Digital Transformation in the Construction Sector: A Digital Twin for Seismic Safety in the Lifecycle of Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The digital transformation of the construction industry is currently a popular and important research trend. However, there are many issues in the manuscript. The specific issues are as follows:

1. In the introduction, in addition to introducing the background of digitalization in the construction industry, it should also describe the difficulties currently encountered. What methods have been proposed and what problems have been solved in response to these difficulties in this study.

2. What are the innovative points of the manuscript. Clearly state in the introduction.

3. Please condense the introduction of the background in the abstract. Moreover, the abstract should revolve around the current problem, describing the methods used, the problems solved, and the conclusions drawn.

4. Is the second section a literature review? If so, please write according to the format of a literature review. The current writing does not comply with the standards.

5. I did not see any specific research in the article, such as the proposal of methods, models, or theories. In the main text, the manuscript is more like an experimental report, patent description, or user manual.

6. The conclusion is more like an introduction to product advantages, not a conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer thanks you for your suggestions.

In the paper, we have returned the revised sections and the integrations in green. In red the deleted parts

We have revised our manuscript as below listed:

1. We have integrated the introduction according to your instructions. In particular at lines 87-94 we have highlighted the difficulties currently encountered; at lines 106-111 and at lines 569-578 we declare what are the innovative points of the manuscript.
2. We rewrote the full abstract.
3. The second section is not a literature review and for this reason we have simplified its articulation.
4. In the section three we have tried to clarify the relationships between the research conducted and the experimental application presented.
5. We have rewritten the conclusions and specified the critical results more precisely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author.

The article is very well written, and an extensive work as done here.

I recommend that the author include the main results of this work in the abstract. 

In line 38, the author discusses three principles: the centrality of man, self-sustainability, flexibility, and resilience, but mentions four.

 Additionally, I suggest that all Figures be presented in English.

While the monitoring of seismic activity is clear and well documented.

The key issue that needs further explanation is how the digital twin can reduce environmental damage., the author should provide more details on how the digital twin improves energy consumption, including specific figures and explanations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer thanks you for your suggestions.

In the paper, we have returned the revised sections and the integrations in green. In red the deleted parts.

According with them, we have revised our manuscript as below listed:

1. We rewrote the full abstract.
2. We have corrected the text of line 45
3. We have inserted the English texts in the images
4. We have integrated the introduction and part 2 concerning the contribution of Digital Twin and in particular of the DT4SEM to improve decarbonization process

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The article provides a comprehensive overview of digital twin technology in the construction sector, particularly its application for seismic monitoring. However, the content could benefit from being more succinct, with a stronger emphasis on the study's key contributions. The theoretical background is well-covered, but the connection between the existing literature and the current research needs to be more clearly articulated. Additionally, while the methods are detailed, the analysis could be more critical in comparing the study's findings with existing empirical research, highlighting the unique contributions of this work.

2. While the methods section provides detailed descriptions of the techniques used, it does not clearly justify the selection of these methods or how they directly address the research questions. To improve, the paper should explicitly state the research questions, hypotheses, and provide a clearer rationale for the chosen research design and methods.

3.The arguments and discussion of findings in the article are generally coherent but could benefit from improved balance and compelling presentation. While the study effectively highlights the potential of Digital Twin technology for seismic monitoring, the discussion occasionally leans heavily on technical details without fully contextualizing these within the broader implications or contrasting them with existing research. For example, the discussion on the scalability of the sensor network is well-explained, but it lacks a critical comparison with other monitoring systems, which would strengthen the argument for DT4SEM's superiority.

4. The article is generally well-referenced, drawing on a wide range of sources to support its claims. However, there are areas where the references could be more comprehensive. For instance, while the article discusses the integration of Digital Twin technology with BIM and IoT, it lacks citations from recent empirical studies that demonstrate the practical challenges and successes of this integration.

Author Response

Dear reviewer thanks you for your suggestions.

In the paper, we have returned the revised sections and the integrations in green. In red the deleted parts.

According with them, we have revised our manuscript as below listed:

1. We have more clearly articulated and better focused the background
2. At lines 359-362 we tried to clarify the choice of the specific smart sensor system.
3. We have integrated the introduction according to your instructions. In particular at lines 87-94 we have highlighted the difficulties currently encountered; at lines 106-111 and at lines 569-578 we declare what are the innovative points of the manuscript.
4. In the section 3 we have tried to clarify the relationships between the research conducted and the experimental application presented.
5. We have rewritten the conclusions and specified the critical results more precisely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made modifications to the existing issues.