Digital Plan of Brickwork Layout for Robotic Bricklaying Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read this paper with great interest. Here the authors have presented a methodology for making a laying plan for different versions of building bricklaying systems.

The following issues should be addressed in the paper:

- The introduction provided a background and motivation for the study. However it is unclear what is the research gap. More thoughts about the potential theoretical contributions and how you fill the existing research gap should be provided, what are research questions? The issues raised, e.g. what binding material will be applied on walling elements, what consistency this material has and in what form this material is most commonly supplied, what application technique of material and the tool with which it is applied, etc. are typical when it comes to developing a BIM model and not only.

- I don’t think the authors in question has cast their net wide enough in surveying the currently available literature on the matter. Not a well-balanced sample: too many from C-level references (books, textbooks, conferences proceedings) – too few from A-level journals. This is also the case in Automation in Construction, Building Research & Information, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering and other journals, where similar lines of enquiry have been taken by different authors. This is a real weakness for a paper with an audience of the research community. A critical discourse on past literature and how this work is different or similar would be extremely beneficial to read.

- It is fine to propose a method. However methodology selection is neither justified or well argued for. Are there any similar research on mathematical methods of connecting discontinuous axes of objects walls or other elements with an orthogonal layout? What is uniqueness of the algorithm presented? Is it not a standard procedure to solve similar kind of problems?

- Limitations of the study should be added.

- The paper needs some proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introducing a digital bricklaying plan for robotic construction work is of great importance to the industry. However, in order to emphasize the added value of the paper, the authors are advised to address the following comments.

1. General Comments

Corrections are required regarding grammar, and the editing of sentences. It is important to use the right words for accurate presentation. If the text is improved, the message you intend to convey will be much clearer and more understandable. Some examples that require appropriate consideration are presented below.

1. Introduction, Page 1, lines 20-23. "The aim of this article is…". The term "structure" is used without explanation. It is not clear which structure it is, and who is a member of the structure. It is advisable to rephrase the sentence.
2. Methodology, Page 2, lines 44-45. "The first items…" The sentence may not be understood. Further use of the same concept does not allow for its understanding. It is advisable to rephrase the sentence.
3. Methodology, page 3, lines 79-80. "All these…" The sentence refers to the method described in another chapter and presents a reference along with it, in a way that may be incomprehensible. It is advisable to present the reference next to the method and then refer to the additional chapter while noting its title.
4. Chapter 3, lines 130-131. The sentence is not understood. It is advisable to rephrase and replace with a capital letter in the first word in it.
5. Chapter 3, lines 150-153. The sentence is not understood. It is advisable to rephrase it.
6. Chapter 5, lines 238-240. The sentence is not understood. It is recommended to correct the sentence and use a singular form with reference to the table.
7. Chapter 5, lines 249-253. Both sentences are incomprehensible. It is advisable to rephrase them for further understanding.
8. Chapter 6, lines 259-260. The sentence is not understood. It needs to be reworded for more understanding.
9. Chapter 6, lines 264-267. The sentence is not understood. It needs to be improved in terms of grammar for more understanding.
10. Chapter 6, lines 268-269. The sentence is not understood. It needs to be improved in terms of grammar for more understanding.
11. Chapter 6, lines 272-274. The sentence is not understood. It needs to be improved in terms of grammar for more understanding.

2. Specific comments

2.1. Introduction

Authors are advised to describe the problem in detail and then present the purpose of the paper and the solution it offers.

2.2. Methodology

The paper shows Figure 2 but does not explain it at all. Reference should be made to Figure 2 in detail.

2.3. Chapter 5

The title should be corrected both because of the grammar, and because the practicality of the study is not described in the presentation of the results

2.4. Chapter 6 - A

It is necessary to explain what the assessment is based on in relation to the robotic movement, detailing the practical implications

2.5. Chapter 6 - B

It is necessary to explain what the assessment is based on in relation to the electrical consumption of the robotic system and how it was calculated. It is important to explain how the authors came up with the numbers presented. The discussion should explain how the results fit in with the research and literature in the field.

2.6 Conclusion

The authors are advised to emphasize the added value of the paper, what its limitations are and to detail options for complementary research based on its results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

First, I’d like to thank the authors for their good efforts in revising the paper. The paper is easier to read and is more logical, even in some parts too wordy. Overall, I am satisfied with the efforts made by the authors to improve the quality of the paper. The changes made have improved the paper, so I have no further suggestions, except another round of English language and style (which are generally fine/minor spell check required).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your positive assessment of our changes to the article.

The article has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. 

The certificate has been attached below.

The new revised version of the article has been uploaded to the system. 

Kind regards, authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Significant improvement is evident both in the text and in the presentation of a comparison of the results to literature in the field. However, for the sake of understanding, authors are advised to reexamine the wording at the beginning of the introduction, especially with respect to the use of the word “that” with reference to lines 22-24. A further examination of the explanatory wording relating to partial bricked elements is also recommended, especially with respect to the use of the word "easy" with reference to lines 311-314.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your positive assessment of our changes to the article.

The article has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. 

The certificate has been attached below.

The new revised version of the article has been uploaded to the system. 

Lines 22 - 24 have been revised.

Lines 311 - 314 have been revised.

Kind regards, authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf