Assessing Embodied Carbon in Structural Models: A Building Information Modelling-Based Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1.     Shorten the first five lines in abstract

2.     Abstract, state academic, practical and policy constributions of the paper

3.     State originality and gap of research filled by this paper in abstract.

4.     mention of the results of this paper, like “the results indicate that…” in the abstract part.

5.     The authors may need to take a detailed discussion about the current research gaps and indicate what gaps will this paper fill in the introduction part, from the current situation, this introduction part may seem a bit simple.

6.     In the introduction part, it is recommended to not to reveal the steps of methods in this research, instead, the research questions and the importance of this research could be more discussed.

7.     The authors may need to take a brief introduction of the coming sections of this paper at the end of the introduction part.

8.     It is recommended to change the title “2 Related work” to “2. Literature review” since the content is based on the past studies, and also, the authors may need to take a discussion at the end of this part about the research gaps based on past studies.

9.     Section 2, paragraphs should be used instead of point forms. Same problem for section 4.1

10.  The authors may need to add a reference about the Visual Programming Language.

11.  The authors may consider which title seem better, Methodology or Research Methods for section 3.

12.  “Was to seamlessly integrate the proves of EC assessment into the BIM workflow. The achieve this aim…” here may be “To achieve this aim”? the authors may need to check this point.

13.  Should section 4 be a part of section 3? If so, the title may be treated as a subtitle, 3.1.

14.  4.3and 4.3.1 need citation

15.  There are many BIM research, state what is the main breakthrough as compared to others:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-10-5771-7

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753521003623

16.  Is it better to put all the figures in the middle of the paper since the formulas are in the middle?

17.  The authors may need to take a brief explanation of the Dynamo script, Autodesk Dynamo., etc.

18.  “In this research, VPL was used to link EC factors to BIM objects. This approach has also been employed by other researchers in the field with similar results.” If this approach has been used by other researchers, what is the innovation point of this research? Hence, the authors may need to think about how to clearly state the research gaps, innovations of this paper.

19.  Some of the references may seem a bit outdated, the authors may need to revise them.

20. The author should include users' perspectives on this tool. Are they useful etc.

Polish english

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This research is good and will be highly useful to aspiring researchers even though it is not fully new. The manuscript's writing is excellent and well-organized. I'd like to offer the following brief suggestions:

1)      The authors provide an up-to-date overview of how to build and presentation of a BIM-based prototype tool for determining the carbon footprint of structural models. The suggested strategy has the potential to advance sustainability standards in the building sector and contribute to the well-described and represented worldwide fight against climate change.

2)      It is advised that the author use the analysis table of all prior researchers in Section 2 to demonstrate research gaps. 

3)      Remove the typographical errors.

4)      Correct the data total embodied carbon unit per m2 in fig.10, page no. 10.

5)      In the Reference section, some references are available in the reference section without a DOI, [27-28].

 

 

 Errors in spelling and grammar should be removed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors ignore some of the required changes mentioned in the review.

The research method is too simple.

Line 92, Tools that adopt the Type II approach, what is type II approach in line 92? Please state

Same as the above, In the Type III EC assessment approach? Please state what is that.

Title should be changed Assessing Embodied Carbon in xx via Building Information Modelling

LCA is nothing new, how does that compare with the previous LCA research? E.g. A comparative life-cycle assessment of hydro-, nuclear and wind power: A China study.

Section 3, Methodology, should be Research Method, in this section, change Research Methodology to Research method

Change 4.1 to paragraphs. Why these requirements are proposed?

168-173, missing citations.

Too many abbreviations like EC hinder reading

BIM is nothing new, System architecture, say, 3D model is linked with its surrounding topography as 4D BIM according to the book An economic analysis on automated construction safety, what is your new point here? Please compare yours with the previous publications on BIM and highlight the main point of innovation.

Figure 2, any missing citations? Where do these items come from?

Figure 3, I cannot read what are those in the figure, any missing citations? Where do these items come from?

Figure 4, how do these nine module come from? Please provide explanation, examples and citations.

What are the calculations methods for these calculations? In Fig 4?

Line 229, what is Family types consisting of a single material?

Therefore, the volume of 234 steel was obtained as a function of the concrete volume, considering average quantities of 235 reinforcement steel per m3 in concrete in the UK, why only applicable in the UK?

e Setting project parameters 240 module? What does it mean?

Masselement = Volumeelement × Densitymaterial? Missing citation?

4.3.4-4.3.8 missing citation.

Line 290-383, missing citation.

Replace most websites except data in references.

What are the originality of this research? Research gaps try to fill? Academic, practical and policy contributions?

The BIM topic is very old one, what is the main innovative idea here? As compared to the x dimension BIM, what are the main breakthrough?

Replace conference paper and non-journal ones in references.

 

What are the users’ opinions?

Polish English

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

NA

NA