A Vision-Based Collision Monitoring System for Proximity of Construction Workers to Trucks Enhanced by Posture-Dependent Perception and Truck Bodies’ Occupied Space

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents automated visualization of proximity between workers and equipment to manage workers’ safety using network-based image processing of a closed-circuit video. The study is very interesting and of great interest in the construction industry. The authors need to address the following comments.

 

1.      First, the authors should distinguish the contribution of this work from that of the existing similar works. Add or expand the last paragraph of the introduction to clearly state what is new in this paper.

 

2.      Expand the abstract to include the approach, and methodology used in the study.

 

3.      Provide the limitations of the current study and recommendations for future research to overcome the limitations.

 

 

Author Response

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well written and should be accepted for publication affecting necessary changes as indicated below:

1. Judging by the topic, there is a need to explain the current situation of workers and the problem they are facing in the course of their construction activities, which necessitated the study.

2. is the study generally about construction workers working closely with trucks or majorly about truck workers? There is a need to explain this in details so the developed model can be appropriately used by readers

3. The abstract should be revisited to follow the proper flow and requirement. There should be an introduction before stating the purpose, methodology, findings and possibly conclusion and recommendations

4. There is a need to improve the grammar of the paper, a professional proofreader could be engaged for this purpose. For instance "workers’ behavior such as posture and movement affects prevention of accidents" is not really clear especially the use of the word "affects". The same can be interpreted in different ways by authors

5. The methods and methodology are in order except that they lack justification. There should be explanation of the rationale for the choice of methods and probably state other available techniques and why they are not suitable for the study.

6. Only results were presented in the study without adequate discussion. Are there existing similar studies? What is the link or difference between the current findings and that of previous studies? What are the implications of the results of the current study? These questions should be answered in the discussion section

7. The conclusion is in order but lacks other ingredients such as limitation of the study, areas for further study and policy recommendations. The recommendations should be directed at stakeholders that will find the results of the study useful and how they can apply the results to improve performance and productivity.

8. Some of the references are not complete and correct. For instance, there is no page range in the 2nd and 3rd on the list. Check reference no 9 as well

Author Response

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the article is topical and interesting, and is distinguished by a particularly high application value. The use of visual techniques in ensuring work safety deserves attention and further development. The only criticism I have is the use of "ROI" for region of interest  in line 111, when it is commonly used to denote return on investment (ROI).

Author Response

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf