A BIM-Based Quality Inspection System Prototype for Temporary Construction Works

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a BIM-based quality inspection work process and develops a system prototype to enhance the efficiency of the quality inspection works. I have some comments that I consider that author should address to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. I suggest the authors improve the review section, which is currently a little poor. In the review section, the authors mainly reviewed the literature up to 2018. I could not find the most recent studies about quality inspection work. The authors should discuss the latest researches in this paper. 

2. Figure 7 shows the movable scaffolding standards; however, I could not understand its information. Therefore, I think authors can mark the critical points in English.

3. In line 509, the authors mentioned that a survey and interviews were conducted to assess the convenience of the quality inspection works. However, I could not find the details and findings of the survey and interviews. The authors may need to check this part carefully.

4. Subtitles in line 544 and line 516 are the same. Should it be the “Work Time Measurement” in line 544?

5. There are so many factors affecting the quality inspection work. What factors should a thorough analysis include in the future?

Author Response

I appreciate your comments on the development of this paper. I send you the results of the revised paper based on your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is of good novelty; however, the following points need to be considered in revising the manuscript:

1. The introduction section is very naive. The authors need to add research gaps (preferably in the form of research questions), objectives, significance, and contributions made to the body of knowledge at the end of this section.

2. Some of the figures are not in English; thus, the authors need to provide translations for them.

 

3. The conclusion section is very weak. The authors need to elucidate the contributions and implications derived from the study.

Author Response

I appreciate your comments on the development of this paper. I send you the results of the revised paper based on your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on BIM, through the analysis of the quality inspection process of temporary construction projects, this paper puts forward a design blueprint of quality inspection system for temporary construction projects, aiming at improving the efficiency of quality inspection. Through an example, the accuracy, speed and convenience are used to compare and analyze the improvement degree of temporary construction quality inspection work under this system. Suggestions are as follows:

1. The content of the article is not innovative enough. It doesn't talk about whether this article is the perfection of the work done by previous scholars or a new solution to the existing problems. Suggestions are added to the introduction.

2. The structure of abstract is imperfect. In the abstract of this paper, only the research background and purpose of the article are described, but the research methods, conclusions and significance are not explained.

3. In page 1, there is something wrong with the logic of the introduction: “the main cause of accidents in temporary construction……is poorly executed temporary construction and not defective materials” and “the occurrence of accidents in construction sites is dependent on the quality of temporary construction”. The quality of temporary buildings should be regarded as whether there are defects in materials. Consider replacing or deleting the previous sentence.

4. The introduction lacks literature support. You should properly introduce the progress made by predecessors in this research field and the differences between the work done in this paper and that done by other scholars.

5. Tables should be a supplement to the text, and the contents of Table 5 are repeated with the contents of the previous paragraph. Consider keeping only the text or tables.

6. The practical scientific research value of the conclusion is not high. The description in the conclusion part of this paper is too simple and vague. It is suggested to specifically describe in what aspects the work efficiency of quality management engineers in the inspection of temporary construction works has been improved under this method, what benefits it brings to the field, and what advantages this method has compared with other scholars' research.

7. The number of references is too small. In the introduction, the results of previous research can be supplemented appropriately, taking into account the research progress of domestic and foreign scholars.

Author Response

I appreciate your comments on the development of this paper. I send you the results of the revised paper based on your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on the made improvements, the manuscript can now be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments are well answered. Although the innovation of the method is limited, a useful tool is constructed in this paper.