A Systemic Approach to Simulate the Construction Process of Self-Supporting Masonry Structures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents various building factors that can impact the stability of masonry structures during their construction. These factors have been derived from historical techniques, and they can be integrated with modern structure methods.
The identification of the most relevant CFs and their parametric evaluation is presented well. The CFs can aid future research and be integrated into design processes, even beyond the masonry field probably. Indeed, the paper provides a methodological approach for accounting CFs in robotic assembly simulation. While the example is trivial, complex mechanisms and, very importantly, the role of CFs was presented.
The paper may be accepted, and detailed comments are reported here:
Line 8: All research or the research conducted by the authors. Please rephrase it.
Line 11 and 12: Repetition, please rephrase the two sentences.
Line 69: Please update references including modern methods for the analysis of masonry vaults.
Line 80: Please rephrase it.
Line 83: What do you mean with…and this could open the range of forms that can be built…Please clarify it.
Line 104: in --> towards.
Line 129: … are lost in the history… does the authors means forgotten?
Line 134: The self-supporting techniques are ruled by CF… what do the authors mean? Please clarify it
Line 142: Please could you detail the sentence.
Line 156: Please could you detailed the role of Plate-bande.
Line 157: Please consider rephrasing the sentence...In fact, this factor is the most relevant for HVT, but 158
it also impacts PVT and CTVT.
Line 184: Please consider adding references.
Line 190-193: Please consider adding references.
Line 208: any --> all.
Line 208 and 211: The authors use information. What kind of information? Please could detail it.
Line 224: The authors introduce a model dedicated to the assembly simulation. Please. Could the authors explain with more detail?
Line 244: Please consider rephrasing the sentence.
Line 237: higher --> consider replacing with higher computational cost.
Line 253 and 254: Repetition, please rephrase the two sentences.
Line 258: the --> this.
Line 269: Please consider changing the term …the laid of blocks placed…
Figure 6: C) is not referred to the text, and the caption is not detailed. Please refer to the text or detail the caption.
Line 301: Please could you detail the technological tolerance.
Line 305: The authors use peculiar geometry. Please could you detail why?
Line 306: In fact, sliding is enabled by adopting a lower friction angle, i.e., of about 20°, and the structure cannot be built. Is the sentence referring to Figure 8a)? Please consider inserting the reference.
Line 313 314: Please consider rephrasing the sentence.
Line 318: …Here, the load supported by robotic arms is more significant than in the previous cases… Could you provide the range of variation of loads?
Figure 8: Please consider adding titles in the pictures to provide a context or insert in the picture
English is clear and needs only few improvements listed in comments to the authors.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank Reviewer 1 for valuable suggestions. In accordance with Reviewer 1, we have tried to address all his comments. Below is a detailed list of the corrections made.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have highlighted the nature of masonry arch construction in the past as a motivation for the possible improvements in mechanisations. Current constructions are once where tensile loads are possible and masonry is weak in this context. Thus there is a contextual advantage in early compression elements constructed in the past. The current deployment of masonry in a tensile context needs more careful analytical examination that feeds into the automation process.
The authors need to assess the impact carefully.
Language quality is not the issue.
Author Response
The authors appreciate your comments and insightful observations regarding the use of masonry in modern construction and its inherent tensile weakness. We fully agree with your point that the current deployment of masonry in a tensile context necessitates a more thorough analytical examination to inform the automation process. As outlined in Section 2 of our paper, we have attempted to acknowledge this very fact, specifically highlighting the inherent tensile weakness of masonry and how it has historically been circumvented through strategic design and construction techniques. The key distinction of these ancient masonry structures is their strategic utilization of compression mechanisms over tension, an approach that greatly suits the properties of masonry materials. Furthermore, our discussion in Section 2 and 3 also covers how robotics can play a crucial role in preserving this compression-centric approach to masonry construction. The application of advanced robotics not only automates the assembly process but, contributes also actively to the overall design philosophy, ensuring a sustained state of compression and thereby preventing potential issues caused by tension, such as the formation of cracks. This intersection of traditional masonry principles and advanced robotic technology is the core focus of our work. The goal is not merely to automate the construction process, but to use the capabilities of robotics to maintain the inherent structural integrity of masonry constructions by playing to its strengths and mitigating its limitations. The authors believe this approach can ultimately lead to more resilient and efficient construction processes.
The authors hope this clarifies our intentions and addresses your concerns. We welcome any further suggestions or feedback that could help improve our work.
The authors regret that our literature review was somewhat inadequate. Accordingly, we have added relevant studies in the paper with 1 more references. We hope there is now a more accurate portrait of topic. Section 6 has been update, an actual case study has been added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General appreciation:
The paper covers an interesting piece of work, although everything is rather theoretical. The example is far away from any practical applications. Having more than one robot arm at disposal, it would be quite easier to use the second one to hold a small piece of centering.
The proof of the pudding is the eating. It would have been interesting to build such a structure with robots, even in a smaller scale than reality and cheaper or lighter materials.
Figure 2 does not adequately illustrate the mentioned self-supporting techniques or the captions are not clear enough to identify which figure shows which technique. Use the letters a, b, c, ... more distinctly to explain and discriminate the different techniques.
Figure 5e: The signs for blocks supported by robot B and C are hardly distinguishable from each other especially when combined with a pattern. Is the distinction "laid by robot X" from "supported by robot X" necessary?
Line 244 to 245: The text does not describe what Figure 5 shows.
Suggestion:
... construction sequence, all of them, Figure 5 depicts all of them, the one in which recorded displacements are the least.
Line 252: "see Figure 5i" instead of see "Figure 5h"
Lines 290 and 291: The numbers for the stiffness parameters have by far to many digits compared to the friction angle "of about 30°"
Line 297: Stiffness does not decrease with hardening but at best with shrinkage.
Editorial comments
Line 235: Close bracket after 4b.
Line 240: m3 instead of m3
Line 243: "the" at the beginning of the line is superfluous.
Line 263: Comma after "Together"
Line 266: No capital letters for normal nouns: limit analysis ...
Line 269: "layer" instead of "laid"
Line 273: Comma after "Here"
Line 268: Omit either dash or space after "Coulomb"
Line 322: The format of the displacement value seems to be completely lost. It probably should read 4.6*10-4 mm. Why not stay with the format of line 321: 0.46 mm?
Line 324: The format of the displacement value seems to be completely lost. It probably should read 2.1*10-4 mm. Why not stay with the format of line 321: 0.21 mm?
Author Response
The authors wish to thank you and the Reviewer 2 for your insightful comments. These have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. In accordance with Reviewer 2’s comments the authors have added an actual case study in which the approach has been adopted. Below is a detailed list of the corrections made
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript is fine. Accept.
