Implementation of a Life Cycle Cost Deep Learning Prediction Model Based on Building Structure Alternatives for Industrial Buildings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a deep-learning based software for predicting the life-cycle cost of industrial building structures. The paper is very interesting, well written and presented and, for sure, it deserves to be published. Nevertheless, in this reviewer's opinion, some aspects should be improved. Please, see the comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The paper presents a deep-learning based software for predicting the life-cycle cost of industrial building structures. The paper is very interesting, well written and presented and, for sure, it deserves to be published. Nevertheless, in this reviewer's opinion, some aspects should be improved. Please, see the comments in the attached file.
Response 1: I am grateful and express my appreciation for the detailed and very insightful suggestions that get incorporated into the revised manuscript, I responded the comments in the attached pdf file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Kind Authors,
the research presented in the manuscript is really interesting and can represent a contribution for growing the literature on topic.
However, the manuscript needs to be carefully revised as concern the presentation of the contents. A review of the structure of the paper is suggested, specifically by introducing a section entirely devoted to the methodology presentation. The section related to the methodology and the section related to the case-study presentation must be separated.
By clarifying the parts (introduction, literature background, methodology, case-study, application and results, discussion and conclusions) the reading could sensibly improve. Also a graphic scheme with the work-flow of the research, step by step, could be an effective support.
In general, along the paper, there are some terms that can be revised according to the international terminology on topic (for example: residual value in place of savage value, Global Cost in place of LCC in order to differenciate cost cathegory from the LCC acronymous of Life Cycle Costing (the methodology), etc. The same for the terms used for the life cycle stages (see for example E. Fregonara, 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.002).
In section 2, the literature background can be improved with some more contribution about LCC (see for example König, H.; Kohler, N.; Kreissig, J.; Lützkendorf, T. A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings. Principles, Calculations,
Design Tools; Detail Green Books: Regensburg, Germany, 2010. Flanagan, R.; Norman, G. Life Cycle Costing for Construction; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors:London, UK, 1983, and many others), and shifting the methodological considerations to another section devoted to the methodology presentation.
Section 3 can be replaced by a section "Methodology" for the presentation of the approaches applied in the research.
Special attention must be posed at clarifying why the LCC approach is a suitable method for experimenting the proposed model, and viceversa.
Section 4 must be replaced by the case-study presentation, and section 5 by the results. A separate section is suggested for the discussion, which aim is to highlight the limits/potentialities of the study.
The conclusion section is very clear, but it can be integrated through some more detailed addresses for the future research.
Kind regards, the Reviewer.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: the research presented in the manuscript is really interesting and can represent a contribution for growing the literature on topic. However, the manuscript needs to be carefully revised as concern the presentation of the contents. A review of the structure of the paper is suggested, specifically by introducing a section entirely devoted to the methodology presentation. The section related to the methodology and the section related to the case-study presentation must be separated.
Response 1: I express my appreciation to the detailed and very insightful suggestions that get incorporated into the revised manuscript. the manuscript was revised carefully as concern the presentation of the contents. The section related to the methodology and the section related to the case-study have been separated and arranged in section 3 and 4 Respectively.
Point 2: By clarifying the parts (introduction, literature background, methodology, case-study, application and results, discussion and conclusions) the reading could sensibly improve. Also a graphic scheme with the work-flow of the research, step by step, could be an effective support.
In general, along the paper, there are some terms that can be revised according to the international terminology on topic (for example: residual value in place of savage value, Global Cost in place of LCC in order to differenciate cost cathegory from the LCC acronymous of Life Cycle Costing (the methodology), etc. The same for the terms used for the life cycle stages (see for example E. Fregonara, 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.002).
Response 2: We made every effort to improve the manuscript in terms of reading and graphic scheme attachment to be effective manuscript. We made sure to change some of the suggested terms, according to the international terminology (for example: residual value in place of savage value).
Point 3: In section 2, the literature background can be improved with some more contribution about LCC (see for example König, H.; Kohler, N.; Kreissig, J.; Lützkendorf, T. A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings. Principles, Calculations,
Design Tools; Detail Green Books: Regensburg, Germany, 2010. Flanagan, R.; Norman, G. Life Cycle Costing for Construction; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors:London, UK, 1983, and many others), and shifting the methodological considerations to another section devoted to the methodology presentation.
Response 3: We tried very hard to improve the literature background with some more contribution about LCC, We divided it into three sections, explaining the previous studies for each section. the sections are 2.1 Life-Cycle Costing Elements, 2.2 Implementations of LCC in Construction buildings, and 2.3 Artificial intelligence prediction modelling in Construction buildings.
Point 4: Section 3 can be replaced by a section "Methodology" for the presentation of the approaches applied in the research.
Response 4: It was done
Point 5: Special attention must be posed at clarifying why the LCC approach is a suitable method for experimenting the proposed model, and viceversa.
Response 5: This approach is clarified precisely in the introduction section from line 31 to 40 and vice versa from line 43 to 47
Point 6: Section 4 must be replaced by the case-study presentation, and section 5 by the results. A separate section is suggested for the discussion, which aim is to highlight the limits/potentialities of the study.
Response 6: The previous comment was performed exactly as required. The continents were rearranged as: section 3. methodology, 4. Validation and Implementation with Case Study, 5. results, 6. discussion, and 7. conclusion.
Point 7: The conclusion section is very clear, but it can be integrated through some more detailed addresses for the future research.
