An Investigation of Historic Transportation Infrastructure Preservation and Improvement through Historic Building Information Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript offers a thorough review of the preservation and enhancement of historic transportation infrastructure through historic building information modelling (HBIM). It includes a detailed summary of research findings on the application of HBIM in preserving historic transportation structures, emphasizing its utility in capturing complex architectural details and aiding preservation-related decision-making. The manuscript explores several case studies where HBIM has played a crucial role in conserving historic transportation infrastructure. Additionally, it outlines future research directions in HBIM, suggesting potential applications and identifying areas that warrant further exploration. Overall, the paper is well-written; however, there are a few comments that need to be addressed prior to acceptance.
On Page 5, the text font in Figure 1 is too small to read, and the figure caption is somewhat misleading. A clearer graphical demonstration is required to distinguish between existing BIM and historic BIM.
Additionally, on Page 8, the resolution of Figure 3 (including its text/labels) is too low. A high-resolution version of this figure is required. Same for Figure 9 on Page 11, Figure 10 on Page 12, Figure 14 on Page 15, Figure 15 on Page 16.
Abbreviations should be consistently used throughout the manuscript. For instance, once 'HBIM' is introduced as the abbreviation for 'Historical Building Information Modelling' on Page 2, there is no need to spell it out again on Page 11. Additionally, the abbreviation 'H-BIM' appears on Page 15, which may cause confusion. Please ensure similar consistency with other abbreviations used in the manuscript.
On Page 17, it would be beneficial to include the 'Year' for the selected historic transportation infrastructures in a separate column.
The conclusion section on Page 21 could be enhanced by clearly outlining the future research directions and recommendations.
Author Response
This manuscript offers a thorough review of the preservation and enhancement of historic transportation infrastructure through historic building information modelling (HBIM). It includes a detailed summary of research findings on the application of HBIM in preserving historic transportation structures, emphasizing its utility in capturing complex architectural details and aiding preservation-related decision-making. The manuscript explores several case studies where HBIM has played a crucial role in conserving historic transportation infrastructure. Additionally, it outlines future research directions in HBIM, suggesting potential applications and identifying areas that warrant further exploration. Overall, the paper is well-written; however, there are a few comments that need to be addressed prior to acceptance.
Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable time and effort invested by the reviewer in evaluating our manuscript, as well as your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive remarks on the comprehensive review and detailed summary of our work. We are pleased to hear that you found the manuscript well-written and valuable in capturing complex architectural details and aiding preservation-related decision-making. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions for improvement. Please find below our responses to each of the points raised:
Comment 1. On Page 5, the text font in Figure 1 is too small to read, and the figure caption is somewhat misleading. A clearer graphical demonstration is required to distinguish between existing BIM and historic BIM.
Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding Figure 1. We have redesigned the figure to better distinguish between existing BIM and HBIM. The text font has been enlarged for improved readability, and the figure caption has been revised for greater clarity and accuracy.
Comment 2. On Page 8, the resolution of Figure 3 (including its text/labels) is too low. A high-resolution version of this figure is required. Same for Figure 9 on Page 11, Figure 10 on Page 12, Figure 14 on Page 15, Figure 15 on Page 16.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the quality of the figures and totally agree with it. Regarding Figure 3, an attempt was made to provide a clearer image, but this is the image taken from the mentioned reference, and since it is an archive image, we were not able to provide a clearer image. Same goes for Figure 9 and Figure 10.
Figure 14 and Figure 15 were updated to high-resolution versions.
Comment 3. Abbreviations should be consistently used throughout the manuscript. For instance, once 'HBIM' is introduced as the abbreviation for 'Historical Building Information Modelling' on Page 2, there is no need to spell it out again on Page 11. Additionally, the abbreviation 'H-BIM' appears on Page 15, which may cause confusion. Please ensure similar consistency with other abbreviations used in the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have ensured consistent use of the abbreviation 'HBIM' throughout the manuscript and corrected all instances of 'H-BIM' to 'HBIM.'
Comment 4. On Page 17, it would be beneficial to include the 'Year' for the selected historic transportation infrastructures in a separate column.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the table. We have modified the table to include an additional column titled ' Year of construction'.
