The Frinco Castle: From an Integrated Survey to 3D Modelling and a Stratigraphic Analysis for Helping Knowledge and Reconstruction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
The diagrams are not readable (figure 8, 12, 17). Maybe in the last version of the article they will be attached in better quality. I am not in a position to verify/evaluate them.
A comprehensive literature review is missing. In the bibliography, the authors provide 70-80% of publications by Italian authors (including their own). Identical studies of unique monuments are conducted all over the world. In its current form (review of similar research), the article does not meet the requirements of scientific journals. Reference to similar research is also missing in the Section: Discussion.
The manner of citation in the text testifies to a poor review of the literature, e.g.:
Line: 84: However, the architectural composition experienced different modifications in the XIV century, when the castle became a Ghibelline structure (under the Turco Family) against the Solaro Guelf family [1,2,3,4];
Line 97: n the XIX century, the Frinco Castle was under the property of Jarls of Incisa di Camerana and Roero di Settime [1,2,3,4];
Line 100: In modern times, the castle experienced other owners, as well as usage changes: between 1915 and 1919, it was exploited as a fortified prison for Austro-Hungarian prisoners; around 1950 and 1960, the castle was ceded by the Oblati religious congregation to the Morlini family for chicken farming [1,2,3,4].
Another example of the lack of reference and insightful analysis to similar studies and technologies used:
Line 117: In particular, the aerial survey was operated by DJI Zenmuse L1 and P1 LiDAR and photogrammetric systems 118 [8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
I also have a comment on the author's division of the article.
The section presenting the results should not include references to the literature. Throughout the article there are many citations which confuses the clear division of the text into descriptive and experimental parts thats required in scientific publications.
Not counting these minor comments, I find the text very interesting and look forward to its publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, First of all, thank you for your interest and time in reviewing this manuscript. The authors appreciated all your valuable suggestions and corrections. In fact, following your advice, the manuscript has been improved as follows: - We improved the overall quality of images and diagrams; - We enriched the literature, references, and citations in all sections of the manuscript: In particular, we improved the literature and citations in the discussion chapter and in the introductory chapter (sections 1.1 and 1.2); - Finally, we removed citations (where possible) within the results section and improved the use of citations to facilitate clarity of content. The authors would like to thank you once again for your special efforts to improve this work and the manuscript.Reviewer 2 Report
The work is intended for publication in a photogrammetric and remote sensing journal, while a significant part of it is devoted to historical and architectural description (including multiple references to several publications in the Introduction). Although it guides the reader into the context of the work being performed, it is not substantively related to photogrammetry. It can be considered that a cursory description of the measurement techniques used is sufficient due to their purely utilitarian nature, but it clearly differs from the description of other activities and analyses. Moreover, the authors admit that they were not the ones who performed these measurements. All this somewhat undermines the correctness of the selection of the group of recipients of this publication.
However, if the editors have no problem with it, this matter can be omitted. Maybe with the exception of the phrase "metric survey" used several times, which, although it conveys the appropriate information, does not seem to be widely used. Personally, I would suggest the phrase "geodetic survey". Further, the phrase "Control points have been established conveniently around the building area using high-accuracy procedures" (line 122) is not communicated clearly enough.
The remaining parts of the description do not cover geodetic and photogrammetric topics, so I cannot competently comment on them. For a reader unrelated to the topic, the entire description is interesting and broadens her/his horizons, which in turn contributes to the development of her/his knowledge and competencies.
From a practical perspective: - I suggest expanding a bit the paragraph in lines 120-123 with more information about the measurements performed, including the method of marking the points and assessing the accuracy of their determination; - it might also be advisable to refer to any previous measurement work on the facility, or the lack thereof.
Chapter "Discussion" is formatted incorrectly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you for your interest and time in reviewing this manuscript. The authors appreciated all your valuable suggestions and corrections. In fact, following your advice, the manuscript has been improved as follows:
- We have improved the description of the measurement techniques and in general the paragraph on the measurements made. The surveying phase has thus been better explained, and it has also been clarified that the measurements were carried out by a team from the Polytechnic University of Turin, including the authors;
- As suggested, the phrase "metric survey" has been replaced with "geodetic survey."
- The description of the use and accuracy of control points has been better explained;
- Finally, the discussion chapter has been formatted according to the MDPI layout.
