Insight on HBIM for Conservation of Cultural Heritage: The Galleria dell’Accademia di Firenze

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  This paper explores the concepts and practices of HBIM for conservation of cultural heritage, including methodological design and three main aims, which basically grasps the focus of HBIM's needs, and is an article with a clear research framework.

2.  Lines 316-320, which discuss the impact of "abstraction and simplification of the reality " on information and models, should be clarified.

3.     The article begins by mentioning that "two of these open issues can be summarized in the following aspects" in line 46, which is a clear statement. However, in the case study design, as well as the discussion and conclusion, there is a lack of response to these open issues, and it is recommended to strengthen it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented contribution offers an interesting overview of the application of relevant criteria of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on historical constructions, investigating specific aspects of a case study such as the Galleria dell’Accademia in Florence. The paper aligns with a growing body of international scientific literature on BIM applications in CH, with increasingly detailed experiments concerning monumental and historical buildings. The authors aim to suggest a potential methodological approach for cataloging information within BIM models, destined for use in FE applications, thereby facilitating a workflow for numerical simulation. However, the paper lacks sufficient detail regarding the proposed intentions of the authors. Semantic classifications are declared without references, i.e. to the schemes, codes, and regulations that already exist for new constructions. Additionally, there is some confusion about the term "HBIM," which seems to take on different meanings at different times, whether it refers to a process, a model, or a reference scheme. Therefore, it would be beneficial for the authors to unambiguously define their interpretation of "HBIM" definition.

The paper sounds interesting, but sometimes lacks elaboration on the adopted methodological processes. For instance, there is no description of how the BIM model was generated, which dataset was used, or whether professionals with specific modeling skills were employed. The transformation of data, such as photogrammetric or laser scanner surveys into geometric models capable of hosting all the required informative abstractions, represents a critical point of discussion in the current HBIM scenario; the paper often mentions the model as a result of data collection, presented as a data archive obtained through a commercial platform (Autodesk Revit), structured with project or shared parameters, presumably meant for sharing, but they are the commercial solution of that specific software. Would their process be applicable on different software solutions or is it strictly confined to the Autodesk solution?

Anyway, the shared/project parameters with links approach is often fraught with challenges, especially when the model needs to be exported in open formats to ensure interoperability across different platforms (i.e IFC).

The concept of creating BIM models of existing buildings for structural simulation purposes is intriguing, but it must be correctly formalized in terms of process, method, and execution. Unfortunately, the authors do not provide sufficient details on how these phases were implemented in the proposed workflow.

Moreover, the cited normative references are limited to the Italian national context. Nonetheless, international codes, standards, and regulations, such as ISO standards, which are still in a prototypical stage for existing constructions, already indicate certain directions for research in this field. To enhance the readability of the paper, especially for non-specialist readers, I suggest that the authors integrate the text with relevant information on the minimum knowledge required by the target users of their proposed application method. CH is a vast knowledge domain where different specializations often struggle to find a common communicative ground to express their needs and requirements. The HBIM process, aiming to facilitate shared knowledge, should thus pursue this objective.

Lastly, it would be beneficial to provide more details on the results obtained from the finite element analysis carried out in the proposed environment. Based on these observations, I believe that integrating these topics, possibly in tabular and schematic forms, along with more detailed bibliographic references, would undoubtedly enhance the quality of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is clear and contents can be correctly understood. Some typos, especially in figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version of the manuscript improved, since authors introduced and addressed many of the issues that were mentioned in the first round of review.

Even though some elements could be still better clarified, this version is more fitting the Journal's requirements. Some minor revisions have still to be carried out: for example when referencing Italian UNI regulations (I.e. 11337:2017) please remind that it is not a ISO code, since it is actually annex of the UNI EN ISO 19650:2019 (five parts were already published). Please check the link (which is not working) and the reference format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language in the manuscript is acceptable, but it would benefit from a thorough review by a native speaker to address typos and syntax errors. Additionally, the terminology, while common, is suitable for a lay reader's comprehension.