Response 7: More detailed addresses for the future research were add from line 420 to 428.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper tried to introduce a novel concept but when going through the papers it was not clear what was introduced, and which was the findings and conclusion. First the manuscript introduces the cost analysis and target as objective the calculation of cost through AI. Then in literature review described the calculation of impacts through LCA. I didn’t understand why the introduction jumped from LCC to LCA. Then the method continues with the introduction of AI method (Boltzmann Machines) then some figures from a software were introduced without showing which software was used and which was the logic behind. Following with some results that personally I didn’t understand how they come out. In this section were introduced the use of some statistical method applied in the data. At the end a case study with a single table as validation was described. Although the paper tried to introduce the use of AI in the LCC, it is unclear not logic and very hard to understand. First it requires to be structured in a logic way. The novelty must be well highlighted and based in the literature review. The method must be described (all AI and statistical method used). And then the results. To conclude the paper must contain all the necessary information that the reviewer could understand and reproduce the results presented by the authors otherwise the paper is not transparent.
Some minor comments.
Please delete the sentences line 57-64.
Line 89 the sentence starts with capital letter so correct it please.
Sentence 94. Life cycle cost is not an LCA but LCC. The LCA stands for life cycle assessment that is the method used for the calculation of the environmental impacts.
Furthermore, you introduction is about LCC and then you jump to impacts Rodrigues et al. All the section about environmental impacts must be deleted and a deep literature review about LCC shall be done.
Line 151. Use only LCC as acronym instead of LCCA.
The term Environmental impact cost does not exist, or the term used in misunderstanding for me. So, refer to the definition of ISO 14040-44. And this is an output that is not in line with the logic of the text in introduction and method description.
What is the software used? It is not cited or explained.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The paper tried to introduce a novel concept but when going through the papers it was not clear what was introduced, and which was the findings and conclusion. First the manuscript introduces the cost analysis and target as objective the calculation of cost through AI. Then in literature review described the calculation of impacts through LCA. I didn’t understand why the introduction jumped from LCC to LCA. Then the method continues with the introduction of AI method (Boltzmann Machines) then some figures from a software were introduced without showing which software was used and which was the logic behind. Following with some results that personally I didn’t understand how they come out. In this section were introduced the use of some statistical method applied in the data. At the end a case study with a single table as validation was described. Although the paper tried to introduce the use of AI in the LCC, it is unclear not logic and very hard to understand. First it requires to be structured in a logic way. The novelty must be well highlighted and based in the literature review. The method must be described (all AI and statistical method used). And then the results. To conclude the paper must contain all the necessary information that the reviewer could understand and reproduce the results presented by the authors otherwise the paper is not transparent.
Response 1: Apologies for not making the study clear, the manuscript was revised carefully to be more accurate, this study presented a new approach of modelling historical costs and forecasting the life cycle cost of industrial buildings in Egypt by a fast way. This based on a deep learning network tool, which combines Deep Belief network and Boltzmann Restricted machine.
The study creates a new software Using Library built in Dot Net framework with a deep learning tool, asp.net core MVC, Database: Microsoft SQL Server Database, Programming Language: C#.
We tried very hard to improve the literature background with some more contribution about LCC. We divided it into three sections, explaining the previous studies for each section. The sections are 2.1 Lifecycle Costing Elements, 2.2 Implementations of LCC in Construction buildings, and 2.3 Artificial intelligence prediction modelling in Construction buildings.
In the section on methodology, this research introduces the required data for LCC model in section 3.1, then developing the deep learning tool in section 3.2, that would predict LCC and assist industrial building to select the favorable structure and envelope type of new industrial buildings.
In section 4 Validation and Implementation with Case Study is explained. Seven case studies of precast industrial buildings are devoted in section 4.1 to validate the prediction modelling procedures after thirty years from the year of 1991, and the correlation among outputs and actual costs is evaluated using regression results and other descriptive Statistics to investigate of Validation seven cases.
In section 4.2 Implementation with a Case study, the Implementation case study demonstrates the effectiveness of the deep learning LCC prediction model framework for identifying the best structure frame between the three different alternatives at an extremely constant error ratio about 5%
In section 5 there is results of the Implementation case. Then the discussion and conclusion.
Some minor comments.
Point 2: Please delete the sentences line 57-64.
Response 2: It was done
Point 3: Line 89 the sentence starts with capital letter so correct it please.
Response 3: It was done and highlighted with yellow
Point 4: Sentence 94. Life cycle cost is not an LCA but LCC. The LCA stands for life cycle assessment that is the method used for the calculation of the environmental impacts.
Response 4: It was modified.
Point 5: Furthermore, you introduction is about LCC and then you jump to impacts Rodrigues et al. All the section about environmental impacts must be deleted and a deep literature review about LCC shall be done.
Response 5: It was modified, and we tried very hard to improve the literature background with some more contribution about LCC. We divided it into three sections, explaining the previous studies for each section. The sections are 2.1 Lifecycle Costing Elements, 2.2 Implementations of LCC in Construction buildings, and 2.3 Artificial intelligence prediction modelling in Construction buildings.
Point 6: Line 151. Use only LCC as acronym instead of LCCA.
Response 6: It was modified.
Point 7: The term Environmental impact cost does not exist, or the term used in misunderstanding for me. So, refer to the definition of ISO 14040-44. And this is an output that is not in line with the logic of the text in introduction and method description.
Response 7: The environmental cost refers to the cost of controlling gas emissions, and Structure and envelope material waste cost, and it was an important category in life cycle cost and it was taken in a previous studies such as Alshamrani, Othman. (2012).
Point 8: What is the software used? It is not cited or explained.
Response 8: The study creates a new software Using Library built in Dot Net framework with a deep learning tool, asp.net core MVC, Database: Microsoft SQL Server Database, Programming Language: C#. and it was clarivied in line 184,185.
it is an open source in https://github.com/ahmedderbala/lcc
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the modifications by authors, the paper is ready for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
no comment
