BIM-Based Digital Construction Strategies to Evaluate Carbon Emissions in Green Prefabricated Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: BIM-based Digital Construction Strategies to Evaluate Carbon Emissions in Green Prefabricated Buildings

In the present manuscript, the authors delve into the structural components of the building, its assembling process on-site, and the evaluation of carbon emissions using BIM. This holistic approach provides a detailed understanding of the building's life cycle and performance. Thus, I think that the manuscript cannot be considered for publication unless there is a major revision addressing the following comments:

- In revising the abstract, could you emphasize the unique contributions of the work to better reflect its novelty and significance? The abstract should add value and/or percentage for the use of BIM in terms of life cycle, reducing CO2 emissions, etc.

- Move the first section of the introduction, "This paper critically evaluated these strategies, investigated its core from contemporary research to unlock, that digital innovation like BIM are reshaping the domain of prefabrication in alignment with smart and green development," to the last section of the introduction.

- Be careful for spacing errors, for example, in Line 29, "manufacturing.[3]Building Information Modeling," where 2 spaces are missing.

- In line 44, delete the full stop before the reference "quality, and daylight. [10]."

- Move lines 52-55 of the first section of the introduction to the last section: "This paper focused on the synthesis of the latest research in the field of smart and sustainable construction and prefabrication of green buildings to evaluate its strategies, implementation, and investigation to keep in mind its potential and challenges in fostering sustainable practices."

- Line 64 needs clarity regarding the paper's context: "Adopting policies, improving education, and funding research are some suggestions for promoting sustainable practices."

- Enhance the introduction section. Revise the structure and group the description of the novelty of this paper in the last section.

- The Literature Overview section is too long with three figures. Condense this section and include only the necessary figures.

- Figure 4 is too large; it can be replaced by a simpler diagram.

- Reduce the citation in the text for "The C-House, a prefabricated building at Southeast University Nanjing, Sipailou Campus."

- Figure 5 is too large; it can be replaced by a simpler diagram.

- The text from line 195 to 196 is unnecessary: "BIM software played a crucial role in acquiring data for the C-House life cycle evaluation by making the process of collecting and calculating material specifications easier."

- Rearrange the Methodology section into one paragraph with one representative diagram.

- In line 208, add spaces: "the spatial arrangement of its floor plan is shown in (Figure 7). where the exterior."

- Figures 6(b), 7(b), and 8(b) are not necessary. Figures 6(a), 7(a), and 8(a) can be grouped into one figure.

- Sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 can be grouped into one section, and Figures 9 and 10 can be added to the annex.

- Revise the text from line 248 to 252 and Figure 11. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

- Correct the title of Figure 11 to "Total number of carbon emissions calculated in the material production stage."

- Add references for the equations in the text.

- Revise the text from line 268 to 271 and Figure 13. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

- Correct the title of Figure 13.

- Revise the text from line 277 to 281 and Figure 14. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

- Correct the title of Figure 14.

- Revise the text from line 289 to 292. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

- Revise the text from line 294 to 297. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

- Figures 16 and 17 should be modified for clarity, and the text should be rewritten into the figures differently.

- Correct the title of Figure 19 and add spaces.

- Figures 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 should be modified for clarity, and the text should be rewritten into the figures differently.

- The discussion description is shorter compared to the length of this paper, and the final report is not clear.

- Revise the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: buildings-3000485

Title: BIM-based Digital Construction Strategies to Evaluate Carbon Emissions in Green Prefabricated Buildings.

Journal: Buildings (ISSN 2075-5309)

 

To Editor and Reviewers:

We’d like to express our great appreciations to all the valuable works done by the reviewers to help improve our work. We revised the manuscript in response to the valuable comments of reviewers, which we believe highly improved the quality of manuscript.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer: 1:

Point 1:

In revising the abstract, could you emphasize the unique contributions of the work to better reflect its novelty and significance? The abstract should add value and/or percentage for the use of BIM in terms of life cycle, reducing CO2 emissions, etc.

We admire your constructive comment. We revised the abstract in accordance with your recommendations to improve its novelty and significance. Furthermore, percentages demonstrating carbon emission reductions assessed using BIM are included. You can see the revised abstract in final manuscript.

Point 2:

Move the first section of the introduction, "This paper critically evaluated these strategies, investigated its core from contemporary research to unlock, that digital innovation like BIM are reshaping the domain of prefabrication in alignment with smart and green development," to the last section of the introduction.

Thanks for this comment. The paragraph suggested by the reviewer to move the first section of the introduction, as mentioned, has been moved to the last section. We can see it in the revised manuscript.

