Intelligent Construction Monitoring Method for Large and Complex Steel Structures Based on Laser Point Cloud

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a new method for intelligent construction monitoring of large and complex steel structures based on laser point cloud. The topic is very interesting since the deviations between the design model and the actual construction state are inevitable. Although the methods and results are described in sufficient details, there are some errors that need to be addressed before recommending this paper for publication, as following.

Comments on details:

1. The authors used research literature and actual steel structures to frame the topic of their research and attempted to formulate their research topic clearly. They succeeded in it. It has to be noted that there is a constant problem with the formulation of connecting sentences in English, which affects the context of the whole manuscript.

 

2. There are no description about the point cloud used in this study, resolution or point densities, accuracies, etc., since those factors impact the performance and accuracy of registration.

 

3. Results are clearly visualized and described understandably. This section is, except the grammatical mistakes, is the strongest part of the manuscript.

 

4. The limitations of the proposed method must be discussed by the authors. In the conclusion section, the limitations of the proposed method must be discussed by the authors and to related need of further work.

 

5. Language issue, some examples:

Page 1: “However, deviations between the design model and the actual construction state are inevitable, which seriously affect the quality of buildings.". I think it should be “… seriously affects the quality of buildings”?

 

Page 10: “However, large deviations in the top and edge areas of the skylight structure, up to 300 mm, indicate that the bend deviates significantly from the design model and requires subsequent adjustment to meet the construction requirements.” I think it should be “… indicating that the bend deviates significantly ....”?

 

Please carefully revise the language in the manuscript.

The language should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes an intelligent construction monitoring method for large and complex steel structures based on laser point cloud. In as much as the paper is well written, the following can be used to improve it.

1. The abstract communicates the process and results well but needs to include conclusion or recommendations and provide contribution to the body of knowledge.
2. The introduction section has sentence from line 55-60 which is so long and convoluted. Authors to simplify it to clarity. Check on the citations for completeness, e.g., Kim et al. in line 70 is not aligned with the 25 mentioned in line 73 and is not the same in the reference section. Nguyen et al. in line 79 is not et al as shown with the 30 in line 83 and the reference section which only shows two authors; et al. needs to be more than 2 authors (reference no. 30 is only 2 authors and needs to have the 3^rd one to be et al.). Check for these instances throughout the paper for full correctness and good readership.
3. The results section needs to be ‘Results and Discussion’ section because as it stands currently, it gives out the results and explains them in detail which qualifies it to be results and discussion altogether. Have the letters a, b and c for the different figures under the pictures/figures so it is easy to relate with the figure caption shown under the pictures.
4. The ‘Discussion and Conclusion’ section needs to be just ‘Conclusion’ section because that is what it has done in the write-up. Also, state the contribution of this research to the overall body of knowledge.
5. Check references to ensure they are reflective of the citations in the body of the paper and that they are complete.
6. Overall: Authors to think of how ‘Revit recap’ can apply in the whole of this set up. Could it change the research process?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study exploring the deviation analysis of steel structure construction based on point cloud data. The reviewer has some comments on the technique’s performance.

1.     It is mentioned in Line 365 that the coarse registration accuracy is 0.261m. This number is quite big, meaning that there is still a large discrepancy between BIM and point cloud. What is the registration accuracy after fine registration? How can you ensure that the alignment is accurate enough?

2.     In Line 387, it is mentioned that the deviations between as-built and as-design models are mostly (actually 74%) within -50mm to 50mm. This is also a large number. Imagine that the steel structure construction has 5cm deviation, this is huge. Please explain why do you think this is a “small” deviation. This may be related to the construction quality standards.

3.     What are the other common methods for registration? Does your method perform better than other methods? Some comparisons should be conducted.

There are some language problems that should be addressed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

no further comment