Comment 5. The conclusion section on Page 21 could be enhanced by clearly outlining the future research directions and recommendations.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. In the revised manuscript, the conclusion section has been modified to clearly outline future research directions and provide specific recommendations for further exploration in the application of HBIM. (Please see the highlighted text).
8. Conclusions and remarks
This paper has examined the role of HBIM within the context of transportation heritage, revealing its essential role in the stewardship and evolution of historic infrastructure. As digital technologies advance, they enhance HBIM's capabilities, enhancing the application of new design solutions and conservation approaches. The case studies reflect successful applications of HBIM, demonstrating its versatility in various contexts and its ability to document, manage, and preserve heritage while incorporating necessary modern advancements. The field of HTI preservation is poised for a paradigm shift due to the ongoing evolution of digital technologies. The application of HBIM is poised to expand, becoming an even more integral part of the conservation toolkit. The intersection of HBIM with cutting-edge technologies offers promising avenues for enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of preservation initiatives. Researchers expect that in the future, HBIM will go beyond its present roles of documenting and maintaining infrastructure and will become a predictive tool for evaluating the resilience of infrastructure. To effectively use the capabilities of HBIM, attempts must be directed toward enhancing its usability and accessibility to a wider range of professionals. There is a call for enhanced frameworks to facilitate a greater and more multidisciplinary implementation of HBIM, thereby ensuring that a variety of stakeholders can collaborate and make use of the technology. Furthermore, potential extensions of HBIM into domains such as public engagement highlight the importance of incorporating stakeholder input and community engagement in the preservation process. As building technologies evolve, there will be a need for regular updates to accurately represent new materials and construction techniques within HBIM systems. Regulatory and policy frameworks need to be adjusted to effectively incorporate HBIM into infrastructure projects, guaranteeing the preservation and safety of historical treasures in modern urban settings. Future research should focus on developing more advanced modeling techniques that integrate real-time data acquisition and analysis. Furthermore, the examination of the application of HBIM in a variety of climatic and environmental conditions could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the preservation requirements of various types of heritage infrastructure. To further improve HBIM methodologies and practices, it is also recommended that engineers, historians, and conservationists collaborate more effectively.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is very well written, an the English is very good. The topic is extremely relevant to the field.
The method used for the paper is not presented in the abstract. Please correct that.
The paper provides an extensive bibliography review to support the six case studies applied in the topic. It became clear that the case studies were conducted by other authors, and seems that this paper is s systematic review of the literature.
If the paper is a systematic review of the literature, the author must clarify that, and present the method used for the SRL itself. This chapter is missing.
How were the case studies chosen? Why were these selected and not others? Please justify the choice of the case studies.
Figure 3 presents sketches of the bridges over the River Po, with descriptions in Italian, please update the figure with descriptions in English. Line 315 to 316.
Part of Figure 8 is missing. Can this figure be divided in two parts? Also, this figure is very small and difficult to see, can the authors enlarge it?
In Chapter 6, the authors present Table 1. I suggest reducing the font size for this table to make the information more visually accessible.
The discussions presented in the paper are excellent and very actual.
The conclusions are clear and connected with the discussions presented.
Author Response
The paper is very well written, and the English is very good. The topic is extremely relevant to the field.
Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable time and effort invested by the reviewer in evaluating our manuscript, as well as your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive remarks on the comprehensive review and detailed summary of our work. We are pleased to hear that you found the writing quality to be high and the topic of significant relevance to the field. Your comments are greatly appreciated and encouraging. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions for improvement. Please find below our responses to each of the points raised:
Comment 1. The method used for the paper is not presented in the abstract. Please correct that.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the Abstract. It has been modified to include it. (Please see the highlighted text).
Abstract: Historical transportation infrastructures (HTI) like railways and bridges are essential to our cultural heritage. However, the preservation and enhancement of these structures pose significant challenges due to their complex nature and the need for modern upgrades. Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) emerges as a solution, facilitating the documentation, restoration, and maintenance of historic transportation assets. The purpose of the proposed work is to provide a systematic review of research findings on the application of HBIM in historic transportation infrastructure, highlighting its role in capturing intricate architectural details and supporting decision-making for preservation efforts. A series of case studies where HBIM has been instrumental in preserving historic transportation infrastructure are investigated and analyzed using a comprehensive literature review method. Furthermore, future directions in HBIM research, identifying potential applications and recommending areas for further investigation are proposed. Additionally, this paper suggests the HBIM's potential to balance modernization demands with the conservation needs of historic transportation infrastructure, providing policymakers and stakeholders with insightful strategies for sustainable heritage management.
