Analysis of the Tools for Evaluating Embodied Energy Through Building Information Modeling Tools: A Case Study of a Single-Unit Shell Building

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision looks good to the reviewer. The author has addressed most of the issues highlighted in the review. The text in Fig. 3 is hard to read, and the author may adjust it if needed. However, this does not require further review. Once fixed, the manuscript can be sent directly to the editor.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no more comment

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no more comment

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose an evaluation of the application of the BIM system to calculate and track the carbon footprint over time for designed, constructed, and existing buildings. The authors describe the current tools and their characteristics, highlighting their critical issues, and perform an application evaluation on a case. The work is very interesting, and the topic is very current, but I believe that the authors still need to work a little to make the content more solid and better structured.

Below I report the main notes to support my comment and then some minor notes that can help improve the document.

I suggest reviewing the title because it is misleading with respect to the contents. The article is not an analysis of the case study cited, but it is an analysis of the tools for evaluating embodied energy through BIM tools and the case study was selected as a reference for understanding and applying one of these tools, namely UrbanBIM.

The abstract reports 73 tons of CO2, but are they CO2 or CO2 equivalent? Are they total or do they refer to how many years of life? Are they total or per m2? Furthermore, this value does not coincide with the one reported in the text on line 247, which is 76.35 tons.

The workflow in Figure 3 is not clear and effective, it should be reviewed by creating a clearer flow of the various operations. From how it was presented, they all seem to be parallel and not sequential activities. I also suggest all the black writing, which is easier to read.

In section “3. Results” there is also information about the case study. I suggest creating a paragraph dedicated to the description of the case study before the results. It could be a subchapter of the methodology. The case study lacks important information for interpreting the correctness of the data, namely: Location and climate (it is useful because different materials and technologies are used depending on the location. For example, in a cold climate you use more insulation, in a warm one less); years of the lifespan of the building, surface area of the building in m2. This information is very useful for interpreting the correctness of the data.

In this regard, for the information reported, I have some doubts about the value of embodied energy processed (study of modules from A1 to A3). The data for a single-family building seems rather high to me. I ask the authors to clarify this data better.

The value calculated with the software (equal to 73 or 76 tons) seems very different to me compared to the one elaborated by the authors and reported in Table 3. Were the data in Table 3 calculated by hand or with another program? For greater scientific and comparison of the data, I suggest strengthening and better describing the relationship and coherence between the two datasets.

On line 266 write UrbanBIM and not urbanbim. Check the writing throughout the article.

For the statement on lines 287 and 288, it would be interesting to go into more detail and clarify the concept, perhaps even with some practical examples of what is meant by “products typically used in single-family housing.”

To support the considerations on lines 296-300, I suggest inserting more details, i.e. what are the data/parameters that must be entered manually and what are the missing calculations? Give some examples to make the difficulties encountered clearer.

I suggest describing the consideration on lines 312-314 in a slightly more precise way. For example, what are they and what do they imply?

The statement on lines 328-331, is it your consideration? I suggest clarifying better or reporting references on the topic. From my experience, I believe that the determination of CO2 emissions and energy incorporated in the entire life cycle is more complex.

Paragraph 340 to 350 seems to be isolated and not properly integrated into the text. It appears as a simplified procedure, how can it be a future development? Integrate it better into the article.

Finally, to enhance the work, I suggest adding a summary table on the UrbanBIM software, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses, critical issues, and possible developments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no specific comments but I suggest a proofread by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their answers and additions to the article.

I have some doubts about the answers to the following comments and for which I report my subsequent comments.

Comment 5: I continue to maintain that to have a complete and fluid structure of the work it is necessary to extrapolate the description of the case study from the results. In the chapter “Materials and methodology” there must be the tools, the case study and the analysis methodology. I imagine there were other comments I made that no other reviewer made and vice versa.

Comment 10: Thanks for the clarification, but I think that if you have used the software, you are aware at least of the data entered and processed. The explanation of this data can be enough to give an idea of ​​the depth and processing carried out with this method. It does not compromise anything; it is just a way to give the reader an idea of the type of calculation.

Comment 12: I understand the future potential of the tool, but in my opinion to better connect the content to your work it would be enough to say for example "a new calculation approach is being developed that will be based on .... And it will be possible to process the data...."

Comment 13: I do not believe that highlighting the pros and cons, advantages or difficulties of a program is an act of minimizing the program. I believe instead that having applied it and having grasped all the various aspects you could give a contribution to the developers in focusing on the weak or unclear points to implement them in the future and therefore make it increasingly lean and agile. Second, you would give researchers a constructive critical judgment on the evaluation and application of the program, often this approach gives the possibility of strengthening and spreading the calculation and evaluation programs. I do not suggest you make a detailed report but to frame the most important aspects and perhaps even highlight how the direct relationship with the developers of the software will also allow its future implementation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors used UrbanBIM as a tool to describe the carbon emission calculation process of a building during the design phase. The research content belongs to the current hot research field and can provide a basis for carbon reduction in the construction industry. Suggest enriching in the following areas.

1. It is suggested to summarize the relevant literature on current BIM tools for calculating carbon emissions in the introduction section, which highlights the necessity of this paper.
2. It is recommended to use other software, especially authoritative software, to recalculate the carbon emissions of the building and verify the reliability of the tool calculation.
3. Suggest supplementing carbon emission factors in Table 2 to promote the universality of the tool's use.
4. Given that the operational phase is the largest proportion of carbon emissions, can we simulate the carbon emissions during this phase.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, titled "Calculating the Carbon Footprint for a Single-Unit Shell Building Using UrbanBIM," does not propose or develop any calculation model for measuring the carbon footprint. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper lacks a comprehensive literature review section. While the reviewer acknowledges that there may be limited studies specifically addressing the use of Urban BIM for carbon calculation, as indicated in citation #17, it is recommended that the authors expand the literature review by including relevant studies that utilize other tools such as One Click LCA, Tally, EC3,  and others or any other related studies. A brief comparison of these tools and their applications in similar contexts would strengthen the background and provide a clearer context for the study.

The Materials and Methods section is currently too brief and reads more like an introduction to the software rather than a detailed explanation of the methodology. To enhance clarity and reproducibility, the authors should provide a more thorough description of the methods, ensuring that other researchers can follow and replicate the steps. Including a workflow chart to illustrate the key steps and methodology would be highly beneficial.

Additionally, even if this is a pilot or preliminary study, the authors should clarify the criteria and rationale for selecting the building used in the analysis. For example, was the building chosen because it is representative of a specific typology or context? The selection process should be explicitly justified to provide transparency and rigor to the study.

The overall flow of the paper resembles a project summary rather than a scholarly contribution. The paper falls short in emphasizing its unique merits and how it advances the existing body of knowledge. Given that many tools can achieve similar outcomes, the authors should clearly articulate what distinguishes their study from others. This could include methodological innovations, unique applications of the tool, or novel insights generated by the research.

In its current form, the depth and rigor of the paper do not meet the standards expected for publication in this journal. The authors are encouraged to address these concerns by expanding the literature review, providing a more detailed methodology, justifying the building selection process, and highlighting the study's unique contributions to the field.