Historic Building Information Modeling for Conservation and Maintenance: San Niccolo’s Tower Gate, Florence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the concepts and practices of HBIM for conservation of cultural heritage, including methodological design and investigating specific aspects of a case study such as San Niccolo’s Tower Gate in Florence. The paper aligns with a growing body of international scientific literature on BIM applications in CH. 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 in-depth considerations about the semantic classifications adopted, i.e. to the schemes, codes, and regulations that already exist for new constructions and could be adopted for CH. What is the LOD classification that you have adopted?

 

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. I aware that it represents a research challenge but some preliminary results/considerations regarding the effective integration between informative and computational modelling may be highly beneficial. Therefore, if possible, I would highly recommend including some comments in this regard.

Moreover, to enhance the readability of the paper, I suggest that the authors integrate the text with 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. For example, how the LOD is related to the different level of structural analyses that can be performed? And, at line 211 the authors define “sufficient” the level of detail of the geometric survey. I would highly recommend including additional comments in this regard, in particular by highlighting what is the effect of the level of detail of geometric survey on the different analyses that could be performed for maintenance purposes of this case study.

 

Bibliographic reference is short. In particular, it lacks to explore other application of the HBIM framework about Cultural heritage (line 78), see for example:

Croce, V., Caroti, G., De Luca, L., Jacquot, K., Piemonte, A., Véron, P. From the Semantic Point Cloud to Heritage-Building Information Modeling: A Semiautomatic Approach Exploiting Machine Learning. Remote Sensing 2021, 13(3), 461. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13030461

Monchetti, S., Betti, M., Borri, C., Gerola, C., Matta, C., & Francalanci, B. (2023). Insight on HBIM for conservation of cultural heritage: the Galleria dell’Accademia di Firenze. Heritage, 6(11), 6949-6964.

Bruno, N., Roncella, R. HBIM for Conservation: A New Proposal for Information Modeling. Remote Sensing 2019, 11(5), 1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11151751.

Murphy, M., McGovern, E., Pavia, S. Historic building information modelling (HBIM). Structural Survey 2009, 27(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800910985108.

Moreover, some additional experimental data (line 189) about San Niccolò’s Tower is provided in: Zini, G., Betti, M., & Bartoli, G. (2022). A pilot project for the long-term structural health monitoring of historic city gates. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 12(3), 537-556.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some typos need to be corrected: for example, line 51 “fot”, line 83 “details contents”, line 89 “thar”… and some sentences sound unclear, in particular:

-        Lines 89-92

-        Lines 106-116.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find the new version of the manuscript heritage-2874862 entitled “H-BIM Model for conservation and maintenance: San Niccolo’s Tower Gate, Florence”.

We would like to thank very much the Reviewers for their useful indications and comments.

According to suggestions, the previous version has been revised. The following significant modifications have been implemented in the article:

• Abstract and Conclusions have been rephrased and integrated.
• A paragraph titled "2 HBIM database for seismic assessment" has been added.
• Section 4.3 has been rewritten, integrated, and reorganized into two subchapters.
• Table 1, Figures 2 and 15 have been added, Figure 17 has been modified.

Other minor local modifications have been made throughout the text.

 

Please find below the point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments:

 

Reviewer #1:

This paper explores the concepts and practices of HBIM for conservation of cultural heritage, including methodological design and investigating specific aspects of a case study such as San Niccolo’s Tower Gate in Florence. The paper aligns with a growing body of international scientific literature on BIM applications in CH. 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.

 

1) However, the paper lacks in-depth considerations about the semantic classifications adopted, i.e. to the schemes, codes, and regulations that already exist for new constructions and could be adopted for CH. What is the LOD classification that you have adopted?

Authors response: The LOD classification of the model is indicated in paragraph 4.1 according to Italian and international standards. The semantic modeling of the tower was aimed at documenting the cognitive phases which consequently determined the geometric and information criteria for creating the model. Current standards in the field of BIM modeling allow defining the level of geometric development of objects, but the level of information development and semantic categories of new constructions are often not adequate for the information complexity of a CH.

 

2) 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. I aware that it represents a research challenge but some preliminary results/considerations regarding the effective integration between informative and computational modelling may be highly beneficial. Therefore, if possible, I would highly recommend including some comments in this regard.

Authors response: The paper has been improved to provide additional details on the process, methodology and execution regarding the use of BIM approach for seismic safety assessment. This has been done by integrating two chapters (2.2 and 4.3) into the paper, which deal with the general methodology and the specific application to the case study, outlining the process of using BIM approach to assess seismic vulnerability of historic masonry structures according with Italian guidelines.

 

3)Moreover, to enhance the readability of the paper, I suggest that the authors integrate the text with 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. For example, how the LOD is related to the different level of structural analyses that can be performed? And, at line 211 the authors define “sufficient” the level of detail of the geometric survey. I would highly recommend including additional comments in this regard, in particular by highlighting what is the effect of the level of detail of geometric survey on the different analyses that could be performed for maintenance purposes of this case study.

