Construction Quality of Prefabricated Buildings Using Structural Equation Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is theoretical and concerns the technology and organization of construction sites. The authors focused on prefabrication in construction because of the undoubted advantages such as safety, energy saving, environmental protection and sustainable development. Many factors related to the construction process can affect the quality of construction, highlighting the defects of this type of construction. Based on the literature analysis, the authors developed a model of factors influencing the quality of prefabricated structures using structural equation modeling.

It was shown that construction management and organization had a significant impact on the quality of building construction. The work is interesting from a practical and cognitive point of view. There are some issues that require some clarification or supplementation. Here are my detailed comments:

1. Chapter 1: The chapter is interestingly written, in fact there is no historical information about prefabrication from the mid-twentieth century and errors that occurred at that time. This resulted in a significant shift away from prefabrication in Europe.

2. Chapter 2: I suggest, in addition to the description, to list all factors in tables, or at least highlight them in the text. The reader may have trouble finding the important ones from the less important ones.

3. Chapter 3: The presented methodology is correct. Only chapter 3.5 lacks arguments for the choice of statistical methods.

4. Chapter 4.1: I suggest adding more details to check the results obtained in Tables 5 and 6.

5. Chapter 6. Summary concerns the presented activities. I propose to add chapter 6.3 on directions for further action.

Author Response

1.Added the historical information about prefabrication from the mid-twentieth century in Europe.

2. Chapter 2:influencing factors are summarized in the appendix table A1.

3.Added arguments for the choice of statistical methods.

4.Added some details to check the results in Tables 5 and 6.By the way ,the results of Table 5 and 6 are only for the purpose of making the survey data pass the reliability and validity check, and do not need too much analysis, focusing on the analysis of structural equation model results.

5.Modified the content of 6.2 to the content of further action.

The above changes are marked in red in the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Suggest title “Construction Quality of Prefabricated Buildings Using Structural Equation Modeling”.

2.      Avoids “WE”, “OUR”, “HE/SHE” and etc. in scientific manuscript.

3.      Abstract. Main conclusions and novelty of study are not clear.

4.      Gap of knowledge is lacking under introduction. Please add one section to shows that gap.

5.      “Therefore, this work takes the contractor party as the research object”. What a correlations these sentences with other statements in introduction?

6.      More description is required for “specific process” as shows in Fig. 1.

7.      Table 3. 2.08% for “other” is big number. Thus, who is other? Example should be provide

8.      Deep discussions are required for Table 6.

9.      Lack of discussions for section “4.2.1. Model Correction”

10.  What author mean with “6.2. Limitations”?

Author Response

1.Title has revised.

2.Revised and avoided “WE”, “OUR”, “HE/SHE” .

3.Cleared presentation of research  conclusions , accentuated differences from prior studies.

4.Added the gap of knowledge under introduction.

5.In this section of the text, my analysis reveals that contractors have connections with multiple entities, including owners, supervisory units, component suppliers, design units, so this study concludes by focusing on contractors as the research subject.

6.Added more description for “specific process” as shows in Fig. 1.

7.Note was provided for the  "other".By the way,the data in the table 3 represents the number of individuals.

8.The validation tests in Table 6 are aimed at confirming the suitability of the survey dataset for conducting factor analysis. High KMO values and low approximate chi-square values are both positive indicators for proceeding with factor analysis. As indicated in the results of Table 6, the KMO value is notably high and the significance p-value is 0, signifying that the survey data has successfully passed the test. These findings have been duly explained in the text.

9.Added more discussions for section 4.2.1. Model Correction

10.   6.2Limitations has been revised to "Further Action".

The added content mentioned above is marked in red in the document.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented article presents a problem that is hardly exempted by all those involved in making a construction.

As surprising as the authors are: norms, statutes, laws, but if there are large volumes to be analyzed/respected, the people involved tend not to pay attention and not to respect them exactly. In all stages of planning, design, construction, use and post-use, there are many aspects that are neglected, tolerated and thus the construction has problems.

On the other hand, there are many unqualified people (without studies in the field of construction) from engineers to team leaders, to workers, which I personally consider to be the biggest alarm signal.

Failure to comply with the above instructions should bring more drastic sanctions on those involved.

I said all this to show that such a study is necessary. Regarding the present study, in the introduction, other problems encountered in the bibliography are brought into discussion.

An overview of the quality of concrete constructions, technologies, materials, means of improving quality, influencing factors are presented.

In the Materials and methods chapter, the study processes are presented very well, List of Influencing Factors, Principles of Constructing, Steps in Constructing, Samples and Data Collection, etc. with all the implications they bring.

As indicated in the article, many data were statistically processed and it is indicated that the data are sufficient for each indicator and the validity is guaranteed.

Regarding the conclusions, I think it is necessary to indicate exactly a few measures that need to be implemented. In the end, the conclusions do not raise the alarm! We see what happened in Turkey and we cannot turn back time! So I think that the conclusions chapter must be decisive, with clear indications, implementation solutions?

Also which are direct future! Do we stop here?

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments.

I have proposed six specific measures in chapter6.1.

1.The relevant standards and norms must be implemented to create an effective quality management system and ensure that the site managers and construction personnel pay sufficient attention to the quality of the structure.

2.An inspection and acceptance system must be established, especially for contractors.

3.Pre-job technical training and delivery system are implemented.

4.Perform effective technical control, including the selection of appropriate lifting time nodes, lifting machinery and equipment, and proper installation.

5.The digital construction capabilities are optimized. The BIM technology is used to create assembly building models and carry out visualization and realistic quality simulation through modeling to comprehend the site’s hidden quality problems.

6.An information collection system is established, and automated testing tools are used to collect construction site data, such as the quality problems encountered in construction, including material dimensions and component quality and connections, etc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

A major correction is suggested.

1.     Line 34-line 55 should be revised.

2.     All the abbreviations such as BIM, IKEA, ISM and RFID should be defined.

3.     Section 4.2 Model Building and Identification.. 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 should be explained. The provided explanation isn’t sufficient.

4.     Conclusion 6.1 should be condensed and concise.

5.     Several tables were presented without explanation, the author have to clarify and explain the results for every table.

6.     Section 5, some sentences in the discussion section can be supported by some references.

7.     Figure 1 and Figure 3 are suggested to be improved.. please make the reader read those figures clearly and without getting bored.

8.     Line 262 and 266-268 .. please add references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments.

My reply is as follows.

 1.Line 34-line 55 has been revised,expression is more concise. 

2.BIM, IKEA, ISM and RFID have been defined.

3.Added more  explanation to chapter4.2.

4. Conclusion 6.1 has been revised,expression is more concise and condensed.

5.Added more explanation for every table.

6.Addedy some references to support section5.

7.Figure 3 has been improved.

8.Added references [58][59].

The added content mentioned above is marked in red in the document.

Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

No further comment, thank you