Enhancing Building Archaeology: Drawing, UAV Photogrammetry and Scan-to-BIM-to-VR Process of Ancient Roman Ruins
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an interesting case study with detailed information about its development.
Some adjustments are necessary to improve the paper. It needs a revision to better organize the presented content. The introduction should be more concise, presenting the theme and a clear objective. Much of what has been written in the introduction can be included in the theoretical framework. The introduction provides detailed explanations about the aerial photogrammetry process, mentions examples, but does not include any information about what Extended Reality is or its applications in the field of architectural heritage.
Here are some points that need to be clarified:
line 49 - remove "using drones or aircraft", since UAV already refers to this type of aircraft.
line 60- "This immersive 3D model enhances our understanding of the building's architecture and spatial layout" What type of immersion in the 3D model is the sentence referring to?
line 117 - "true 117 digital twins" Nothing has been mentioned about digital twins and what it should encompass
lines 125 to 140 - This paragraph is summarizing what has been done and its benefits instead of clearly stating the objective of the work.
line 141 - 2.1 is used even though item 2 has not yet been presented.
line 156 - concept of "SUs," - what does the abbreviation mean? The explanation appears to be in line 162, which is much later after the acronym was mentioned for the first time.
lines 166 to 169 - The text presents a justification for the case study, and this explanation could be included in the introduction.
lines 170 to 218 - The text lacks theoretical references to support the concepts presented.
lines 219 to 221 - he paragraph presents a proposal for future work, this should be included at the end of the conclusions.
line 222 - Item 2.2. 'Building Archaeology into HBIM' addresses HBIM in archaeology only in cases in Italy. It would be important to provide a more comprehensive overview of the subject or add 'Italian studies' to the subtitle.
lines 223 to 226 - It is necessary to include bibliographic references.
line 303 - It is important to mention at least one painting if that information is relevant to the context.
line 334 - Please, cite the source of this information.
line 385 - At the beginning of this section, a brief summary of the research process conducted should be presented.
lines 556 to 567 - This section describes the method for developing the HBIM model. It should be included in the previous section.
line 567 - What types of information were used for Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality?
line 650 to 664 - This section begins with a discussion on AR, VR, and Digital Twins without providing any bibliographic references and without presenting the results, which are the focus of this section.
line 655 - It may be necessary to clarify the rationale or purpose behind introducing Digital Twins within the context of the article, since this connection was not presented in the objective of the study.
line 670 - What type of information is being measured in real-time for the Digital Twin? What sensors are being used? Which systems would be interfacing to gather this information? It is important to review the meaning of the term Digital Twin, as I believe it may not be the appropriate case in this context.
line 678 - Now you should use only VR and AR
line 682 - "Autodesk Revit platforms provided by Epic Games (Twinmotion and Unreal Engine)." Provided by Epic Games? Please, review this.
line 750 - "revolutionized" - Please exercise caution in the use of adjectives, as in several instances throughout the article, they are used indiscriminately. This is not the first and only study addressing this subject.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your invaluable guidance and efforts in reviewing our work. Your insightful feedback has contributed significantly to enhancing the quality and clarity of our research. As a result of conscientiously adhering to your recommendations, we have implemented several improvements in our manuscript, including integrating the references you suggested. The replies to the comments are highlighted in blue (see the attached word file).
Finally, we changed the title from “Enhancing building archaeology for archaeological ruins with scan-to-HBIM-to-XR process and UAV photogrammetry. The case of the Claudius-Anio Novus aqueduct in Tor Fiscale Park, Rome” to “Enhancing building archaeology: drawing, UAV photogrammetry and scan-to-BIM-to-VR process of ancient Roman ruins”.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
The paper presents an interesting case study with detailed information about its development.
Some adjustments are necessary to improve the paper. It needs a revision to better organize the presented content. The introduction should be more concise, presenting the theme and a clear objective. Much of what has been written in the introduction can be included in the theoretical framework. The introduction provides detailed explanations about the aerial photogrammetry process, mentions examples, but does not include any information about what Extended Reality is or its applications in the field of architectural heritage. – The introduction has been revised together with some incipit of the chapters to make the structure of the paper more comprehensive
Here are some points that need to be clarified:
line 49 - remove "using drones or aircraft", since UAV already refers to this type of aircraft. - The text has been removed.
line 60- "This immersive 3D model enhances our understanding of the building's architecture and spatial layout" What type of immersion in the 3D model is the sentence referring to? – The sentences has been changed by removing “immsersive”.
line 117 - "true 117 digital twins" Nothing has been mentioned about digital twins and what it should encompass – it has been added.
lines 125 to 140 - This paragraph is summarizing what has been done and its benefits instead of clearly stating the objective of the work. - The introduction has been revised and shortener.
