1 paragraph = the development of 1 idea.

Check the formatting of the references in the section References, the formatting is not consistent.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for all the comments, kindly find attached the authors answers.

Kind Regards,

Kamel

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript considers digitalization and visualization of underground objects.

This is a very useful and interesting piece of research. Minor improvements are required.

As a start, "The management of urban subsurface space is a subject of big interest, in particular 20 when the concept of smart cities is discussed [1]." looks a bit out of the context. I recommend starting with importance of subsurface and urban underground space use, and these challenges require digitalisation of underground assets. Recommended references:

Bobylev, N., Sterling, R. Urban underground space: A growing imperative. Perspectives and current research in planning and design for underground space use. (2016) Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, pp. 1-4.

Zargarian, R., Hunt, D.V.L., Braithwaite, P., Bobylev, N., Rogers, C.D.F. A new sustainability framework for urban underground space (2016) Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, 171 (5), pp. 238-253.

Bobylev, N. Transitions to a High Density Urban Underground Space (2016) Procedia Engineering, 165, pp. 184-192.

Admiraal H, Cornaro A (2018) Underground Spaces Unveiled: Planning and creating the cities of the future. ICE Publishing ISBN: 978-0-7277-6145-3

Next, please acquaint yourself with subsurface visualisation challengers and GPR research. A big UK project is an important reference, publications are listed on their site: http://www.mappingtheunderworld.ac.uk/

thank you

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Kindly see attached the authors reply to the reviewer comments.

Kind Regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no objections or recommendations.

The paper is written professionally, I recommend this paper for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Kindly see attached the authors reply to the reviewer comments.

Kind Regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for providing revision on the manuscript, it has been improved and can be published now. thank you.

Back to TopTop