Point 3:

Be careful about spacing errors, for example, in Line 29, "manufacturing. [3] Building Information Modeling," where 2 spaces are missing.

Thank you for the valuable comment. In Line 29, where two spaces were missing, it has been improved and corrected.

Point 4:

In line 44, delete the full stop before the reference "quality, and daylight. [10]."

Thanks for this comment. In line 44, we deleted the full stop before the reference, and it has been improved.

Point 5:

Move lines 52-55 of the first section of the introduction to the last section: "This paper focused on the synthesis of the latest research in the field of smart and sustainable construction and prefabrication of green buildings to evaluate its strategies, implementation, and investigation to keep in mind its potential and challenges in fostering sustainable practices."

Thanks for this valuable comment. The paragraph (lines 52–55) of the first section of the introduction, as suggested by the reviewer, has been moved to the last section of the introduction, as mentioned. We can see it in the revised manuscript.

Point 6:

Line 64 needs clarity regarding the paper's context: "Adopting policies, improving education, and funding research are some suggestions for promoting sustainable practices."

Thank you for this comment. In line 64, regarding the context of the paper, the suggestions and comments given by the reviewer have been improved and made clear.

Point 7:

Enhance the introduction section. Revise the structure and group the description of the novelty of this paper in the last section.

Thank you for this comment. The suggestions given in the comments are interesting, which will enhance the introduction's novelty at the end of the introduction section, which has been followed, and the manuscript has been modified along with the rearranging and revision of the introduction section as mentioned in points 2, 5, and 7 as well. We can see the given instructions in improved form in the revised manuscript.

Point 8:

The Literature Overview section is too long with three figures. Condense this section and include only the necessary figures.

Thanks for this comment. As suggested by the second reviewer as well, remove the unnecessary Figure 1 and 3, which has been removed from literature section.

Point 9:

Figure 4 is too large; it can be replaced by a simpler diagram.

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding Figure 4. We understand your concern that figure 4 is too large. We improved the figure, made it simpler, and replaced it with paper.

Point 10:

Reduce the citation in the text for "The C-House, a prefabricated building at Southeast University Nanjing, Sipailou Campus."

Thanks for this comment. We reduced the citation in the text for the C-House as suggested in point 10.

Point 11:

Figure 5 is too large; it can be replaced by a simpler diagram.

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding Figure 5. We understand your concern that figure 5 is too large. We improved the figure, made it simpler, and replaced it with paper.

Point 12:

The text from line 195 to 196 is unnecessary: "BIM software played a crucial role in acquiring data for the C-House life cycle evaluation by making the process of collecting and calculating material specifications easier."

Thanks for this comment. The text from line 195 to 196 is suggested as unnecessary; it has been removed.

Point 13:

Rearrange the Methodology section into one paragraph with one representative diagram.

Thank you for your valuable comment. The methodology section has been rearranged, and as per the suggestions provided by reviewers 1 and 2 about simplifying and minimizing the large size of figures 4 and 5, it has been simplified and improved. Both are two different diagrams. figure 4 belongs to the work flow and methodology of research work and figure 5 belongs to the life cycle and carbon emissions evaluation of the case C-House. While reviewing and rearranging the methodology section, I found that lines 183–184 were repetitive in the methodology section, so we also removed them.

In the continuity of rearranging the methodology, the 3.3 section has been merged and modified with the 3.2 section.

Point 14:

In line 208, add spaces: "the spatial arrangement of its floor plan is shown in (Figure 7). where the exterior."

Thank you for this comment. In line 208, we added the space after figure 7, and it has been modified.

Point 15:

Figures 6(b), 7(b), and 8(b) are not necessary. Figures 6(a), 7(a), and 8(a) can be grouped into one figure.

Thank you for this valuable comment, where Figures 6(b), 7(b), and 8(b) are suggested as unnecessary and have been removed. And Figures 6(a), 7(a), and 8(a) are suggested to be grouped into one figure, which has been grouped.

Point 16:

Sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 can be grouped into one section, and Figures 9 and 10 can be added to the annex.

Thanks for this comment. Sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.2 have been grouped into one section, and figures 9 and 10 have been added to the annex.

Point 17:

Revise the text from line 248 to 252 and Figure 11. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the overall text from line 248 to 252 along with figure 11, added the units to values, and modified the decimal values in the text and figure as well.

Point 18:

Correct the title of Figure 11 to "Total number of carbon emissions calculated in the material production stage."

Thanks for the comment; the title of Figure 11 has been corrected as suggested.

Point 19:

Add references for the equations in the text.

Thanks for this valuable comment. References have been added for the equation in the text, as suggested. And the formula title has been changed to an equation.