The authors would like to thank you once again for your special efforts to improve this work and the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thank you for your important contribution.
The article presents a full workflow from to digitisation up to stratigraphic analysis, interpretation, and restoration of a medieval architecture. Even the if methodology is not completely innovative, I think that this work deserve to be published. Indeed, the workflow and methodology are accurate and clear; furthermore, the graphical apparatus is impressive and testify the complete and accurate approach of building archaeology used. Finally, the authors used the global approach theorized by T. Mannony. The results have been achieved comparing written sources, archaeological analyses and metric documentation.
However, the work has some important issues that must be addressed before publication. It follows a detailed analysis of the text and recommendation for the author in order to improve the text.
- 1.1 The Frinco Castle: This section needs to be expanded. Only essential historical information is provided. It would be useful to have also reference about existing archival materials (the historical documents cited in the text). The bibliographical references are just listed ([1,2,3,4]). Personally, I don’t like this way is hasty. It would be better to have more punctual references. Finally, there is not a geographical contextualization of the site and relations with other surrounding castles.
- 1.2. Metric survey and data processing: This section is very interesting, but more specs should be provided:
o It is not clear if targets have been used or not for the registration of the indoor scans.
o The survey with the UAS has been described very quickly and without technical information such as: flight schemas, final accuracy, georeferencing (targets or RTK?)
o How did you integrate range and image-based data? In which software?
- 2.2 Stratigraphic Analysis of Frinco Castle: In this section it is not clear the archaeological survey workflow. The survey has been conducted only on orthophotos or did you perform autopsic analyses on the site and annotating info on USM sheets?
- What is the average GSD (ground sample distance) of the orthophotos. How did you calculate the GSD in order to have sufficient pixel resolution to identify stratigraphic layers directly onto the images?
- In the text there are not any reference to stratigraphic layers. For example, at the row 347 the authors write: “detected fourth period (IV) is the most widespread in the castle”. It would be important to have also some USM reference between brackets i.e.: (USM405) in order to identify the architectural elements in the figures. Of course, this is not an archaeological report and it impossible to describe all the stratigraphic units and present al the stratigraphic layers. However, the authors should cite only the most important stratigraphic layer (those related to the described periods) and choose the graphical apparatus following the same ratio.
- When the authors describe the medieval periods, it would be important to have some information about the chronology and typology of the most important EAs (like doors or windows) especially if they contributed to dating the phase.
- At the row 337 the authors write “These architectural components are related to Ghibelline decorations (dovetail battlements), widely used for claiming the political affiliation of the period.” Do you have any archival references? The style of the dovetail battlements for claiming political affiliation is a moot point and usually it does not have any historical support. Usually, the crenelation does not depends on political affiliation. This is a very critical issue!
- At the row 340 the authors write: For this reason, this period can be placed between the end of the XIII century and the half of the XV century. This cannot be reason for dating this phase. Please use a more “robust” approach. Maybe the “mensiocronologia” of the bricks or the “cronotipologia” of the EA can be used for dating the phase.
- -Again, at row 391 “By contrast, the Ghibelline period (III period) is detectable especially on the west side and the circular tower: in fact, the dovetail battlements decorations denote the political affiliation of the family who lived in Frinco”. See the previous comment.
- At row 393 the authors write: “Other important medieval evidences are related to bichrome pointed arches used on the south side of the castle, on the entrance tower and on the single lancet windows”. This part should be deepen providing information about the EA and possible comparisons if any.
- In this section there are not any comparisons with other castles (if any) belonging to the same family. It can be useful to historically contextualise the function of the castle and to find possible comparisons with building techniques.
- 3. The NURBS modelling phase: This section is very interesting, but the authors do not provide sufficient information about UV Mapping and texture building of the model. Furthermore, it would be useful to deepen the part where you describe how you have oriented the stratigraphic unit (CAD) to the 3D model.
- 5. Conclusions: References about Digital Twins and HBIM in cultural heritage are missing. In particular, the authors should explain why this can be considered a digital twin. Regarding the future HBIM implementation, it would be interesting to cite other studies that used the same approach and highlight issue in creating a semantic model of such complex structures.
Best regards
The reviewer
Minor editing. For example: row 394: "evidences". It is uncountable. replace it with "evidence."
