Development of BIM-Based Risk Rating Estimation Automation and a Design-for-Safety Review System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper title: Development of BIM-based risk rating estimation automation and design-for-safety review system-Version v1
By Lee et al
Some comments are given as follows:
General comments:
It is a technical note on design-for–safety in construction management. It is a local study based on a part of local references, near the half are from South Korea.
Results presented concern an interesting investigation about the automatization of risk assessment in building construction using BIM data. Results are promising and useful to avoid hazards during building construction.
The approach is interesting, it can be considered weak by the small number examples presented.
Detailed comments:
Abstract and Keywords:
These sections are correctly presented and representative of the paper content. “Design-for-safety (Dfs) concept, or hazard prevention, could be added in keywords.
Introduction:
Clear objectives are given and design-for-safety concept is well introduced.
Lines 53-56: this sentence is unclear.
Status and literature review:
Review of risk assessment technique:
It is a local point of view.
Review of design-for-safety:
Line 102: Levitt and Samelson (1982), use the order of reference that is not dated: 1982? (2nd edition).
Table 1: reference 10 is dated in 2018 and this reference in the list is of 2019? Reference 12 is not dated in table 1; Reference 19, do not use capital letters for the title.
No reference from EEC countries?
Overseas design for safety review :
Sections 2.2 and 2.3 must be combined because in table 1, overseas countries are also considered (or use sub-section as 2.3.1. etc…
Hong-Kong:
Complete the subsection title, see2.3.1. or 2.3.2.
Lines 197-199: this sentence is unclear. Use 2 sentences.
Domestic design for safety review :
In this section, topic concerns again Korea applications as a part of section 2.2. See above remarks about the organization between “domestic and overseas” reviews. For a reader, it is a little confuse.
Result
Error in the number of section; that is 2.5.
Lines 248-249: it would be interesting to cite directly the reference of the Zhung work.
BIM-based hazard recognition
Authors explain their methodology of work.
Derivation of risk assessment items (hazards)
Collection of risk assessment cases
Line 284: suppress “below”.
Table 3: falling from height: lines 3&4: fallings in general way (opening and excavation are specific falling?). What are the limits in different notation or rate given for likelihood, severity and risk?
Line 291: suppress “below”.
Table 4: What are the limits in different notation or rate given for likelihood.
Derivation of evaluation system for design-for-safety review
Table 5: What are the limits in different notation or rate given for likelihood, severity, risk?
Bim-based risk rating estimation
Ok, it is clear.
BIM-based hazard recognition method
Line 341: write in all letters the acronym IFC. It is given in line 343 but when appears IFC, it is preferable to give the complete writing.
Table 6: In the column”name”, why no space between each word?
Lines 350-357: the question given in above remark on the limits of notation find a part of the answer in this subsection, re-calling table 3.
Figure 2. What means here “reinforced”?
BIM-based hazard recognition
Lines 371-372: objectives must be given clearly in the section introduction. Here, rewrite this sentence.
Table 7: in line Ifc wall, correct “suck” in “stuck”.
Design-for-safety review through bim-based risk assessment
Simplification of derived hazards
Problem of subsection title or organization of subsection: 4.1 and 4.2 subsection titles are the same!!!
Simplification of Derived Hazards (continue)
Line 419: objectives must be given clearly in the section introduction. Here, rewrite this sentence.
Table 9: reconsider its presentation: do not cut the words inside the table; put the table on the same page.
Implementation of BIM-based risk assessment system
Lines 446-447: unclear due to repetition of the same word (reflect).
Figure 5: Totally unreadable, do not use portrait format, use horizontal format or cut into 2 fi gures but it is preferable to put in horizontal format.
Conclusion:
Well given and consistent.
References:
What is the difference between ref.12 and 35 except a different version?
Author Response
I am very grateful to your valuable comments for the manuscript.
According with your advices, I have rewritten the relevant part in manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Very few references are presented on BIM-based risk assessment, and mostly from Korea. It are certainly more studies on BIM-based risk assessment that are relevant with respect to this paper.
In line 50, what is meant with "the company". It seems to imply that guidance and application examples are kept within each company, rather than contributed to and exchanged within the construction industry.
In line 53, the sentence "the design-for-safety review model for disasters that can occur in limited construction is reviewed for design-for-safety review" is unclear. Are you saying that the DfS review model is reviewed for DfS review? It makes little sense. And what is limited construction?
In line 118-119 "reviews design-for-safety" should like be written as "design-for-safety reviews". Reviews in this sentence is not used as a verb as the verb is "are conducted".
In lines 139-144, the case of the UK and Australia is discussed. it is said that they do NOT employ quantitative evaluation indicators. Then, after some elaboration, the conclusion is stated as "safety management is implemented by calculating the risk level through quantitative evaluation". This is a seeming contradiction and should be clarified.
In lines 194-196, it is stated that quantitative evaluation is mainly performed in Hong Kong, although it is then clarified that the management of tasks during DfS review is through checklists, which is a qualitative technique. Also, there is no explanation on the quantitative technique used.
In lines 208-209, it is stated that "quantitative and qualitative evaluation of safety management elements that could not be reviewed in the existing design stage is achieved." What is meant with the existing design stage and why could these elements not be reviewed? Should it instead stay that these could not be previously reviewed in the design stage?
In lines 209-211, The word "however" seems out of place as the fact that instructions are provided is not uncommon, that is only the fact that the content is not clear. May I suggest to use "instead" instead of "however".
In lines 234-239, it is first stated that objective evaluation is difficult, resulting in subjectivity. It is then said that is NOT true for domestic construction sites. The reader thinks, great, so objective evaluation is possible in Korea, but the explanation then undermines this. It is even said that secure objectivity is more difficult in the case of Korea. What then is meant with this is NOT true?
In section 3.1.1, how are likelihood and severity assessed. I can imagine severity be based on the kinds of accidents documented, but can likelihood be similarly determined based on 113 risk evaluation cases. A bit more information how these numbers have been derived at would be very useful.
Author Response
I am very grateful to your valuable comments for the manuscript.
According with your advices, I have rewritten the relevant part in manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents development of BIM-based risk rating estimation automation and a design-for-safety review system.
The very weak point of the paper is that it concerns cases in Korea and it is difficult to refer to other countries.
Overall, the objective and approaches of this study are quite valuable to be published. However, the several things need to to be revised to be qualified for the publication.
- Why the titles of sections 4.1 and 4.2 are the same??? This should be changed.
- Tabel 6 should be changed. There is no information for "Content". There should be "-".
- there is a mistake in titile of point 3.1.
- Many tables lack units for values.
- Why only 6 countries are presented in point 2 and in Tables 1 and 2? There are more countries where Design-for-Safety are used. These point and tables should be completed.
- In figure 1 and text of the paper are only 3 cantries from Asia. We can not write in text "for different countries ....". Why are only 3 countries from Asia presented? This should be complemented by other countries if we want to present general conditions.
- Text in table 9 should be improved.
- Figure 9 is illegible.
The paper should be supplemented with cases in other countries. It is not possible to relate some selected features and conclusions based on them, which will most likely not prove effective in other cases.
PLEASE modify the paper, particularly introduction and conclusion parts in accordance with the above revisions.
Author Response
I am very grateful to your valuable comments for the manuscript.
According with your advices, I have rewritten the relevant part in manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