The example shown below is added to all the equations in the revised manuscript.

Point 20:

Revise the text from line 268 to 271 and Figure 13. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the overall text from line 268 to 271 along with figure 13, added the units to values, and modified the decimal values in the text and figure as well.

Point 21:

Correct the title of Figure 13.

Thanks for the comment; the title of Figure 13 has been corrected as suggested.

Point 22:

Revise the text from line 277 to 281 and Figure 14. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the overall text from line 277 to 281 along with figure 14, added the units to values, and modified the decimal values in the text and figure as well.

Point 23:

Correct the title of Figure 14.

Thanks for this comment; the figure 14 title has been corrected.

Point 24:

Revise the text from line 289 to 292. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the overall text from line 289 to 292 along with figure 15, added the units to values, and modified the decimal values in the text and figure as well.

Point 25:

Revise the text from line 294 to 297. Add units to the values and modify the decimal values in the text and figures.

Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the overall text from line 294 to 297 along with figure 16, added the units to values, and modified the decimal values in the text and figure as well.

Point 26:

Figures 16 and 17 should be modified for clarity, and the text should be rewritten into the figures differently.

Thank you for this comment. We revised the overall text and modified figure 16 and figure 17 for the clarity.

Point 27:

Correct the title of Figure 19 and add spaces.

Thanks for this comment; the figure 19 title has been corrected and the spaces added.

Point 28:

Figures 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 should be modified for clarity, and the text should be rewritten into the figures differently.

We are thankful for your feedback. Upon careful review, we have concluded that Figures 21(a),(b) and 22 have no significance on the topic of carbon emissions. As a result, we discussed these figures with our co-authors and removed them appropriately. Furthermore, Figures 23, 25, 27, and 28 have been updated to improve clarity and better correspond with the section's central concept.

Point 29:

The discussion description is shorter compared to the length of this paper, and the final report is not clear.

Thank you so much for pointing out this important aspect of the article. After consulting with the other authors, we thoroughly edited and added the discussion section to the revised version of the manuscript.

Point 30:

Revise the Conclusion section.

Thanks for the comment. We had revised the conclusion section as suggested by the second reviewer as well. While reviewing the manuscript again, we added the improved form to the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscripts include published works from the distant past to the present. The manuscript includes the desired information, therefore supporting the title. However, the following observations listed below must be addressed.

•         The Manuscript has typographical mistakes that need to be corrected.

•          It is necessary to redraft the figures; commercial company figures must be avoided.

•          Details on carbon emission inventory is missing, which need to be included.

•         In Table A 1 what is the unit of Cost?

•          In results and discussion figure captions, axis titles are missing need improvement.

•         Figure 3 to 5 can be merged, in fact no need of Fig. 3.

•         Conclusions need to be strengthened.

•         The methodology should include the information on ISO 14044 and EN 15804 standards and explain which are the criteria considered in the present study.

•         The manuscript is lengthy and repetitive (section 3 methodology), and the same content is repeated again.

•         The proposed framework in the manuscript includes energy simulation. However, the author has not taken into account the real-time experimentation and validation of the computer-based building energy modelling.

•         Strong recommendations, concluding statements, and summaries should be reported instead of extensive conclusions.

Therefore, I believe that the above points should be incorporated in the manuscript.

 

 

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: buildings-3000485

Title: BIM-based Digital Construction Strategies to Evaluate Carbon Emissions in Green Prefabricated Buildings.

Journal: Buildings (ISSN 2075-5309)

 

To Editor and Reviewers:

We’d like to express our great appreciations to all the valuable works done by the reviewers to help improve our work. We revised the manuscript in response to the valuable comments of reviewers, which we believe highly improved the quality of manuscript.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer: 2:

The manuscripts include published works from the distant past to the present. The manuscript includes the desired information, therefore supporting the title. However, the following observations listed below must be addressed.

Point 1:

The Manuscript has typographical mistakes that need to be corrected.

Thank you for this valuable comment. After reviewing the manuscript again and again, I found some typographical mistakes, i.e., the missing spacing, the missing commas and full stops, and some others. I reviewed and tried my best to modify and improve the manuscript.

Point 2:

It is necessary to redraft the figures; commercial company figures must be avoided.

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the redrafting of figures and avoiding commercial company figures. We understand your concern, and most of the figures have been changed to avoid the commercial company figures to make it simpler.

Point 3:

Details on carbon emission inventory is missing, which need to be included.