line 141 - 2.1 is used even though item 2 has not yet been presented. - There was an error. Now paragraph 2 is entitled “Building Archaeology to study historical buildings”.
line 156 - concept of "SUs," - what does the abbreviation mean? The explanation appears to be in line 162, which is much later after the acronym was mentioned for the first time. - Acronym of SU has been moved to the first citation.
lines 166 to 169 - The text presents a justification for the case study, and this explanation could be included in the introduction. - The text has been moved to the introduction.
lines 170 to 218 - The text lacks theoretical references to support the concepts presented.- References has been added.
lines 219 to 221 - he paragraph presents a proposal for future work, this should be included at the end of the conclusions. - The paragraph has been moved to the conclusions.
line 222 - Item 2.2. 'Building Archaeology into HBIM' addresses HBIM in archaeology only in cases in Italy. It would be important to provide a more comprehensive overview of the subject or add 'Italian studies' to the subtitle. - Italian studies was added to the subtitle
lines 223 to 226 - It is necessary to include bibliographic references.- References has been added.
line 303 - It is important to mention at least one painting if that information is relevant to the context. – The Piranesi’s engravings have been mentioned.
line 334 - Please, cite the source of this information. – The source of the information has been added.
line 385 - At the beginning of this section, a brief summary of the research process conducted should be presented. – A brief summary has been added.
lines 556 to 567 - This section describes the method for developing the HBIM model. It should be included in the previous section. - Since the HBIM model is part of the building archaeology interpretation and analysis process, it was preferred to include it in the results section, also presenting the operative methods used in its creation. In the previous section, on the other hand, the parts more relevant to the survey phase were included: total station, laser scanner, and photogrammetry.
line 567 - What types of information were used for Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality? – the Building archaeology and the Stratigraphic unit analysis (see chapter 5.1), together with historical treatises (see chapter 5.3, added lines in yellow), such as the Vitruvian De Architectura for studying the construction site tools and machines.
line 650 to 664 - This section begins with a discussion on AR, VR, and Digital Twins without providing any bibliographic references and without presenting the results, which are the focus of this section. – references as been added and text revised.
line 655 - It may be necessary to clarify the rationale or purpose behind introducing Digital Twins within the context of the article, since this connection was not presented in the objective of the study. – The term has been added to the introduction.
line 670 - What type of information is being measured in real-time for the Digital Twin? What sensors are being used? Which systems would be interfacing to gather this information? It is important to review the meaning of the term Digital Twin, as I believe it may not be the appropriate case in this context. – The concept of digital twins initially referred to a virtual representation of a physical object or system, applied to built heritage, it goes beyond a mere 3D model. It encompasses the capturing, storing, and monitoring of diverse information about the object of interest within a spatial and semantic database. This broader interpretation recognizes the importance of visualizing and simulating the physical object while also organizing various related data. These data can include historical information, material composition, structural properties, maintenance records, and other relevant details. By organizing this information in a spatial and semantic database, researchers and practitioners gain a deeper understanding of the different characteristics of the built heritage. As a result, they can effectively analyze, monitor, and manage these objects, considering both their physical representation and associated data.
line 678 - Now you should use only VR and AR. – Acronym has been corrected.
line 682 - "Autodesk Revit platforms provided by Epic Games (Twinmotion and Unreal Engine)." Provided by Epic Games? Please, review this. – The line has been corrected.
line 750 - "revolutionized" - Please exercise caution in the use of adjectives, as in several instances throughout the article, they are used indiscriminately. This is not the first and only study addressing this subject. – The adjective has been changed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper on the application of new geospatial information acquisition techniques to architectural archaeology.
In general, the paragraphs are too long, which does not make it easier to read them. In the same sense, the section corresponding to materials and methods should be expanded and clarified.
As a starting point it would be convenient to add a map showing the location of the points of the local geodetic network used, not only at a general level, but also in the case of detailed studies of certain areas (for example, in section D).
In the description of the geodetic network of georeference, the methods used (GNSS and surveying techniques) and the equipment used are exposed, but the precision obtained when determining the coordinates is not indicated. It is essential to add a table indicating the different benchmark points (by order), the number of points considered and the precision in determining their planimetric and altimetric coordinates, depending on the methods used.
In the case of photogrammetric work, equipment with different sensors and different focal lengths is used (DJI Mavic Mini with 1/2.3" CMOS sensor, Canon EOS-1D camera, Nikon D700, with 20 mm, 35 mm and 90 mm lenses). It would be very convenient to add a table that summarizes all the characteristics of the sensors used. In the same table the characteristics of the laser scanner used could also be exposed.