Authors response: The information required by the users for the implementation of the method are mainly related to the seismic vulnerability analysis. In this context, the guidelines adopted as reference in this work deal with the importance of the knowledge path to achieve a proper level. These aspects have been emphasized in section 2.2 related to the required level of geometric detail necessary for modeling strategies. Regarding the term “sufficient", in this case it was not referred to the topic of LOD related with structural analyses. Instead, the intent was to emphasize that the high detail of the point cloud makes it possible to detect the presence of out of plumb walls. However, the sentence has been rephrased for clarity.

4) Bibliographic reference is short. In particular, it lacks to explore other application of the HBIM framework about Cultural heritage (line 78), see for example:

Croce, V., Caroti, G., De Luca, L., Jacquot, K., Piemonte, A., Véron, P. From the Semantic Point Cloud to Heritage-Building Information Modeling: A Semiautomatic Approach Exploiting Machine Learning. Remote Sensing 2021, 13(3), 461. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13030461

Monchetti, S., Betti, M., Borri, C., Gerola, C., Matta, C., & Francalanci, B. (2023). Insight on HBIM for conservation of cultural heritage: the Galleria dell’Accademia di Firenze. Heritage, 6(11), 6949-6964.

Bruno, N., Roncella, R. HBIM for Conservation: A New Proposal for Information Modeling. Remote Sensing 2019, 11(5), 1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11151751.

Murphy, M., McGovern, E., Pavia, S. Historic building information modelling (HBIM). Structural Survey 2009, 27(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800910985108.

Moreover, some additional experimental data (line 189) about San Niccolò’s Tower is provided in: Zini, G., Betti, M., & Bartoli, G. (2022). A pilot project for the long-term structural health monitoring of historic city gates. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 12(3), 537-556.

Authors response: Bibliography has been integrated by the suggested works and by other works in the literature related to the topic.

 

5) Some typos need to be corrected: for example, line 51 “fot”, line 83 “details contents”, line 89 “thar”… and some sentences sound unclear, in particular:

-        Lines 89-92

-        Lines 106-116.

Authors response: The sentences have been reworded to be clearer.

 

 

In order to help the reviewers compare this revised version with the previous one, we have included both unmarked and marked versions of the revised paper.

 

Thank you for your kind attention.

 

Best regards

Marco Tanganelli

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment can be found in pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find the new version of the manuscript heritage-2874862 entitled “H-BIM Model for conservation and maintenance: San Niccolo’s Tower Gate, Florence”.

We would like to thank very much the Reviewers for their useful indications and comments.

According to suggestions, the previous version has been revised. The following significant modifications have been implemented in the article:

• Abstract and Conclusions have been rephrased and integrated.
• A paragraph titled "2 HBIM database for seismic assessment" has been added.
• Section 4.3 has been rewritten, integrated, and reorganized into two subchapters.
• Table 1, Figures 2 and 15 have been added, Figure 17 has been modified.

Other minor local modifications have been made throughout the text.

 

Please find below the point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #2:

1) Abstract seems to be very generic, it needs to be reframed with, Introduction two lines, methods adopted two lines, major results five lines, highlights two lines and conclusion two lines.

Authors response: Abstract has been modified.

 

2) Section 1. L.34: This refers to Italian legislation. This should be highlighted and compared with legislation from other countries. Not all readers are from Italy :)

Authors response: The normative reference of the sentence has been clarified.

 

3) Section 2.1. L.107: numerical parameters' usually represent the parameters of numerical analyses. This is not the case here. Please replace the term with a more appropriate term.

Authors response: The term "numerical" has been changed to "dimensional".

 

4) Section 4. L.347: The case studied belongs to individual cases, and its universality needs to be discussed.

Authors response: The discussion relating to the universality of the case study has been expanded in the context of an ongoing experimentation (Section 4).

 

5) Section 4.3. L.457: What software was used to assess seismic safety? The procedure for conducting seismic safety assessments needs clarification, including a clear presentation of the model's assumptions and results.

Authors response: The seismic vulnerability assessment was carried out according to the first two evaluation levels (LV1 and LV2) indicated in the reference Guidelines. In this case, specialized software designed for these analyses were not used. Instead, calculations were performed using calculation sheets developed by the authors specifically for this case study. The procedure for conducting the seismic vulnerability assessment has been comprehensively integrated into Section 4.3, with a dedicated chapter (4.3.1) describing the models and presenting the analysis results.

 

6) Section 4.3. L.459: LV1, LV 2 nad LV3 should be defined and explained.The readership lacks understanding of the subject matter.

Authors response: The three levels of seismic assessment have been described in section 2.2.

7) Section 4.3. L.531: More discussions should be held to explain the applicability of the model, rather than presenting individual case.

Authors response: Comments regarding the applicability of the model have been added in section 4.3.2.

 

8) Section 5. L.552-554: I consider this conclusion pretentious and inappropriate. It needs to be supported by more detailed analyzes of the tower construction. I recommend reformulating the Conclusions.

Authors response:  Conclusions have been reformulated and corrected.

 

9) Section 5. L.555: Try to add recommendations of this study.

Authors response: Recommendations have been integrated into the conclusions.

 

 

In order to help the reviewers compare this revised version with the previous one, we have included both unmarked and marked versions of the revised paper.

 

Thank you for your kind attention.

 

Best regards

Marco Tanganelli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your efforts. I consider the paper is now acceptable for publication.