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you for your interest and time in reviewing this manuscript. The authors appreciated all your valuable suggestions and corrections. In fact, following your advice, the manuscript has been improved as follows:
- The section on Frinco Castle 1.1 has been expanded and better structured. In particular, references and citations have been improved and the literature in general has been revised. A geographical contextualization of the site and relations with other surrounding castles was then included (Figure 2).
- Section 1.2 (metric survey) was improved: information on targets, flight patterns, accuracy, georeferencing mode, and software for integrating image-based data was included.
- The chapter on stratigraphic analysis (2.2) has been improved as suggested:
- clearer information about the survey and methodology has been included;
- we specified the GSD calculation and pixel resolution of the orthophotos;
- we added information on the most important stratigraphic layers related to the periods described;
- we added information on the chronotypology of the most important EAs and included reference images and new literature. Through this integration, phase dating has been improved and consolidated.
- we have better explained and improved the archival references on Ghibelline decorations and the use of this architectural choice about political decisions (Gabiani N., 1978 - p.21).
- To compare building techniques and architectural choices, we have included new comparisons with other medieval castles around Asti and Alessandria
- Information on texture mapping and orientation of stratigraphic units has been included in the chapter on the NURBS modeling phase.
- We have better explained our thinking on digital twins and HBIM and also included more references. In particular, we emphasized the importance of creating an HBIM and the known problems related to IFC classifications and default parametric families. In this regard, we have also included other important case studies.
The authors would like to thank you once again for your special efforts to improve this work and the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents a geometric-stratigraphic study of the Frinco Castle in Piedmont. This study was originated to design the restoration activities subsequent to a partial collapse. Despite the study being meritorious, deep, and technically correct its translation into an article seems (to me) to be lacking a methodological sight. I suggest the authors improve the introduction, more clearly stating the state-of-the-art and the general problems to solve. I also suggest them to summarize the description of the (manual) phase of the stratigraphic study that is now quite dispersive in comparison to the mean Remote Sensing article (a journal like MDPI Heritage could be more indicated for such detailed results): it could be great if they produce some more summarizing items such as tables and graphs in which they produce a parametric classification of the retrieved constructive phases. In the discussion, the contextualization of the present study in a general framework of intervention after a similar collapse could help the readers to recognize its merits inside a holistic approach that I suppose should include cracks, deterioration and materials recognitions and physical characterization, geotechnical studies, etc. This could be particularly useful to locate the design pre-visualization (that is not in direct consecution with the other phases) in a global workflow. Furthermore, the discussion section should contain more summarizing elements on the specific case study and on how these results are generalizable in a global context than I found.
Finally, I suggest a language minor revision because in many parts English style seems a direct translation of Italian (but I could be wrong on this).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you for your interest and time in reviewing this manuscript. The authors appreciated all your valuable suggestions and corrections. In fact, following your advice, the manuscript has been improved as follows:
- The introduction has been improved, the state-of-the-art has better explained as well as general problems to solve;
- The stratigraphic chapter has been lightened (where possible) and we produced synthesis elements: a graph and a summary table related to the interpretation;
- The discussion chapter has been enriched with more information and we contextualized this work within a workflow of future intervention.
- Finally, we revised the English language
The authors would like to thank you once again for your special efforts to improve this work and the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments have been included in the latest version of the manuscript.
Author Response
We have applied your suggestions,
Thank you again for your time and for the review process.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, the article is significantly improved. One last important issue remains open:
You wrote in the comments:
"we have better explained and improved the archival references on Ghibelline decorations and the use of this architectural choice about political decisions (Gabiani N., 1978 - p.21)."
However in the article you wrote: "Usually, these elements 424 were also adopted for claiming the political affiliation of the period: the imperial faction 425 [5]."
This statement is not supported by an adequate bibliography or Archival documents. The only reference is obsolete. On the contrary, the choice of battlement shape usually has NOTHING to do with political position. I strongly recommend the authors to remove this sentence. Political assumptions based on the shape of the battlements are to be avoided
Author Response
You are right. The only bibliographic reference is outdated and the statement is a bit far-fetched. Therefore, we have applied your valuable suggestion and removed this sentence.
Thank you again for your time and for the review process.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript has significantly been enhanced and the authors answered the issues underlined by the review process. I have no remarks at this stage.
Author Response
Thank you again for your time and for the review process.