The information on the design of the photogrammetric data collection must be improved, indicating the GSD, flight height or distance to the photographed objects, overlaps used and any other parameter of interest for the subsequent photogrammetric treatment.
The photogrammetric treatment of the images has been performed by bundle adjustment using the Metashape software with the help of Ground Control Points and Check Points. It is essential to add a section in which the process followed to treat the images is described, indicating the different blocks considered and, for each of them, the number of images used, the number of Ground Control Points and Check Points, the accuracy obtained in the orientation of the Cameras and Ground Control Points and Check Points and all information related to the quality of the photogrammetric models produced. All this information should be added in summary tables.
Since data from different sensors and with different focal lengths are integrated, including photogrammetric data with laser scanner data, it is essential to clarify the method used to perform the joint calculations and if any specific software has been used make integration.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your invaluable guidance and efforts in reviewing our work. Your insightful feedback has contributed significantly to enhancing the quality and clarity of our research. As a result of conscientiously adhering to your recommendations, we have implemented several improvements in our manuscript, including integrating the references you suggested. The replies to the comments are highlighted in blue (see the attached word file).
Finally, we changed the title from “Enhancing building archaeology for archaeological ruins with scan-to-HBIM-to-XR process and UAV photogrammetry. The case of the Claudius-Anio Novus aqueduct in Tor Fiscale Park, Rome” to “Enhancing building archaeology: drawing, UAV photogrammetry and scan-to-BIM-to-VR process of ancient Roman ruins”.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
This is an interesting paper on the application of new geospatial information acquisition techniques to architectural archaeology. In general, the paragraphs are too long, which does not make it easier to read them. In the same sense, the section corresponding to materials and methods should be expanded and clarified.
As a starting point it would be convenient to add a map showing the location of the points of the local geodetic network used, not only at a general level, but also in the case of detailed studies of certain areas (for example, in section D). – Picture of the benchmarks of the area has been added.
In the description of the geodetic network of georeference, the methods used (GNSS and surveying techniques) and the equipment used are exposed, but the precision obtained when determining the coordinates is not indicated. It is essential to add a table indicating the different benchmark points (by order), the number of points considered and the precision in determining their planimetric and altimetric coordinates, depending on the methods used. – Specifications has been added, see par. 4.
In the case of photogrammetric work, equipment with different sensors and different focal lengths is used (DJI Mavic Mini with 1/2.3" CMOS sensor, Canon EOS-1D camera, Nikon D700, with 20 mm, 35 mm and 90 mm lenses). It would be very convenient to add a table that summarizes all the characteristics of the sensors used. In the same table the characteristics of the laser scanner used could also be exposed. – Tables have been added, see par. 4.
The information on the design of the photogrammetric data collection must be improved, indicating the GSD, flight height or distance to the photographed objects, overlaps used and any other parameter of interest for the subsequent photogrammetric treatment. – Specifications has been added, see par. 4.
The photogrammetric treatment of the images has been performed by bundle adjustment using the Metashape software with the help of Ground Control Points and Check Points. It is essential to add a section in which the process followed to treat the images is described, indicating the different blocks considered and, for each of them, the number of images used, the number of Ground Control Points and Check Points, the accuracy obtained in the orientation of the Cameras and Ground Control Points and Check Points and all information related to the quality of the photogrammetric models produced. All this information should be added in summary tables. – Since the paper focuses on section D of the aqueduct, we have included the values related to that section to avoid burdening the text with additional data.
Since data from different sensors and with different focal lengths are integrated, including photogrammetric data with laser scanner data, it is essential to clarify the method used to perform the joint calculations and if any specific software has been used make integration. – Only Agisoft metashape was used. Specifications has been added, see par. 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well structured and clearly presents the results and the discussion.
This paper explores Building Archaeology, an interdisciplinary approach that combines architecture and archaeology. It involves expanding the archaeologist's observation to new artifacts and using archaeological tools to analyze structures for restoration or trace their history. Researchers study written sources and materials, including surveys and three-dimensional models, to understand the structure. Indirect and direct sources complement each other, leading to a comprehensive understanding and hypothesis verification. Building Archaeology unravels architectural complexity and reveals historical significance.
The authors utilize the HBIM methodology due to its potential to enhance the representation of building archaeology. They present a brief state of the art in section 2.2 to support this choice. Of the 12 works cited in this section, 3 of them have one of the authors of this paper as a co-author. An error in the numbering of the referenced works was identified in this section, which needs to be corrected by the authors.
The methodology is well presented. The authors used hybrid survey techniques (GNSS, UAV, laser scanner) and complementary methods to create the orthomosaic and georeferenced point cloud. They utilized modeling software such as Rhinoceros and Autodesk Revit and game engines to create virtual reality.
Please review the numbering of the references.
The sentence in lines 135 to 140 needs to be rephrased.
