Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall:

This study aims at examining the potential of an interoperable and upgradeable BIM model supplemented by ground-based non-destructive survey data, such as Mobile Laser Scanner (MLS) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), for the analysis of the potential distresses identified in a transport infrastructure’s pavement. The object of study is meaningful in the AEC industry, and the tools used are appropriate. However, the paper is more like an engineering project report rather than a scientific research paper. Besides, scientific nature of the research is not fully reflected. It is highly recommended to modify the paper more close to academic format in terms of text writing and image making. The paper is recommended to major revision. The specific suggestions are as follows.

Abstract: There is confusion and no clear expression of the research objectives and methods used.

l  GIS as a macro tool, how to combine with MLS and GPR micro tools? Is the goal of the research to deal with the problem in the GIS environment or to conduct the labelling of MLS and GPR in GIS?

l  What is the relationship between the BIM model and MLS and GPR?

l  “Preliminary results have shown…” What are the preliminary results? Image, numerical value or other information results?

l  The seven keywords in this paper seem too many, it is suggested to condense the real core of the paper. 

Introduction:

l  MLS, GPR, and BIM are described in detail in the introduction, however, the potential linkage between these three is not explained. As the basis of the research project, it is difficult to determine whether these methods have the potential to deal with the problems mentioned in the introduction. It is suggested to reorganize the language to more specifically explain the relationship between the methods used and the research.

l  Line 48-58, the meaning of this paragraph is not clear. It is suggested to reorganize the language.

l  There are a lot of general quotes such as 1-8, 13-21, and 22-30. It is strongly recommended that the citations be standardized and that the existing research be presented clearly and unbiasedly in detail.

l  It is highly recommended to highlight the innovations and contributions of this paper, which is difficult to understand in the introduction. 

Methodology:

The overall presentation of the methodology is more like an engineering project than a scientific study. As the innovations and contributions of this paper are not clearly defined in the introduction, the reader lacks the focus of understanding the methodology. Without a clearer presentation of the scientific nature of the methodology (as opposed to existing research), the paper will be difficult to understand and will not contribute to the existing literature. 

Result:

The Result is more solid than in the previous section. However, when discussing the results, comparisons with existing studies seem to be lacking. In addition, the scientific nature remains an issue in this section, academic merit must be addressed. 

In addition, the literature review is insufficient at its current stage. It is suggested to extend the literature review further by referring the following list:

1.      Towards sustainable construction: SIM-enabled design and planning of roof sheathing installation for prefabricated buildings, Journal of Cleaner Production, 235 (2019) 1189-1201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.055.

2.      Review and analysis of augmented realiry (AR) literature for digital fabrication in architecture, Automation in Construction, 128 (2021), 103762, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103762.

3.      Multi-objective optimization in floor tile planning: Coupling BIM and parametric design, Automation in Construction, 140 (2022), 104384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104384.

Author Response

We want to thank you for all your insightful comments, we have had the opportunity to examine more in depth our paper and our work in general. Please see the attachment for the responses to your comments. Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We want to thank you for all your insightful comments, we have had the opportunity to examine more in depth our paper and our work in general. Please see the attachment for the responses to your comments. Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Although this article requires more experimental tests/validation on real-life infrastructure and in laboratory to ensure the functionality of the proposed method to detect different damage scenarios, the proposal is interesting and innovative; moreover, the article is well written and organized. Therefore, I recommend this article to be published after a minor revision:

 

* All the acronyms must be described when mentioned for first time. Please, recheck this situation along the entire article. For example, the meaning of “BIM”, even when it is one of the most important keywords, is not mentioned in the Abstract, whereas other acronyms are described when mentioned for first time.

 

 * In the part of Keywords, the authors included 2 keywords as different keywords and they are the same: “BIM; Building Information Modelling;...”

 

* In the part of Keywords, the format must be uniform, the authors must use only the complete terms or only the acronyms but not combinations thereof.

 

* The authors should highlight the advantages of this method against others by using a comparative table.

 

* Is this method feasible to be implemented considering its high cost (2 different expensive devices are used) and the huge amount of critical pavements to be inspected around the world? Please justify.

 

* At least one reference about the collapse of the Polcevera Bridge must be provided in page 2 line 72.

 

* An analysis to delimit the scope of this method was carried out?, mainly focused to the materials, and type/severity of defects for which this method can work. Laboratory experiments along with on-site experiments would have been useful.

 

* Besides the advantage of this method for improving the maintenance and the management activities related to transport infrastructures. Can this method be implemented for continuous monitoring and detecting damage on-line?.

 

* The measurements by using GPR require always the interruption of traffic flow (as mentioned in section 2.1)? So, is this a disadvantage of the method? This method could have detected the damage of the Polcevera Bridge before the collapse?

 

* A brief introduction, with references included, about how the two devices used (MLS and GPR) works (operating principle) should be provided.

 

* Pictures of the devices used (MLS and GPR) and the inspected pavement must be included, as well as some pictures of the experiments on-site.

 

* Figure 7 shows possible pavement deterioration identified by means of GPR tomography. In order to avoid the word “possible”, controlled experimental tests in laboratory with known damages had to be performed prior to the on-site tests in order to ensure the ability of the method to detect damage and the damage scenarios feasible to be detected. Otherwise, how the authors can be sure that they detected damage in Figure 7 if that was not corroborated; moreover, more on-site tests had to be carried out in different highways.

Author Response

We want to thank you for all your insightful comments, we have had the opportunity to examine more in depth our paper and our work in general. Please see the attachment for the responses to your comments. Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have provided a complete, satisfactory revised paper format with a detailed echo to reviewers’ comments.  The paper contents meet the quality requirements and can be accepted for the publication in Infrastrucutres.

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments on the initial version of the manuscript have been sufficiently addressed by the authors in this revised version. I have no further comments on the technical aspects. The manuscript may be considered for publication after a proofreading.