BIM and Ontology-Based DfMA Framework for Prefabricated Component

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is trying to propose BIM and DfMA framework and validate it through real project. Reviewer found manuscript is well-written and well-structured. Only have minor comments:

Line 107. …[11] suggested that..  should provide author(s) name before [11]. Pls check entire manuscript and revise all

It would be good if explain how to identify the 4 gaps.

Figure 2 is well-drawn. Perhaps should consider assigning different colours for different modules.

Conclusion- should provide more details how you close the 4 gaps.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments. The following are my responses to your comments.

1. I have added the author names before the references numbers and revised all throughout the manuscript.
2. I have added in section 1.3 how those four gaps are obtained:
   

   By summarizing the limitations existing in current research of DfMA-oriented design (as seen in section 1.2.3), this research identified the following four gaps:

3. Figure 2 has been revised and different modules have been assigned different colors
4. Conclusion section has been revised to explain how 4 gaps are closed:

   This research develops an ontology and BIM-based DfMA framework for prefabricated design to solve the four research gaps. Specifically:

   1. This research is among the first to propose a comprehensive DfMA-oriented prefabricated design framework using BIM an ontology. Significantly, this research applies the framework on a case study prefabricated hotel project to validate the feasibility of the framework. The framework can also be extended to other applications due to its good generalization.

   2. This framework utilize ontology to collect and process various teams’ requirements in a uniform data forma, which improve the information interoperability among the stakeholders. Based on the results of a user experience survey, the developed framework can help improve working and communication efficiency.

   3. This research proposed a automatic conflict detection and resolution between the designing requirements and the manufacturing & assembling requirements. As presented in the results of manual checking, the methods can accurately detect the conflicts between the requirements.

   4. The other highlight of the framework is automatic checking whether the designed components meet the designing, manufacturing, and assembling requirements. Through the manual checking, the proposed automatic requirement checking methods have shown high accuracy and efficiency.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper aims at proposing a BIM and ontology based DfMA framework for prefabricated components. The framework includes several modules and involves the development of ad hoc systems and procedures for its application.

The research is well developed and the paper clearly explains the work. However, the inclusion and/or discussion of some elements can improve the work as following listed.

-        The main focus of the research in the development of the BIM and ontology based DfMA framework. In the paper a general representation of the framework seems missing. Figure 2 reports the flowchart of the framework but not the framework itself lacking, for example, in the identification of the ontology, of the plug-ins, etc.

-        The proposed process involves the use of Revit and is based on ad hoc plug-ins created inside the authoring environment. How the proposed framework can be extended considering an IFC-based approach? How the ontology relates to the ifcOWL ontology?

Finally some minor errors in the text, some example:

-        Line 145 “Interoperability of is….”

-        Line 148 “[18….”

-        Line 167 “they each have they…”

-        Line 277 “The the framework….”

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. The following are my responses to your comments:

1. The main focus of the research in the development of the BIM and ontology based DfMA framework. In the paper a general representation of the framework seems missing. Figure 2 reports the flowchart of the framework but not the framework itself lacking, for example, in the identification of the ontology, of the plug-ins, etc

Thank you very much for your comments. Figure 2 is actually the framework itself, we added some flow chart components in the framework in order to make the readers better understand how each part of the framework works. 

Our research can be regarded as an enhancement on previous research (Figure 1). We utilized BIM and ontology to solve the issues existing in current research. In figure 2, we have try our best to cover every technical details we want to cover. Since it is impossible to cover everything in one figure, we have used other figures to explain some specific technical details

• For how the application of plugins in Revit and Protege works, we have used Figure 5 to explain how they works.
• The development of ontology is out of the focus of this research so we really cannot discuss too much on it. Readers can refer to [26] for more details of ontology
• For how to use ontology, how to form ontology instances, we have used Figure 4 to explain it.

To sum up, I am not sure it is necessary to create another graph to explain the framework. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. Thank you!

2. The proposed process involves the use of Revit and is based on ad hoc plug-ins created inside the authoring environment. How the proposed framework can be extended considering an IFC-based approach? How the ontology relates to the ifcOWL ontology?

In section 1.2.4 we added a explanation why we used ontology instead of using IFC: 

• However, the application of IFC to solving interoperability in AECO is prevented by several reasons: 1) IFC is complex and has great redundancies. The redundant data representations can create problems such as mismatching and inconsistencies; 2) developing an interdisciplinary exchange standard requires an additional level of significant coordination between domains [18]. Current IFC is mainly developed for building design, without sufficient attributes about manufacturing and assembling.

The main reason is current IFC cannot be directly used in DfMA prefabricated design since it does not have sufficient attributes about manufacturing and assembling. The same is for ifcOWL, which doesn't contain manufacturing and assembling information either.

We have already developed an ontology specific for DfMA and prefabrication in our preliminary research. During our development of this ontology, we also referred to the structure of ifcOWL. Considering the limits and focus of this research, we didn't discuss too much about the development process and the detailed structure of the ontology. The readers can refer to [26] for more details of the ontology 

    3. Finally some minor errors in the text, some example:

Thank you very much! We have corrected those errors.