Building Information Modeling-Embedded Building Energy Efficiency Protocol for a Sustainable Built Environment and Society

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authours done an excellent work on Building Information Modeling-Embedded Building Energy Efficiency Protocol for Sustainable Built Environment and Society. Here are few suggestions to improve the article

1. In table 1, Change heading of table, No. to S. No 

2. There should always be a single space before characters such as ( and [. 

3. Some figure(s) are blur. Authors should either use a higher resolution figure(s) or redo them as vector graphics.

4. The introduction should clearly explain the key limitations of prior work that are relevant to this paper.

5. The authors should explain clearly what the differences are between the prior work and the solution presented in this paper.

6. The paper has several typos. Authors need to proofread the paper to eliminate all of them.

Author Response

Point-by-point Response to Comments

 

The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for their time in effort in reviewing our manuscript. We hope the changes listed have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response.

 

Response to Comments from Reviewer# 1

 

No.	Reviewer #1’s Comments	Authors’ Responses
1	In table 1, Change heading of table, No. to S. No 1.	Thank you very much for correcting some of the irrationality of the article. We have corrected this error, as detailed in Table 1. We have changed No. to S. No 1 in the head of table. Please see Table 1 for details.
2.	There should always be a single space before characters such as ( and [.	Thank you very much for your suggestions to some of the details of this article, and we have reviewed and revised the article.
3	Some figure(s) are blur. Authors should either use a higher resolution figure(s) or redo them as vector graphics.	I am very sorry, these fuzzy photos have affected the reading experience of the article, these images have been reviewed and corrected.
4	The introduction should clearly explain the key limitations of prior work that are relevant to this paper.	Thank you very much for this constructive view. To more clearly express the research significance of this study, we modified the introduction section to expose the limitations of traditional methods. In the introduction, we have mentioned that “Traditional CAD planning methods lack the ability to make historic decisions, so energy and performance analysis can only be done in preparing building and building design documents [16]. For example, the construction sector in Iraq is considered being the sector with the most energy consumption and the greatest impact on the environment; this is because of the lack of assessment of building energy performance in the early stages of design and the importance of designers and architects in evaluating energy performance during the design stage. Sexual lack of awareness. And designers and architects rely on CAD methods for calculation and design, which is an ineffective method for evaluating energy performance [17]. In fact, this has led to an increase in energy consumption and pollution in recent years. Construction Information Modeling (BIM) is an innovative approach that includes many tools to effectively evaluate the energy performance of buildings [18]. BIM technology can simulate a virtual environment similar to the proper work environment, solving all problems in the early stage of the project [19-21]. A new approach, called Building Energy Modeling (BEM), is based on Building Information Modeling (BIM) [22]. Design teams can leverage BEM when applying it during the design phase, where alternatives in terms of energy consumption and thermal comfort can be found and comparisons can be made between the alternatives [23].” Please see introduction for details.
5	The authors should explain clearly what the differences are between the prior work and the solution presented in this paper.	Thank you for this constructive point of view. To clearly express the differences between this study and previous methods, we modified the introduction section to highlight the strengths of the method proposed in this study. We mentioned “BIM is a powerful collaborative working method that enables the management of construction projects through digital models, making these projects more efficient and sustainable throughout their life cycle. This method can obtain an energy model of the building and its subsequent analysis, which is called the sixth dimension of BIM or BIM 6D, in which information from previous dimensions is used, mainly the definitions of geometry, building materials and equipment [24]. Through this energy model, the actual behavior of the building can be simulated, allowing it to help make decisions about the design and operation of the building. Such as natural lighting, one of the main factors to test whether the interior environment and building meet human requirements is daylight [25]. The role of daylight in everyday life and the fact that it provides the quality of interior spaces makes it very important. Through the simulation of the energy model, the possibility of improving efficiency can be investigated from different perspectives, such as lighting equipment consumption, occupancy control, daylighting, building orientation and the proportion of glazed areas on the walls. Using Building Information Modeling (BIM) and parametric environmental analysis tools, building retrofits can be analyzed for visual comfort improvements. The building model was exported into a computer-aided design software for parametric solar analysis by environmental simulation software [26]. Through energy simulations, and after analyzing the building's current energy situation, it is used to study alternatives to improve energy efficiency, optimize its sustainability [17, 27], and to study the possibility of incorporating renewable energy sources and using natural light”“Through this standard operating procedure (SOP) of BIM-based energy simulation, it provides architects and designers with a better standardized process for natural environment analysis in the design stage, to provide a reference for the replacement or modification of the design scheme, rather than rely on traditional CAD methods for calculation and design, reducing model redesign.”
6	The paper has several typos. Authors need to proofread the paper to eliminate all of them.	Thank you very much for your suggestions to some of the details of this article, and we have reviewed and revised the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented paper "Modeling of Building Information - Protocol on Energy Efficiency of Buildings for Sustainable Environment and Society" is well prepared for review and suitable for publication only after the necessary corrections.

The article is written on 31 pages, applies knowledge from 32 literary sources, contains 5 tables and 35 pictures, which is quite a lot. The article is more like a chapter in a book. It would be appropriate to shorten it a bit.

The pictures are illustrative, clear. The article is interesting to the reader attractive.

The authors state that the main task was: To show the possibility of predicting the need at different stages of assessment according to the SOP. The reference object is a four-story university dormitory in Beijing and will obtain this set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) to simulate BIM-based energy consumption. However, I do not see any data on energy calculation according to SOP and BIM.

I have comments on the post:

Highlights can be considered an abstract, there was no need to write an abstract. Choose only one of them. Just a brief input to get started.

By the end of 2020 - 50% of construction should be at a sustainable standard. Before that, however, you write that in 2013, the ministry formulated an action plan aimed at having 20 percent of new buildings meet the standards of sustainable buildings. What is valid?