Comment 2. The paper provides an extensive bibliography review to support the six case studies applied in the topic. It became clear that the case studies were conducted by other authors and seems that this paper is s systematic review of the literature.
If the paper is a systematic review of the literature, the author must clarify that, and present the method used for the SRL itself. This chapter is missing.
How were the case studies chosen? Why were these selected and not others? Please justify the choice of the case studies.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the methodology of the investigation and the choice of case studies. A methodology section has been added. (Please see the highlighted text).
2.Methodology
To ensure the investigation is representative, a comprehensive literature review on the application of HBIM in HTI was conducted. We performed a thorough search of academic databases covering recent years, using keywords such as "HBIM," "historic transportation infrastructure," "preservation," "heritage conservation," and "case studies." Our search focused on peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and relevant books.
To ensure relevance and comprehensiveness, we employed specific criteria for selecting case studies featured within the literature. Studies were prioritized if they: (1) directly addressed the application of HBIM in HTI, (2) provided detailed methodological descriptions, and (3) demonstrated notable outcomes and insights into HBIM practices. From the selected studies, we extracted key information, including the type of infrastructure studied, HBIM techniques and tools employed, the process, and study outcomes.
This extracted data was then systematically analyzed to identify common themes and best practices in current HBIM research within the HTI context. Our analysis focused on understanding how HBIM contributes to HTI preservation, the benefits it offers, and the challenges it addresses. Six case studies, representing diverse HBIM applications across different types of HTI, were chosen to exemplify these themes and provide a comprehensive overview of HBIM methodologies, outcomes, and challenges. This synthesis of the literature and analysis of representative case studies form the basis for the discussion and conclusions presented in this paper.
Comment 3. Figure 3 presents sketches of the bridges over the River Po, with descriptions in Italian, please update the figure with descriptions in English. Line 315 to 316.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the figure. The Italian words shown represent the names of the bridges over the river. An effort was made to enhance the picture quality; however, the provided image is sourced from the mentioned reference, and since it is an archive image, we were not able to provide a clearer image for the descriptions.
Comment 4. Part of Figure 8 is missing. Can this figure be divided in two parts? Also, this figure is very small and difficult to see, can the authors enlarge it?
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. Thank you for pointing this out regarding Figure 8 to our attention. We have modified it accordingly.
Comment 5. In Chapter 6, the authors present Table 1. I suggest reducing the font size for this table to make the information more visually accessible.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the table. We have modified it to ensure that headers repeat on each page and reduced the font size to enhance visual accessibility.
Comment 6. The discussions presented in the paper are excellent and very actual.
The conclusions are clear and connected with the discussions presented.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's positive feedback and observation. Your comment encourages us to continue our efforts in this direction.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall, the paper is well written and useful to the reader.
A suggestion for improvement in Section 3.1 would be to differentiate when to utilize historic blueprints found in the archives and when to take measurements of the existing structure. Especially for cases where damage has occurred and the goal is to restore a structure to its original status, any original blueprints available will be vital.
Subsequently, Fig. 1 should capture when to use original blueprints in the restoration process.
Fig. 4 and 5 should be specific as to the result of which bridge.
The Serranos Bridge case study sounds very fascinating. This is what I was talking about before regarding comparing to historical documents. The pictures in Fig. 8 are very small and hard to see. It also looks like some are cut off. I think they should be larger because this seems like a very important use of the methodology.
The text in Fig. 9 and 10 is not very clear.
The comparison between the real bridge in Fig. 11 and the modelled bridge in Fig. 12 are great.
Table 1 is really hard to read. All the headers are lost on subsequent pages. Perhaps this would be clearer in subsections.
Author Response
Overall, the paper is well written and useful to the reader.
Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the valuable time and effort invested by the reviewer in evaluating our manuscript, as well as your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive remarks on the comprehensive review and detailed summary of our work. We are pleased to hear that you found the manuscript well-written and useful to the reader. Your comments are greatly appreciated and encouraging. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions for improvement. Please find below our responses to each of the points raised:
Comment 1. A suggestion for improvement in Section 3.1 would be to differentiate when to utilize historic blueprints found in the archives and when to take measurements of the existing structure. Especially for cases where damage has occurred and the goal is to restore a structure to its original status, any original blueprints available will be vital.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the differentiation between using historic blueprints and taking measurements of existing structures. Section 3.1 has been modified to include it.
4.1 Overview of HBIM and Its Inception
HBIM is a specialized subset of BIM that focuses on incorporating the conservation of cultural heritage into the digital planning domain, as first proposed by Murphy [29]. HBIM emerged as a response to the need of generating precise digital models of historical structures and locations. These models must capture the distinctive architectural elements and materials of these buildings with great accuracy, necessitating more nuanced and precise data [30].
The evolution of HBIM builds upon traditional methods of architectural conservation and documentation, now greatly enhanced by advances in 3D scanning and modeling technologies. A crucial aspect of HBIM involves deciding whether to utilize historic plans from archives or to conduct measurements on the actual building. Historic designs are particularly valuable in restoration efforts following damage, as they provide comprehensive information on design, materials, and construction methods, facilitating precise restoration. However, in cases where original blueprints are unavailable or inadequate, or when the building has undergone significant alterations over time, modern measurement techniques such as laser scanning and photogrammetry become indispensable. These methods accurately capture the current condition of the structure, enabling informed decisions throughout the preservation and restoration phases.
By leveraging these digital techniques, HBIM creates parametric libraries based on historic architectural data and manuscripts, from Vitruvius to 18th-century pattern books, this allows for a more profound understanding and recreation of historical architecture within a digital environment. HBIM distinguishes itself from regular BIM through its specialized focus on heritage assets. While standard BIM processes are de-signed to optimize the planning, design, construction, and management of new buildings, HBIM is tailored to capture and maintain the intricate details of existing heritage structures [29,31] In application to heritage infrastructure, HBIM goes beyond the creation of digital models for new construction projects. It is a tool for reverse-engineering historical buildings by collecting detailed survey data, through methods such as laser scanning and photogrammetry, which are then used to build an information-rich model that documents the structure's current state and assists in its conservation (Figure 1). The level of detail required for these models is typically much higher than that of standard BIM, as it must encapsulate elements that have both cultural significance and intricate craftsmanship [32]. Moreover, HBIM models serve as digital twins for heritage sites, embodying the as-built condition of a structure and providing a platform for analysis, restoration, and educational purposes. This includes the ability to visualize changes over time, simulate the effects of potential interventions before they occur, and generate detailed documentation for conservation efforts [33].
Comment 2. Fig. 1 should capture when to use original blueprints in the restoration process.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Figure 1, the Figure and it’s related explanation has been modified and improved in the manuscript.
Comment 3. Fig. 4 and 5 should be specific as to the result of which bridge.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the captions to identify the specific bridge.
Comment 4. The Serranos Bridge case study sounds very fascinating. This is what I was talking about before regarding comparing to historical documents. The pictures in Fig. 8 are very small and hard to see. It also looks like some are cut off. I think they should be larger because this seems like a very important use of the methodology.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. Thank you for pointing this out regarding Figure 8 to our attention. We have modified it accordingly.
Comment 5. The text in Fig. 9 and 10 is not very clear.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the quality of the Figures. An attempt was made to provide a clearer image, but this is the image taken from the mentioned reference, and since it is an archive image, we were not able to provide a clearer image.
Comment 6. The comparison between the real bridge in Fig. 11 and the modelled bridge in Fig. 12 are great.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's positive feedback and observation. Your comment encourages us to continue our efforts in this direction.
Comment 7. Table 1 is really hard to read. All the headers are lost on subsequent pages. Perhaps this would be clearer in subsections.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the table. We have modified the table to ensure headers repeat on each page to Improve its readability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
All comments have been addressed by the authors. The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors reviewed every single point present in the review process.
