Modeling Volumetric Block Types in Residential Building Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find my comments attached.

Thanks!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Good afternoon! the answers to the comments are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper focuses on the erection of residential buildings from large-sized volumetric blocks.and it has made a good attempt and exploration.Opinions are as follows，

1.The research background of this paper is relatively simple, which can properly explain the progress of current similar research or practice projects, useful experience, as well as the innovation and industry contribution of this paper.

2.The second chapter is the key content of the paper, but the logical description of this part is not clear, for example, the logical relationship between L107 (the first step) and Line164 (the second step) is not emphasized; Perhaps L108 should be (2) or 2.1, and there are similar problems with L119 and L144, and perhaps the author can further tease out the logical structure of the chapter to make it readable and rigorous.

3.Modeling volumetric block types in residential building construction involves design, production, transportation, construction, maintenance and other processes, and the research content and logical relationship in the paper need to be further clarified or defined.

4.The second part of the paper is the focus of the research, and the author has made corresponding contributions, the specific gap is that the authors propose a method of type formation.

5. Compared with other published material，the article details the steps and procedure of modeling the type of volumetric blocks

6. In the description process of the second part of the paper, the logical relationship is ambiguous and needs to be further clarified or further explained. In addition, the first part of the paper lacks the analysis of research status at home and abroad.

7. After preliminary analysis, the conclusions in this paper basically meet the requirements; The conclusions have also been validated and explained in practical projects, but not sufficiently.

8. The references in this paper are appropriate, However, it needs to be supplemented according to the content modification.

9. L107 and L164 need to be highlighted by subheadings; L108, L119, and L144 can have secondary subheadings or in a way that emphasizes logical relationships

Author Response

Good afternoon! the answers to the comments are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article does not meet the academic and scientific requirements for publication in this journal. However, I have provided some comments regarding the paper:

1.       The abstract should use more succinct wording to better clarify the article's contributions and findings. Instead of saying, "It is noted that one of the major tasks in the development of this promising area of construction is to justify the choice of type of volumetric blocks," it could be simplified to, "A major task in developing this construction method is to justify the choice of volumetric block types." While technical terms are necessary, the current abstract is overly filled with jargon, potentially making it difficult for readers not familiar with the subject to understand. Simplifying the language without losing technical depth will help in reaching a wider audience. The objectives and outcomes of the research should be clearly stated in the abstract. Although it introduces a method for type creation, it could further elucidate its impact on the efficiency, cost, and sustainability of residential construction. The abstract immediately dives into the method without providing background on why this trend is considered modern and progressive, or how it stands in comparison to other methods. Including a rationale for the use of large volumetric blocks could provide much-needed context.

2.       The introduction begins with the history of three-dimensional blocks in buildings without clarifying the context or goal of the article. Start with a quick description of the issue, the study's relevance, and the paper's goals. No specific thesis or research topic leads the work. Including the key research question or thesis statement early in the introduction helps readers comprehend the paper's direction and scope.  Information about the academic editor, copyright notice, and publishing details should be in a distinct section of the introduction. The historical background to current technologies is abrupt. No explanation is given for the move from three-dimensional blocks to current technologies. Giving a quick review of the evolution and its effects on the building sector would enhance flow. The study's focus on volumetric blocks and their relevance to the building sector needs additional explanation. This study can be justified by highlighting difficulties, knowledge gaps, or innovation possibilities.

3.       In the "Materials and Methods" section, the volumetric block development process is imprecise and lacks methodological details that would help the reader comprehend how these kinds were generated, selected, and tested.  Complex volumetric block modeling and selection explanations might be simplified. Mathematical formulae and tables are important, but readers unfamiliar with mathematical modeling approaches require clearer explanations. This section describes installation cranes, which is vital but overdone compared to the volumetric block creation procedure. A more balanced approach that briefly explains major equipment features and emphasizes the block development process and criteria would be helpful. Beyond operational reliability, there's no explanation for why particular procedures or equipment (e.g., crane types) were chosen. This section might benefit from justification based on efficiency, cost, availability, or project-specific skills. Each stage of volumetric block modeling and selection is detailed, although its goals are not. Clarifying each stage's goal helps readers comprehend the methodology's evolution and reasoning. The section contains several assumptions, notably about block appropriateness and building process efficiency. These strategies would be more credible with more empirical evidence or case studies.

4.       The results section  should clearly and simply explain the study's findings without interpretation or commentary, which go in the "Discussion" section. However, your part makes broad assertions regarding the modeling phases' efficiency and capacity to fulfill architectural solutions rather than experiment findings. Quantitative evidence, statistical analysis, or particular results should support these arguments. If the experiment tested the effectiveness of alternative volumetric blocks or building methods, the results should be compared. This would include comparing how different blocks or phases performed throughout building. The article asserts that the experiment supported organizational and technological factors, however it does not provide the data or outcomes. The section would benefit from details on how these characteristics were monitored, evaluated, and affected construction.

5.       The discussion section is required.

6.       The "Conclusions" section of a study should briefly state the major results and their consequences, emphasizing innovation and field contribution. The "Conclusions" section, which discusses the use of huge volumetric blocks in building and a block type creation process, may be enhanced for clarity, impact, and comprehensiveness: The conclusion outlines the technique but does not mention the study's conclusions. It's better to add brief remarks regarding the primary findings, such as efficiency gains, cost savings, or other quantitative advantages. The section makes broad statements about the method's potential and promise without citing study findings. Recapping the major results that support these claims would reinforce the findings.  A brief mention of research limits or problems is typically beneficial in a conclusion. This balances the opinion and proposes additional investigation. The section might be enhanced by recommending future research based on study findings or outstanding issues. This would place the study in the context of field research.

The quality of English is good 

Author Response

Good afternoon! Thank you for your review. The answers are in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for addressing the comments. I recommend this manuscript for publication.

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript requires substantial revision.

The language level is acceptable

Author Response

Thank you for your comment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf