Development of an Optimal Path Algorithm for Construction Equipment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting modelling and space analysis method for the needs of determining optimal paths. For construction equipment movement planning it seems to be very practical – so the value of the work is its utilitarianism - the application of the proposed method in the construction industry, can bring significant benefits in terms of time and cost optimization. From a mathematical point of view the solution is very simple.

The article requires major and minor corrections.

The literature analysis is presented very modestly. The paper has only 10 references. In Chapter 2, which should provide valuable background for the conducted research, only 5 items are presented and they are discussed practically in one sentence.

118 - Fig 2 and 3 - it is unclear how the results were obtained by surveying two (only?) groups of employees. Even a concise comment could be useful here.

The work clearly lacks the stage of analysis and selection of appropriate methods. One might almost get the impression that some of them are chosen by chance, e.g. 135 - AHP (Animal Hierarchy Process).

144 - previous studies - which one? - it would be good to refer to the specific research.

145 - …used various algorithms – e.g.?

Figure 4 attached to the description from 157 is puzzling. Difficult to determine, what does it explain?

Table 2 – 181 - new coefficients appear, not discussed before

201-  the algorithm description is unclear, not commented in chapter 4.

203 - optimal routes: determination of the optimal value has an incomplete formula (there is only a sum)

Fig 6 and 7 are illegible, the data presented in the example are very general. The method and the resulting solution (optimal) are impossible to verify on their basis.

206-211: correct words: optiaml, optiamal

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for reviewing the Article.  

1.The literature analysis is presented very modestly. The paper has only 10 references. In Chapter 2, which should provide valuable background for the conducted research, only 5 items are presented and they are discussed practically in one sentence.  

A1.  I rewrote the latest paper research and references in lines 61 to 89.  

118 - Fig 2 and 3 - it is unclear how the results were obtained by surveying two (only?) groups of employees. Even a concise comment could be useful here.

 A2.  The reason for selecting the survey subjects and the reason for the survey were presented as a table in line 121 to 130.  

The work clearly lacks the stage of analysis and selection of appropriate methods. One might almost get the impression that some of them are chosen by chance, e.g. 135 - AHP (Animal Hierarchy Process).  

A3.  The reasons for AHP analysis and omitted factors were added to line 146 to 157.  

144 - previous studies - which one? - it would be good to refer to the specific research. 145 - …used various algorithms – e.g.?  

A4.  Previous research and algorithms are described in lines 164 to 172.  

Figure 4 attached to the description from 157 is puzzling. Difficult to determine, what does it explain?  

A5.  I changed the design of fig4 on line 184.  

Table 2 – 181 - new coefficients appear, not discussed before  

A6. I included a new factor in the survey on line 137. and described the new factor in lines 146 through 157.  

201-  the algorithm description is unclear, not commented in chapter 4. 203 - optimal routes: determination of the optimal value has an incomplete formula (there is only a sum)  

A7. Algorithms for each element and optimal algorithms are presented on lines 228 to 317.  

Fig 6 and 7 are illegible, the data presented in the example are very general. The method and the resulting solution (optimal) are impossible to verify on their basis.  

A8. I presented the optimal path simulation screen on lines 333 to 337. In the case of fi6 and 7, it was difficult to change to the screen capture of the system, so in the case of fi6, the screen was enlarged and changed. I ask for your understanding.  

206-211: correct words: optiaml, optiamal  

A9.  I'm so sorry about this. All changed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for the submitted text. The topic is attractive and belongs to the focus of the journal. Finding the optimal route for Construction Equipment is a challenging and unique subset of the problem of route optimization. The aim is very impressive and current, but the text still needs significant editing.

1) Carry out a more in-depth literary search. The submitted ten references do not cover even the most basic State of the art.

2) Perform analysis and comparison of other methods suitable for your proposed combination of approaches. For example, AHP is relatively inflexible for practical use. Haven't you considered a fuzzy or interval approach?

3) Justify the choice of combined approaches.

4) Expand and explain the optimization process. The algorithm (given from line 200 onwards) contains typos, errors and is insufficient and inconclusive.

5) Provide more information about the approach: procedures, criteria, Was the result testing? Were simulations run? How was the correctness verified? How was the effectiveness verified?

6) Add a section of the discussion to explain the limitations and benefits of your approach. Its limits in use and comparison with other methods.

7) In the Conclusion section, state more the benefits of the approach and more results.

8) Make a language proofreading.

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for reviewing the Article.

 

1) Carry out a more in-depth literary search. The submitted ten references do not cover even the most basic State of the art.

A1. 

 I rewrote the latest paper research and references in lines 61 to 89.

2) Perform analysis and comparison of other methods suitable for your proposed combination of approaches. For example, AHP is relatively inflexible for practical use. Haven't you considered a fuzzy or interval approach?

3) Justify the choice of combined approaches.

A2.(Answer on Q2 and Q3)

To create an algorithm that can be applied on-site, AHP analysis technique was used to compare the needs of two groups of actual users and buyers to match the Korean field. The reasons for AHP analysis and omitted factors were added to line 146 to 157.   4) Expand and explain the optimization process. The algorithm (given from line 200 onwards) contains typos, errors and is insufficient and inconclusive.

A3.

Algorithms for each element and optimal algorithms are presented on lines 228 to 317.

5) Provide more information about the approach: procedures, criteria, Was the result testing? Were simulations run? How was the correctness verified? How was the effectiveness verified?

A4. Performed simulation and analysis using Arena to check the practicality of the algorithm in line 321 to 384.   6) Add a section of the discussion to explain the limitations and benefits of your approach. Its limits in use and comparison with other methods.

A5. Instead of adding a new section, we added the effectiveness item of the algorithm through cost analysis on lines 363 to 384. Please understand this.

7) In the Conclusion section, state more the benefits of the approach and more results.

A6. Conducted an analysis of the advantages and consequences of the algorithm in lines 386 to 432 and further written about the threshold.

8) Make a language proofreading.

A7. I'm so sorry about this. All changed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thanks to the authors for the changes made. The answers you have sent are adequate. The text is noticeably better now.

Author Response

I would like to thanks to the authors for the changes made. The answers you have sent are adequate. The text is noticeably better now.

 

A1.

Thank you so much for judging this Article.