The introduction is very broad and should not contain a description of all chapters. It's useless! No need to write in the introduction that chapter 2 contains it ... chapter 3 contains it .... ??

The title of Chapter 2 is very long, it would be enough ... current state of knowledge ...

At page 4: The thermal properties of building components such as thermal conductivity and specific heat are derived entirely from the gbxml-based BIM and are passed directly to the energy simulation engine. ...... did you mean the thermal resistance "R", or the heat transfer coefficient "U" of individual structures ...? Or it are material properties?

What are the certification levels for 40-49 in LEED? Are they silver? Or are they just ordinary degrees?

See page 6 - reference to literature sources, 22, 31, 11,27, 11, 5, 22, 32 ... It should not be skipped from literature to literature, sources should continue gradually (as it was in the introduction) .. .1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ........... The content is then difficult to understand.

In Figure 1, you once have a capital letter Method, once a lowercase method, why?

What is the difference, optical environment and visibility? How is it expressed?

Figure 8 is well named to be a case study. It could probably also appear in the title of the article.

Chapter 4 is well called that it's data analysis and results. However, it is not necessary to describe the process of calculating and entering the input data down to such details. In my opinion, this is unnecessary. It is necessary to approach the results and their evaluation, but it is missing here!

When someone does not know these nomograms, diagrams, the description does not give him anything. Data analysis and results up to Figure 16 are unnecessary, it must be shortened.

Figure 17 is only orieted, as well as Figure 18.

Figure 19 is again unnecessary.

Figures 20, 21 are O.K. The description of the functioning of the psychrometric graph is unnecessary. When someone does not know, this description does not inform them anything.

Figure 22, 23 as well as 24 are OK as well as the description to Figure 24 as it is a comfort assessment.

Figures 25, 26 to 30 are important for evaluating wind, temperature and humidity.

In my opinion, there are very many figures and they are very large, it would be appropriate to put the images that are related to each other in one image, figure X, a), b), c), d) ... In my opinion, e.g. joint 27,28,29,30 into one picture X, a) temperature ... from Fig27, b) temperature ... from Fig28, c) humidity ... from Fig.29, d) humidity ... from Fig30 .

The reference in the text should precede the placement of the images. See e.g. after Figure 33 you have chapter 4.6, where you refer to Figure 18 (Figure 18 was already) it is therefore confusing, it is difficult to read then.

After reading the conclusions, I do not know what was the subject of the solution. The authors first describe that it is a comparison of energy calculation by traditional methods and then with the help of BIM. I don't see it in the article. I only see here the preparation of input data entering the design process and their correction in terms of requirements. Is the possibility of data transfer from Revit to BIM a novelty of the article?

Please adjust and correct in accordance with the comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed manuscript is primarily descriptive and is at an average level when it comes to the originality of the solutions presented and the detail of the research carried out as well as the final conclusions formulated.

Despite the above reservations, the manuscript brings valuable comments to the discussion and indicates directions for further research related to the problems of energy consumption in the buildings. The presented research proposed the use of Standard Operational Procedures (SOPs) of energy consumption based on BIM (Building Information Modeling). Thanks to the use of SOP, it is possible to start analyzing the energy consumption in the building already at the stage of preliminary design, and such a procedure will certainly meet with the interest of readers.

The manuscript requires major changes, especially in terms of linguistic and stylistic correctness, and also requires corrections and additions to the presented text. For example, some of them are given below:

1.       It is recommended to introduce the List of Abbreviations, which will significantly improve the readability of the manuscript.

2.       The research flowchart shown in Figure 1 requires a description in the text.

3.       In Chapter 4. Data Analysis and Results, there is no description of the purpose for which these six meteorological data are analyzed (described in detail in the following sections 4.1 – 4.6).

4.       In the manuscript there is a very large disproportion in the detail of the description of the analyzed issues. The description of the climate data (sections 4.1 – 4.6) is contained in eighteen pages, while the description of the most important part of the analysis, i.e. the Standard Operational Procedures (SOP), takes only half a page (section 4.7). Both Tables 4 and 5 and Figure 35 require detailed explanations and descriptions.

5.       The authors of the manuscript promise in the text that "this study puts forward the analysis and prospect of energy consumption at different stages of a building's life cycle", however, there are no explanations or arguments as to how this can be implemented in practice.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is very basic in nature and does not qualify to be termed a research article. The structure is illogically defined with no justification is presented for defining and comparing the LEED, BREEAM and ESGB rating systems when there is no use in the results section. 

 

The figures obtained through software for energy consumption have been described as a major work which in these modern times, can be considered as a basic work for any construction project during the planning phase. All the BIM education providing institutes transfer this knowledge to students very early as a basic BIM characteristic.

Moreover, with the recent advancements in the domain of BIM-based sustainability assessments/analysis, there is no need to define or redefine the SOPS that are already existing/ a known procedure for BIM-based energy consumption simulations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors corrected the paper according to the reviewer's comments. I recommend publishing.

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed manuscript has been corrected and supplemented in accordance with the guidelines provided.

In its current form, it is eligible for publication in Applied Sciences

Reviewer 4 Report

Like my first review, I would again reiterate that the paper is very basic in nature and does not qualify to be termed a research article. The argument does not relate to the quality of the document but it lies in the notion that it does not qualify to be called a  research article.

The figures obtained through software for energy consumption have been described as a major work which in these modern times, can be considered as a basic work for any construction project during the planning phase. The interpretation of figures can be published as a handbook but does not qualify to be considered a research publication. Moreover, with the recent advancements in the domain of BIM-based sustainability assessments/analysis, there is no need to define or redefine the SOPS that are already existing/ a known procedure for BIM-based energy consumption simulations.