Unknown word in line 682 (utilintegrating).
The text is well-written, and the language is clear, with only a few typographical errors and a few sentences that need to be reviewed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your invaluable guidance and efforts in reviewing our work. Your insightful feedback has contributed significantly to enhancing the quality and clarity of our research. As a result of conscientiously adhering to your recommendations, we have implemented several improvements in our manuscript, including integrating the references you suggested. The replies to the comments are highlighted in blue (see the attached word file).
Finally, we changed the title from “Enhancing building archaeology for archaeological ruins with scan-to-HBIM-to-XR process and UAV photogrammetry. The case of the Claudius-Anio Novus aqueduct in Tor Fiscale Park, Rome” to “Enhancing building archaeology: drawing, UAV photogrammetry and scan-to-BIM-to-VR process of ancient Roman ruins”.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
The article is well structured and clearly presents the results and the discussion.This paper explores Building Archaeology, an interdisciplinary approach that combines architecture and archaeology. It involves expanding the archaeologist's observation to new artifacts and using archaeological tools to analyze structures for restoration or trace their history. Researchers study written sources and materials, including surveys and three-dimensional models, to understand the structure. Indirect and direct sources complement each other, leading to a comprehensive understanding and hypothesis verification. Building Archaeology unravels architectural complexity and reveals historical significance. The authors utilize the HBIM methodology due to its potential to enhance the representation of building archaeology. They present a brief state of the art in section 2.2 to support this choice. Of the 12 works cited in this section, 3 of them have one of the authors of this paper as a co-author. An error in the numbering of the referenced works was identified in this section, which needs to be corrected by the authors. The methodology is well presented. The authors used hybrid survey techniques (GNSS, UAV, laser scanner) and complementary methods to create the orthomosaic and georeferenced point cloud. They utilized modeling software such as Rhinoceros and Autodesk Revit and game engines to create virtual reality.
Please review the numbering of the references. – References and numbers have been reviewed.
The sentence in lines 135 to 140 needs to be rephrased. – the sentence has been rephrased.
Unknown word in line 682 (utilintegrating). – the word has been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been reorganized and improved; however, there are still some points that need to be addressed. Among the paper's objectives is the development of a digital twin; however, the process of accomplishing this is not disclosed. The authors provide a brief concept of what a digital twin would entail but do not present its development or the corresponding outcomes. Therefore, I suggest excluding the mention of the digital twin from the objectives stated in the abstract.
Regarding the text from lines 58 to 60, it would be more appropriate to consider the Digital Twin as a future project or a potential subject for another article. Alternatively, it could be mentioned in the results section as follows: "The HBIM model was developed to serve as a foundation for a Digital Twin." This way, it clarifies that the Digital Twin is a potential extension of the current work rather than a part of the current study.
Also, it is necessary to review the use of Digital Twin / DT. Once the term Digital Twin (DT) has been established, it is essential to maintain only DT throughout the text.
Lines 759 to 769 consist of theoretical background and should not be included in the results section of the article. Furthermore, several statements require proper citations.
In summary, the article is well formatted, written, and presents relevant content suitable for publication. The only aspect that needs to be reviewed is the use and treatment of the Digital Twin concept.
Author Response
The article has been reorganized and improved; however, there are still some points that need to be addressed. Among the paper's objectives is the development of a digital twin; however, the process of accomplishing this is not disclosed. The authors provide a brief concept of what a digital twin would entail but do not present its development or the corresponding outcomes. Therefore, I suggest excluding the mention of the digital twin from the objectives stated in the abstract.
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions. Your insightful feedback has contributed significantly to enhancing the quality and clarity of our research. We have made the following improvements to our work – we highlight our replies to the comments in blue (see the attached word file).
Regarding the text from lines 58 to 60, it would be more appropriate to consider the Digital Twin as a future project or a potential subject for another article. Alternatively, it could be mentioned in the results section as follows: "The HBIM model was developed to serve as a foundation for a Digital Twin." This way, it clarifies that the Digital Twin is a potential extension of the current work rather than a part of the current study.
The references in the text about the digital twin has been removed and a short note has been added to the conclusion section, as suggested by the reviewer.(lines 822-823)
Also, it is necessary to review the use of Digital Twin / DT. Once the term Digital Twin (DT) has been established, it is essential to maintain only DT throughout the text.
Done.
Lines 759 to 769 consist of theoretical background and should not be included in the results section of the article. Furthermore, several statements require proper citations.
Lines 759-769 have been removed.
In summary, the article is well formatted, written, and presents relevant content suitable for publication. The only aspect that needs to be reviewed is the use and treatment of the Digital Twin concept.
Reviewer 2 Report
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Kind regards,
The authors
