Bim Machine Learning and Design Rules to Improve the Assembly Time in Steel Construction Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a quantitative approach based on previous BIM models and linear regression to identify design rules and production system improvements to reduce operating time in construction projects. The research process and results are important and interesting. However, it is better to correct the following problems.

 

• In Chapter 4.3, it is better to add a short sentence in which Tables 1-4 summarize the contents or characteristics of each. Of course, it was explained in detail in Chapter 4.5, but it is good to briefly explain what this table represents in this chapter.
• In Chapter 4.4, it is good to add a sentence summarizing each content in Tables 5-7 as above.
• In Figures 4 to 7 of Chapter 4.5, the overlapping parts are difficult to see because the color or line division of the figure is not clear. It is better to change the color, thickness and shape of the line, and the shape and size of the point to make it easier to recognize.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns an important and interesting problem of investigating the possibility of using data from Building Information Modeling (BIM) models of joists and predictive regression algorithms to shorten the assembly time in steel construction projects. The strength of the article is the proposed integrated solution that may be of significant practical importance. Nevertheless, the considerations presented in the article are of less scientific value and do not sufficiently refer to theoretical issues and the state of knowledge in this field. The article is essentially acceptable and interesting but needs minor revisions. It requires improvement regarding, i.e., structure of the article and discussion of the results obtained in the context of the current state of knowledge in this field. The discussion section needs to be introduced to add clear references and links to research related e.g. to sustainability.

Particular remarks are as follows:
1. The cited references are not up to date - only about a quarter of them come from the last 5 years. Bearing in mind the topic of the article related to integrated approaches and the profile of the journal, it is worth supplementing the literature with the new issues of implementing sustainability in construction project management.
2. Acronyms or abbreviations should not be used in the abstract without their explanation. The BIM abbreviation used should be explained. The Abstract is a separate part of the article and should be understandable to readers of various knowledge and business practitioners.
3. At the end of the Introduction section, key findings in the context of the main purpose of this study should be presented in a synthetic way. Here the authors can also define research questions or formulate specific hypotheses to be verified in the research process. Presenting research questions or hypotheses here may contribute to a better presentation of the sense of the research carried out and their results, as well as facilitate the reception of the content by the readers.
4. The purpose of the research is not clear. In the Introduction section (lines: 68-69) it is specified that 'this study aims to propose an approach that identifies design rules through BIM models of previous projects and regression algorithms'. In turn, in the Conclusion section (lines: 410-411) it says that 'this work proposes a quantitative approach to identify the criteria that influence the assembly time of joists in a particular production process'.
5. The Methodology section does not contain enough detailed information to allow for the reproducibility of the research results. It is worthwhile to synthetically present specific steps of the research procedure used, which are then implemented in empirical research. The Authors do not present it in a clear enough manner whether the main steps in data prediction etc. are commonly used or they were implemented when running their research (lines: 202-204).
6. There is too little information about the algorithms applied. The availability of computer programs developed for the purpose of this research was not ensured.
7. The article lacks the Discussion section, which, added as a separate part of the considerations, could include a discussion and interpretation of the obtained results in relation to the research available in the literature on the subject. It is also worth referring to the research questions posed at the beginning of the article or to the verification of hypotheses. This section should present the considerations in a relatively broad context and emphasize the importance of the results obtained from the point of view of aspects also related to sustainability and sustainable development. It is worth considering adding clear guidelines on possible directions for the development of future research.
8. The Perspectives section (comprising barely 3 sentences) is too short and can therefore be included in the Conclusion section. It is hard to concentrate on the contents of this part due to a number of repetitions and clumsy style.
9. It is not clear what the article suggests at the end of Introduction section – whether it is a literature review of methodology or a methodology itself. Potential readers might not properly understand what the article concentrates on (lines: 69-71).
10. There are spelling mistakes in Methodology section, e.g. in the title of Figure 1.
11. The Authors tend to repeat certain phrases, e.g. derivatives of the verb ‘to use’.
12. There are plenty of punctuation mistakes within Case study section.
13. The graphics in Figure 7 should be more readable, probably using various colours, not several shades of the same one. If introducing different colours is not an option, the Authors should consider changing the scale of the graph to make it more readable.
14. The horizontal axis of Figure 7 contains a grammar mistake referring to the countability of nouns (the plural of ‘foot’ is ‘feet’).
15. The Authors heavily overuse bullet points (in Methodology and Case study sections) instead of writing a coherent text comprising paragraphs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It seems that all the corrections I suggested have been corrected.