Testing as-Built Quality of Free-Form Panels: Lessons Learned from a Case Study and Mock-up Panel Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors focus on the as-built and as-designed panel shapes in Free-form buildings since it represents a complexity when fabricating curved façades. The study performed the case study of a small free-form building, to show how to measure the as-built quality of the free-form panels and how different the as-built qualities of three panel types would be.

The paper is well presented and adequately describes the objective, the methodology and results.

However, the conclusion section does not summarize the main conclusions of the work. It seems to restate much of the introduction and should be more focused on specific recommendations for how to move this research into practice.

In general, the analysis sounds very interesting and can have great potential. This referee suggests the submission of the paper once minor changes have been made.

Author Response

[However, the conclusion section does not summarize the main conclusions of the work. It seems to restate much of the introduction and should be more focused on specific recommendations for how to move this research into practice]

First of all, the author really apprecite your kind review of the paper. Your comment reminded me of my missing effort and whipped me to upgrade the quality of the paper. As you pointed out, my origininal paper was short of clear conclusions based on the research findings.  I rewrote the "Conclusion" section overall. In addition, the author changed the title to "Testing As-Built Quality of Free-Form Panels:  Lessons Learned from A Case Study & Mock-up Panel Tests," adding "Lessons Learned" thereby more clearly addressing the research objectives to readers.

Re-rewritten sections were highlighted with red color for you to easily check for.  Sections "5. Lessons Learned and Limits" and "6. Coclusion"  involve major changes.  Please review the paper once again and let me know if any enhancement is desirable. Once again, thank you so much for your review.  Happy new year!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents issues related to measuring the quality of manufacture curved panels used in civil engineering. In my opinion, the topic is actual and interesting from a utilitarian point of view. The issues of 3D measurements, reverse engineering and the technology of making aluminium and composite elements were raised. This is a very wide scope and each topic is described in a general way. For this reason, the presentation of the results is rather illustrative and makes the paper more of a general report or review of the methods used. 

Below are some detailed comments:

1. Please specify what is original from a scientific point of view? What is the key conclusion? Can you recommend specific panel technologies based on the results? Do you propose any change of technological parameters to obtain more accurate products?
2. In section 3.2 - What 3D scanner was used? What was the measuring volume? What was the accuracy of the scan results and what was the predictable accuracy of the CAD model?
3. In section 4.3 - What GFRC fabric was used (type, directions, grammage)? How many layers composite had? By what method was the composite made?
4. In section 4.4 - If a 3D scanner was used for the measurements, why were only four points used for the deviation analysis? Why are the deviation fields not shown on the entire surface of the tested elements? If a 3D scanner was used for the measurements, why were only four points used for the deviation analysis? Why are the deviation fields not shown on the entire surface of the tested elements? This could be especially true for a double curvature panel that was made by hammering.
5. In my opinion, the appendix contains trivial information about simple geometrical calculations and is not needed.

Author Response

1. Key Conclusion

Any additions and changes made for responding to this comment were green lined in the modified manuscript appended. The objective of this study is to identify scientific and artistic lessons learned together for the small/mid-scale contractors to enhance capacity of managing the as-built quality of the curved free-form panels. To specifically respond to this comment, the research title and objective were modified in page 1 and 2, and section “5. Lessons Learned and Limits” was newly titled and modified greatly in page 15-17.

2. Scanner Used

Any additions and changes made for responding to this comment were red lined in the modified manuscript appended. The study used Leica Scanstation C-10 TOF scanner from Leica Geosystems. The measuring volume was about 2,800m³ with two-story (7.5 m high) and 418 m² gross floor area. Detailed responses to this comment were described in in page 7-8, in Section “3.2. As-Built Data.” To show how the accuracy test could have been executed, the possible test process was explained in page 7.

3. GFRC

Any additions and changes made for responding to this comment were blue lined in the modified manuscript appended. The contents about forming GRFC mock-up panels were significantly reinforced in page 12-13. Figure 12 was prepared to graphically explain the experimental procedures.

4. Laser Scanner

Any additions and changes made for responding to this comment were brown lined in the modified manuscript appended. Figure 8 in page 10 was newly added to respond to this comment showing that the mock-up panels were designed together to analyze together later on. Figure 11 in page 12 was newly added to show there were very offensive test results of the aluminum mock-up panels that made the group analysis of the mock-up panels very difficult using laser scanner. Explanations of the failure case were included in page 11. In page 13, the study justified the modified analysis direction. The analysis direction change, however, was not specifically mentioned in the paper.

5. Appendix

The appendix was deleted.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I don't have any further comment