A Quantitative Method for Determining Underground Garage Parking Comfort and Development of a BIM Based Analysis Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper assesses an original research question on the safety and comfort of underground parking spaces. This topic has been always a critical aspect of designing apartment buildings for architects. The paper is well written and organized. The methods are clearly presented and described and the conclusions are supported by the results. The introduced quantitative method has the potential to be adopted by architects and designers to improve the comfort and safety of parking spaces in different regions, as the method can be adapted based on different regulations. I only suggest improving the introduction section to review the existing literature or any study that has focused on a similar problem. This will also further clarify the novelty of the paper and improves the readability of the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this manuscript is an interesting topic, with the appropriate application of methods to address a practical challenge. The primary limitations of the manuscript are in the writing and organization of the paper rather than the work done. The following weaknesses, in particular, must be addressed by the authors:

1. The introduction is not supported by sufficient references, thus, lacking a demonstration of the novelty of this study against the previous work.
2. Please identify the study objective and research question clearly in the Introduction section.
3. English language and style require extensive editing.
   1. For example, lines 7 to 11 read “The current parking space design only considers whether the parking space size meets the requirements of the specification, but because of people's parking habits, parking technology is different, its requirements for parking comfort are different, so our parking space design should be people-oriented, maximize to meet people's requirements for parking comfort.” It is a run-on sentence.
   2. Lines 35 to 37 read “Because our parking space design should start from the people-oriented concept, consider and meet the needs of different parking comfort users.” This sentence doesn’t have a subject.
4. The organization of the manuscript is poor and unclear.
5. Based on the description in the current manuscript, the work presented seems to be more of straightforward engineering rather than innovation and advancement in the knowledge frontier. Therefore, the authors may need to clearly describe the knowledge gaps, and how their specific innovation could address the knowledge gaps or technical barriers.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion.Please see the attachment for details

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting idea on the research, but the manuscript is unwell written/developed, especially on the backgrounds (both conceptual and empirical), methodology, and synthesis of the results and conclusion. Need to redo the works and resubmit the manuscript. 

 

Author Response

Dear review teacher, thank you for your recognition of my ideas. For the other problems you mentioned, I think the main reason is that I didn't explain the background, concept, research status and methods of this paper clearly in the introduction. I have rewritten the introduction(Page 1 lines 30-73)and added a chapter(Page 2 lines 92-103) to help readers better understand the article. I hope I can get your approval. Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is devoted to the question of a quantitative calculation model of parking comfort, considering the location coordinates of collision prone parts in the whole process of parking, establishing a joint coordinate of collision location coordinates and site obstacle coordinates, forming the vehicle collision constraint relationship in the parking process, and quantifying the parking comfort into a specific value.

 

Introduction The introduction is rather laconic and does not reflect the main purpose of the present study.

Parking model The description presented in this paragraph also carries fairly obvious facts, it is advisable to clearly indicate the difference between the presented study.

Also at this point it is advisable to check the grammar of the English language.

Line 113 needs to be edited: Figure 1. Example of vehicle dynamics parameters. The same remarks for lines 146 and 195.

Lines 313 and 326 must be edited too.

 

 

Overall for article

 

In the introduction, it is advisable to review existing approaches to the design of parking spaces.

The latest versions of REVIT software introduce generative design tools that allow you to automate the process of creating design options based on goals, constraints, and inputs. In this regard, it is advisable for the author to emphasize the differences between the presented study and the existing tool.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion, Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all of my previous comments. The manuscript has been significantly improved. Nevertheless, the manuscript can be further improved by including more references, especially, when defining the concept of parking comfort. 

Author Response

Thank you for your approval and comments, which has greatly improved the level of my thesis. In response to your comments this time, I added a short paragraph (page 2 lines 75-84) at the beginning of the last paragraph of the introduction. This part introduces the existing research on parking comfort by quoting more references.Thank you！

Reviewer 4 Report

remarks can be considered worked out

Author Response

Thank you for your approval and your previous comments, which have helped me greatly improve my thesis level. I wish you a happy life！