We are grateful for your insightful comments. After carefully reading the article, we have addressed the carbon emission inventory in Sections 4.4.5 (Building Operational Phase) and 4.4.6 (Disassembling and Reuse Phase). We have added more indicators to these areas to improve the carbon emissions inventory. To be more precise, we have used PV panels to create energy around the building in addition to using wooden furniture, flooring, and wall cladding on the interior. In addition, the building's deliberate placement among lush trees has been emphasized as a way to reduce carbon emissions.

Point 4:

In Table A 1 what is the unit of Cost?

Thanks for this comment. The unit of cost in Table A1 and other tables present in the appendix have been modified, and the unit (tCO2) has been added. See all tables in the appendix to the manuscript.

Point 5:

In results and discussion figure captions, axis titles are missing need improvement.

We appreciate your feedback. After reviewing the findings and discussion section, we found that figures 11 to 17 had axis title problems, which we corrected and amended.

Point 6:

Figure 3 to 5 can be merged, in fact no need of Fig. 3.

Thanks for this comment. Figure 3 has been removed as suggested by the first reviewer as well, and Figures 4 and 5 have been simplified.

Point 7:

Conclusions need to be strengthened.

Thanks for the comment. We had revised the conclusion section as suggested by the first reviewer as well. While reviewing the manuscript again, we strengthened the conclusion and added the improved form to the manuscript.

Point 8:

The methodology should include the information on ISO 14044 and EN 15804 standards and explain which are the criteria considered in the present study.

I am grateful for your insightful comments. We reviewed the renowned international benchmarks ISO 14044 and EN 15804 and included them in our article to support the use of Chinese standards. We chose simulation based on Chinese standards because we were focusing on the C-house in China, we relied on weather data from Table 1 for generic simulation, and Nanjing rules that were specific to the local setting. Although we value worldwide standards such as ISO 14044 and EN 15804, we gave local norm observance priority because of the context of our research in China. Furthermore, the analysis in our work followed the Guidelines for Building Carbon Emission Calculation (GB/T51366-2019), which are mentioned in Section 4.8.8.

Point 9:

The manuscript is lengthy and repetitive (section 3 methodology), and the same content is repeated again.

Thank you for your valuable comment. The methodology section has been rearranged, and as per the suggestions provided by reviewers 1 and 2 about simplifying and minimizing the large size of figures 4 and 5, it has been simplified and improved. Both are two different diagrams. figure 4 belongs to the work flow and methodology of research work and figure 5 belongs to the life cycle and carbon emissions evaluation of the case C-House.

While reviewing and rearranging the methodology section, I found that lines 183–184 were repetitive in the methodology section, so we also removed them.

In the continuity of rearranging the methodology, the 3.3 section has been merged and modified with the 3.2 section. (See revised methodology section in the manuscript)

Point 10:

The proposed framework in the manuscript includes energy simulation. However, the author has not taken into account the real-time experimentation and validation of the computer-based building energy modelling.

Thank you for your insightful observation. Fusion Solar is a software solution developed by C-house that allows PV panels to collect real-time energy data. We examine this data by comparing it to computer-based simulations and provide some conclusions. We have contrasted and examined real-time and computer-based simulation. In the operationalization stage of the article, real-time data from the application from May 8 to May 12 has been added.

Point 11:

Strong recommendations, concluding statements, and summaries should be reported instead of extensive conclusions.

Thanks for the comment. We had revised the conclusion section as suggested by both reviewers, tried our best, and modified it with strong recommendations and a concluding statement as suggested in point 11. And added the improved form to the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and could be published, provided that the authors improve the description of the methods they used, as well as the results and conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript should be carefully proofread.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: buildings-3000485

Title: BIM-based Digital Construction Strategies to Evaluate Carbon Emissions in Green Prefabricated Buildings.

Journal: Buildings (ISSN 2075-5309)

 

To Editor and Reviewers:

We’d like to express our great appreciations to all the valuable works done by the reviewers to help improve our work. We revised the manuscript in response to the valuable comments of reviewers, which we believe highly improved the quality of manuscript.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer: 3:

The paper is interesting and could be published, provided that the authors improve the description of the methods they used, as well as the results and conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language：

The manuscript should be carefully proofread.

We are thankful for your comments and the positive assessment you gave our work. We are totally dedicated to taking care of the things you pointed out as needing improvement. Understanding the significance of precise methodological explanations, we made every effort to improve this section to guarantee the transparency of the research. In the same way, our goal is to enhance the outcome and conclusions to increase precision and clarity. The text has undergone a thorough proofreading process to guarantee grammatical accuracy and readability, meeting the requirements for publication excellence.

We appreciate your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing the concerns raised during the initial review process. The revised paper has significantly improved. I recommend accepting the paper for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated the comments and suggestions in the manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version could be accepted.